************NOTICE**************

NO LONGER AVAILABLE.




Now available, a ecm bench all on one board. just add a spare set of pigtails, ign module and a case.

Tested with 730 and 749.
Also 165 and 747 will work.
Sorry, won't work with 148 ecms, DIS or later OBDII.

Test out that code patch before hitting the street.

Simulates most sensors (knock and O2 disabled) and displays the major ECM outputs via LEDs.

ALDL to Serial onboard, just add serial cable.

Size is roughly 4 ½” by 8” . Will fit into an old P3/P4 ECM case.

LED outputs for;

Main Power, Ign on, SES,IAC A, IAC B, TCC or Shift Light, EGR, INJ 1, INJ 2, FAN, CPP or Waste Gate, and A/C relay.

Switches include; Main power, Ign Power, A/C request, MAP/MAF sig, TPS sig, CTS sig, MAT sig, P/N-VSS flip flop.

Pots include; TPS, MAP/MAF, CTS, MAT, VSS, RPM.

Pic of the latest rev bench.




Don't mind the capacitors..I was setting the final values.



A www.Digi-Key.com parts list and a basic assembly instruction sheet are available.
Parts run about $75 bucks from Digi-Key, plus ign module, ECM harness connectors(pigtails), case and serial cable (needs all pins connected 1-1,2-2,etc).

Either a early TPI large cap module or the later small cap module will work. Auto Zone DR124 is $16.99 or DR140, $30.99. The early module has external pins, and is easier to solder to.


Bare Boards will run $55 shipped with parts list and instructions.

Amaze your friends, amuse your neighbors.. be the first on your block to have one, two or three.

 

$65 for a bare board, isn't that a little high?

 

Well once you add production costs of a 2 sided circuit board of this size. with solder mask and silkscreen, the low volume, the time to prepare the documentation, print it, in addition to the time spent to develop the circuit and board, along with shipping....

No, I don't see that 65 bucks is all that bad... now if there is a significant interest, I can order more boards up front, I'll bring the price down to $50 shipped.

< EDIT >

Decided to increase the order to get a better cost per unit.

Please see that the prices now reflect the difference.

Cheers, Bob

 

I ordered a batch of boards last night, should be here in 2 weeks, if anyone is interested, shoot me a email.



thanks, Bob

 

So for $160 shipped, I'll get everything I need inlcuded and all I need to buy is an ignition module, correct? Is it possible to get it totally pre-assembled too so I can just unpack it, plug in my ignition module, and go? I'm not the best with soldering and stuff.

This is a must have for a novice like me that does not want to damage something on my car messing around with this stuff learning

 

For $160.00 you get a completed boards all parts installed and soldered.

In addition, a parts list, and a set of instructions on how to hook it up and prepare the eprom for bench testing. (the O2 and knock codes must be disabled, as there is not a good way to truely replicate the outputs with any meaning)

thanks, Bob

 

Awesome, you'll be hearing from me in a few weeks

 

How's this going Bob?

Is the price $50 + $75 worth of Digikey parts = $125 unbuilt, or even better, $160 built?

I know I really don't want to do this, but there is something of a gravitational attraction in it.

John

 

Once you get to using it, you'll wonder how you ever did without it.

Burning a chip and then running it on the bench, and being able to slow down and really read what's going on is incredible.

Datalogging has it's place. But, try to really read the AE stuff.

Analysing PWs at WOT, and watching the asynch stuff is all awesome.

 

Just finished running a Rev 5 board thru testing last night. I was deciding on the best capacitance values for the two timing circuits that control the RPM and VSS to get the best max/min values.

For $160, I'll ship you a assembled board. You will still need a ignition module and ecm connectors with pigtails and a serial cable (with all lines straight thru. ei 1-1 2-2 3-3 etc) to have it running. Will take about 2 weeks to ship as I would have to order the parts first. The bare boards can ship ASAP.

thanks, Bob W

 

How does the interface work? Can you hold certain RPMs at certain loads??? Or, better yet, simulate just about any load function of the ECU vs. all of those different variables?

 

You can control RPM, VSS, MAF/MAP, CTS, MAT and TPS and watch the outputs for EGR, FAN,TCC,CCP,etc.

I just finished one for a freind (730) type, works fine with Craig's software for the 730 and with FreeScan for the $58. I need a 165 to final check a MAF setup, but it should work fine.

 

I've got a 165... What's it worth to ya? Thanks for the info... now, to go make more money to support my habbit!

 

where do i get the ecm connectors with pigtails? i have an extra ignition module.

 

I ususally goto the local pick and pull..

caviliers, trucks, most gm front drives from 86-92 have similar connectors.

a 730/749 will need one 24 pin and two 32 pin connectors. a 165 just needs a 24 and 32 pin.

just snip them off leaving as much wire as you want. 6" is good for a bench.

the connectors can also be bought from....

http://chevythunder.com/speed_density_harness.htm

 

Saturn I see from the pictures that YOu have tested this with a distributer ignition module, from what I understand and have found the signals are the same, or at least evry close, trigger in from a relutor or crank sensor and then the 4 ECM connections.

What I am wondering is:

Have you tested this with a DIS ignition? I would need to use DIS ignition set-up for most tuning I will be doing.

It also sounds like if I were to have the right adaptors, I could use this for both the 730/749 and a 163/747 set-up, just by using an adaptor harness or a different set of connectors, Correct?

Looks great BTW, I've been considering a test bench and this looks like it would make things a lot easier to test out theories and ideas.

 

Saturn I see from the pictures that you have tested this with a distributer ignition module, from what I understand and have found the signals are the same, or at least evry close, trigger in from a relutor or crank sensor and then the 4 ECM connections.

What I am wondering is:

Have you tested this with a DIS ignition? I would need to use DIS ignition set-up for most tuning I will be doing.

< No I haven't, however the signals to the ECM like you said are the same.

It also sounds like if I were to have the right adaptors, I could use this for both the 730/749 and a 163/747 set-up, just by using an adaptor harness or a different set of connectors, Correct?

< Yup. Just rewire your pigtails to match "X" ecm.

Looks great BTW, I've been considering a test bench and this looks like it would make things a lot easier to test out theories and ideas.


< Thanks, it helps for working with patches, or just seeing what does what.

cheers, BW

 

so this is offered in various stages of some assembly required?

the most assembled version still requiring some assembly (I understand the ign module) but the harness end needs to be procured and installed? Anyone played with one of these and is now tired of it and wants to recover thier investment? I'm game.
I have a 730 ECM/car.

 

Ditto what he just said.

 

I know people will take this wrong, but I really mean nothing negative by this statement: SO DON"T TAKE IT THAT WAY.

I am baffled as to how turning some ***** in the comfort of your house is going to somehow get you a perfect tune for your car?

The absolute only thing I see this being a benefit for is to learning how things interact with one another, and that is even subject to questionable.

Even if you were to log your car, and try to set everything to the datalogged values, then try to gain insight on say a AE adjustment to correct a lean spike....how would you really know that its gone without the actual motor being present, combustion actually happening, and a narrow band or wide band to monitor the exhaust stream?

Again I am not trying to be a jerk like some will initially think. Guess I'm just asking the questions that no-one else has. Something is just missing from the entire scenerio, like the car.

 

Its not something to give you the perfect tune. Its also not for just any old guy who wants to just tune his car, there are a ton of programs that already exist to do that, and if you don't change code thats already documented, its not completely necessary.

Alot of guys(OK, maybe just a few) are very interested in tweaking existing code to do what they want like wideband logging, using EGR output for something else, or even hybrid systems, like DIS for v-8's. This stuff which requires code changes is not something you just go and change, drop in a car, and get movin down the road. If you take a good look at the code(its not for everyone), there are so many interactions between the sensor inputs to actuator outputs, you can really fubar what happens if you change something and not check out the rest of the program....and I for one certainly would not want to be on the road with someone changing code haphazardly...can be dangerous....becuase its assembly, it takes a ton of time to sit down and fully understand what is happening. the ultimate goal there I guess would be to make your own code, to work with any kind of sensors you have(big block, small block, MAF, MAP, DIS, CNP, any make engine conversions, etc) any and all of that stuff can be used with custom programming.

this thing is made so you can safely check your changes without risking your engine(too lean or bad spark timing), or other drivers, and it helps guys who want to understand those interactions in the code more clearly, and don't want to shell out big bucks to buy this kind of flexibilty with aftermarket stuff(eDIS, etc.) Its also a quick thing to check out ecms that you buy, without risking damage to your car(like short circuits, ever seen a harness melt into a smoking ball? not pretty)

you can argue that this car stuff is all about performance, and you would be right....but for some, its run what works, and understand enough to be dangerous. Other people may not content with that, and prefer to understand everything going on.......whether its put to practical use or not depends on that person......

 

Thanks for the response! I followed everything you said, till you got down to here:

Aren't we right back to what I was saying before with actually needing an engine to determine A/F ratios and spark timing?

I can see it would serve a purpose for just making sure an ECM is recognizing the sensors if the code was changed, or making sure an ECM is in working condition, but that is about it.

In the end, if I or you were to heavily modify a code to say incorporate a WB or say a load cell (that would be nice ) to monitor gains or losses. The only way to really finally test it would be to put it on the car....RIght? I understand with a load cell there are other ways to test it, maybe the WB is a better example, since you need a car specific input to the sensor.

I guess I just see it as slight overkill....or just a toy to tinker around with.....but the real work/tuning still has to take place.

I think that needed to be clarified a little, since some make it seem that if you get all your BLMs etc dialed in on the test bench, life will be great when you plug that tune into a car. That is DEFINATELY not the case.

But I also see some of what your saying. But as you said, there are about 2 guys here that enjoy that. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the response, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.....

 

NO ONE that I'm aware of has ever said you can generate the perfect tune from an ecm bench.

What it allows you to do is see what the ecm is commanding.

ie little things like DC, and Pulse Widths..
Actually run injectors and see/hear them go erratic.

things that are transistional in a car you can run steady state and actually accurately see what's going on.

Can you quote anywhere, where someone said they could generate the perfect tune from a bench? I'm really curious where you got that tid bit of info..
Just asking for where you got you info., so don't take it as anything but a guestion.

 

Not to mention that if it wasn't for an ecm bench you wouldn't have the info to be able to tune your car.

If you were to research the information for tuning to its roots you'll wind up at programming 101. While prior to that there were dibs and drabs about what when on inside an ecm that single project public domained the enitirety of what when on inside a GM ecm.

In short if it wasn't for ecm benches very little of what's taken for granted today, and is public domained, wouldn't exist. And that's Fact.

Instead of making light of them, you should be glad they were developed, and some guys spent the weeks reverse engineering ecms to find out how they do work.

There is no tuning to do without having the info about how the ecm works.

No one's ever said the ecm bench replaces on car tuning, it just saves time and energy to figure out what is really going on.

For the guy that just thinks there's A timing table and A fuel table there is no need for needing alot of info about how an ecm works. But, for those that want to really understand what's going on, they a POWERFUL tool.

Personnally I'd rather run a new cal on the bench rather then waste a day at the track or waste an engine over some fueling error.

 

Grumpy,

Thanks for the inspirational speach and background on the ECMs.

Seems to me, and it might be me, that there is a little bit of defensiveness in your words. But I will take the blame for that and admit its probably just me.

As far as seeing what is happening in your car, how much better can you get than logging software like EASE and many of the other ones, including free ones, that allow playback of your logs? I mean I can replay, graph, zoom, ect ect all with my logging software, when trying to dial in my car. And these are REAL values.

Anyone that leans a car to unsafe conditions for the first tune without prior evaluation of the car, or advances the timing without working up to a set number in a safe and controlled fashion, I guess I can't sypathize with when they have a motor in pieces from that kind of action.

So again I say, and again its not to be taken wrong, that the test benches are nice to play with but still at the end of the day, tuning boils down to "How it works in real life." In which case your back to logging and making educated changes.

No doubt it would be great for someone starting out that want to see how things interact, but even for that its like I said before, a bit pretentious.

If someone wants to really understand how the changes they are making are having and effect on the outcome, wouldn't it be better to have a Romulator or equivalent system? With a system like that, which I use, small changes can be made VERY quick, and REAL results can be seen nearly instantly.

Again, I just do not see the practicality of ECM test bench. For instance you mention analysing AE earlier in the thread. How does one analyse AE interactions on a test bench? To really get an understanding of how something works, don't you need feedback from a system? There is none with a test bench, other than the obvious ones. Let look at PE AFR. If I change the PE % change to AFR vs RPM to a higher value in the table, the ECM test bench is going to return a value of that prevoius PW+ the % I changed it. Why would I need a test bench to tell me that?

When I tune with my scanner/romulator/WB/1/4 mile track or dyno....If I want more fuel, again I increase that value, only this time I have REAL feedback from a WB/ET/1/4 mile times/and scanner PW logged that I can play back, and look at 10 years from monday if I like......Also the biggy here, the ET slips coupled with all the other data collected helps me decide whether that added fuel had a positive or negative effect.

I have nothing against you guys that want to play around with these devices and again do not think I am trying to start anything. I seriously just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something with the systems. Which up to now and the information I gathered from yourself and jwscab, I seem to be seeing the whole picture.

I guess for myself I just prefer to use a system like the romulator or even a conventional burner and see the results from the car. Rather than wasting time, playing with one of these, then having to go through the whole other process as I would have the first time to see if my changes make the difference I believe they will.

Thanks for the help!

 

No one has ever said anything about tuning with an ecm bench.
Why you continually mistate things is beyond me.

Until you get past you point of view and approach things with an open mind, you'll be trapped by your opinions.

Just amazing how you misstate things.

And I repeat where has anyone said anything about developing an actual tune on the bench?.

And like I said if it wasn't for ecm benchs you wouldn't be able to tune your car. That is a fact.

Oh well, I'll stick to refining things even thou there are those like you, that rely on what folks like me do. Ironic spending all this time figuring things out, and then you want to belittle what's been handed to you. Yep, makes lots of sense.

And in case you still missed it AGAIN, No one that I know of has said they can develope the perfect tune on a bench. Why you stick to that idea is beyond me.

 

I want one so I can haul my failed attempt at scanning around expert to expert until I can get it to work Tomorrow Im getting the radioshack serial/USB adapter to see if I can make that work. The other laughable ebay one I bought waws useless. In the interim I am going to borrow a snapon scanner to try to make this happen.

 

Instead of going out on a back country road and risking life, limb & fiberglass, it is an easy matter of dropping the current cal into the ECM bench and running the paces. Then the injector PW and duty cycle can be checked in the safety & comfort of your home.

Hook a scope on the injector driver and then the knowledge of how often the injectors fire vs DRP's will arrive.

Understanding the internal logic of a mask (the software) is imperative to being able to tune the engine. Without knowing how a calibration change affects the output (SA, fueling, IAC, CCP. . . ) it may become an episode of frustration. Just check the many posts here on this board for examples of just that.

Wouldn't it be nice to have an ECM bench so that you can check what happens when a scan tool is connected?

RBob.

 

OK, maybe this will make sense to you.
An ecm bench with an O2 simulator would have shown you how the BLs worked. Remember your confusion about that?.
You would have been able to see what your injectors are doing months earlier. Remember making changes and the car quit responding?.
You would know how the various scanners and different modes of scanning worked.

Not to mention in applications where there is enough injector to actually have a fuel curve. Then you can get in and make some changes and see what the results are so when you do tune the car you have some ideas about what's going on with the PW, and fueling. And for those running systems with VE maps, they can get a real grasp of what VE does to PWs as rpm changes.
This paragraph is just for folks just gathering info, and not AT you.

And while you like to make statements from your prespective, that does by no means makes them universally true, or accurate. Just because you can't understand the importantance of something, is no reason for you to make belittling statements about them.

 

I guess I was confused by some of these statements:

(1) Basically you can watch what a car would do without actually leaving moving your butt

(2)You can see how the commanded AFRs change when you make a change rather then have to make a WOT pass.

There is no need to mention names to the above comments, as I said I am not here to point fingers or cause a problem.

These answers were given to another individual, basically asking the same question I did but in a post from a long while ago.

To some including me, these are misleading. The intent of the post here was not to discredit the ECM test bench for code players, I just wanted to get it straighted out, these comments above are only a small amount of the ones out there that could confuse someone into thinking as I did.

If you want to call me an idiot for thinking that is what these comments were meant to mean, then have at it. Not going to make me loose any sleep.

The fact that tuning software is available (because of test benches) hardly constitutes a reason for me to have to go out and get one, nor does it mean I have to thank everyone that says they developed something with it.

As for understanding what is going on, I can't think of a better way than REAL life tuning, with say the romulator. I can theorize all year long about how a change is suppose to effect the car, but until you actually go out and try it in REAL life, its just theory. Regardless of what the ECM test bench tells me. That means doing as I did, going out and actually experimenting with the way things interact on my specific setup.

The test bench can do nothing other than return a YES the PW changed when you wanted it to, or YES its recognizing a sensor that you want it to, or YES the timing is set to what I wanted it to be set at. Then you have to do the final test on the car to see if those changes are what the car wants.

To me is just seems redundant, and only really needed for those that want to tinker with the code. Which is fine.

Thanks for the insight into what a test bench is used for. I really did think that it was suppose to replace the actual logging/tuning (I'm sure I am not the only one to have thought that....so I will take one for the team)....my bad

I guess at the end of the day, I just have enough faith in my tuning and ways of experimenting with say just a romulator to find out what works with my setup that I don't feel the need for a Test bench to double check my every move. I mean even yourself said the following:

Grumpy
Experimenting is what leads one to be faster then the rest of the pack.

 

Have you even read the replies?.
Your still going on about things that have been answered numerous times here, and in prior threads.

And again your misstating things, and adding nonsensical comments in your replies.

And for your closing remark, no kidding.
After all it's what allowed you to gather the info to even be able to tune your car.


Again, do you see where an ecm bench would have answered your guestion about how BLs worked?. It would have taken 15 secs to see what was going on.

And no ones infered anything about you intelligence, I've made every effort to try and explain things to you. Trouble is you just keep ignoring the facts.

 

I think I have it all straight now! Thanks As he moves up in the pack....

 

It's so easy for someone to get caught up in their own world of ... well ... whatever that world is. When you operate in that world for awhile it becomes second nature. In truth - I actually think that both Jesse and Bruce are in agreement without even realizing it. Maybe I can pull this together in a couple of quick sentences? Maybe.

If you are hacking up the code (inserting new code, modifying existing code, deleting code, or exploring code) then an ECM bench is absolutely, without a doubt, invaluable. I am talking about code - not constants, tables, and flags .... unless you are exploring the ramifications of changing those because you don't know and/or understand the consequences.

If you're changing specific values in known tables, constants, and flags then an ECM bench is not necessary. Notice my wording of 'specific values in known' entities. You know what you want to change. You know how you need to change it - and you are aware of the outcome (which is what you are striving to achieve).

There is no substitute for a real test drive. Everybody agrees on that.

Tim

 

Dismissing a tool as valuable as the ecm bench without knowing how it works, or what it can do just doesn't make sense to me. Sorry to repeat it so many times, but the birth of Public Domained ecm info., was the direct result of ecm bench work.

For those that really want to know the story about how all the freeware, and reasonably priced items came into being please research the archives at the DIY-EFI site. Prior to Programing 101 only dribs and drabs of info were available on the net. And those were primarily about the 8D code. The first public disection of an ecm was the 747, and most of it was bit by bit. WE made changes one entry at a time, and then looked to see what changed. We were intially were armed with a disassembly and few guys that owned trucks that used the 747. Prior to that, no one was willing to risk the wreath of GM, and just post what they'd found by working on the code. As 101 went along and things semed OK, ie no lawyers from GM knocking on any doors, others began to contribute addition info., and in the end we had all the necessary stuff reverse engineered. And at the time the site was hosted at Ohio State, and most of the original work was done in an educational environment.
The early editors were $350 and hardly gave more then the timing and fuel tables. And that was 8 years ago. If the trend had kept up it'd be alot more today.
If it wasn't for a small group of devoted nut cases, little of what's taken for granted would exist today.

Any know for sure what their 2% change in PE/VE fuel really nets them?.

BTW, if anyone really is following along, you will not that at NO TIME, NO WHERE, have I said anything replaced in/on car tuning. Thou some would like you to believe otherwise. An ecm bench is as much as a tuning tool as a scanner is. Like any thing technical the more and better tools you have, the quicker and better the end product is. As I mentioned in my Tuning Tips 5-6 years ago, all you really need is a DVM, and stopwatch to tune a car. And it's still hold true. But given a good scanner, bench, WB, and stopwatch you (at least I can) do it all in 1/10 the number of chips.

 

I'll take that one further Tim. Even when changing known constants / tables, an ECM bench can help you understand what is going on. Grumpy already mentioned such a relevant example to ski about when he had that BLM / pulsewidth discrepancy.

Being able to isolate and repeat the events would help you go pretty far getting past it. Test driving the car and hoping you can reproduce it would be a long and painful way to go.

Science vs. Luck

 

While I follow everything you guys are saying....it still comes to me as there is NO actual data being output by the ECM test bench......

Lets take your BLM theory. The BLMs are a direct result of combustion, presece of or lack of oxygen, coupled with feedback from a 02 sensor.

OK. So lets say my BLM is off in a cell. And I want to correct it. How is adjusting the MAF tables, or injector constant on a ECm test bench going to lead me in the right direction to fixing my problem? As there is no feedback from a real 02 that is going to give you a definative answer. Correct me if I am wrong.

Same goes for MAF sensor, timing, AE, PE., and the list goes on and on....

Perhaps you can explain how I would have gotten a difinitive answer answer about my blms, with a test bench, that is free of fuel pressure(cause for the anomoly) and feedback from an o2 sensor?

All it can really do it say yeah you changed this here is the result. As trax said, when changing known parameters....you will get known results. The system is not setup as if sometime you increase a timing table, and you get decreased results. In that case if enough unknows ties were present, a test bench would be needed. Now if we increase the timing....the timing increases.

I guess I have to ask, if you were the discoverer of all this information, why don't you have the rights to it? TunerCat could be TunerBruce........no one here minds paying for something that is useful and helpful so it just doesn't add up.....at least not to me.

 

Ed - I already said that. You didn't read my post. ...
unless you are exploring the ramifications of changing those because you don't know and/or understand the consequences

Tim

 

Ski.

Remember that time a few months ago when you drove your car to your brothers or something after you changed your fuel pressure?

Rememeber how your BLMs went down (IIRC) because you had bumped the fuel pressure up? And rememeber how you were totally stumped as to why your WOT pulsewidths were also lower?

With an ECM testbench you could reproduce the 'problem' quite easily. Understand how to manipulate the 'problem'. I.E. Science.


Without an ECM testbench you're just some guy with a big engine that lost 10% of it's fuel for no apparent reason. This is where luck comes in. Or begging. You sure won't stumble on the answer by accident.


The ECM bench isn't going to tell you how much fuel you need, or how much timing to dial. NOBODY HAS SAID THAT. Why you keep implying that somebody is saying that is beyond me. The test bench can however help you understand whats makes your fuel / timing change.

 

Ed,

EXACTLY what my question was.

Don't denying it happening. Which wasn't a big deal...just thought it was odd till I thought through the whole process and did some checking up....you guys make it out to be like the second coming or something.

......But let me ask since you broght it up.... how are you going to simulate that on a test bench? Surely some of the test bench gurus that developed the tuning software can help us all understand how that is going to happen.......Unless you yourself want to explain how I am going to become forwarded by that experience in a test bench.........Can't wait to hear this...

 

How would i simulate it on a test bench. Well, i'd probably do various tests charting run-time and varying 'driving conditions' to get different BLMs and then noting the variable in question, WOT pulsewidths. Then i'd also check that out vs. temperature. And i'd also check it out vs. MAF flow rate. And whatever else i felt like wiggling.

Then you can say, hmmm, it appears that BLM does interact with WOT pulsewidth. Or maybe it was the MAF flow rates being not quite maxed out. Or maybe it was running a little hot that day. Etc. Or maybe it was a closed loop vs. open loop thing. Or some hidden mode. Etc. Etc.

Is it the second coming? Probably not. But i'd sleep better if i knew how to keep consistent fuel going to my 11:1 600hp engine. Especially if i had plans for spraying it next year.

 

with a test bench, in that scenario of changing your fuel pressure, you could use it to verify what you think is happening.

lets see, you changed fuel pressure, increased it? that should mean that you have made more fuel flow though the injector.

already knowing alot of the code that has been thoroughly hacked (and is changeable in a tuning program), you could try changing some variables(constants) that you think would make that effect. possibly injector constant? bump that up a few lbs, while monitoring the PW on a scope. You'll see now that for every RPM, the PW would decrease, which proves out the theory that bumping the fuel pressure is the same as putting in bigger injectors. Instead of adding fuel with a pump, you've added fuel as a function of a constant, but it really means the same thing to the ecm.

this is what that ecm bench helps to prove. initially, though, before ecm's were hacked, there was no such thing labeled 'injector constant' in the code, and by tweaking certain bits with some bit of guessing and knowledge based how the code was written, you figure out that bit(s) controls the code in that way.

hope that was clear enough, its really a tool to understand interactions, even if you have to fake a few signals. Like Grumpy has mentioned, you can figure out when an injector will become erratic on a bench, you can hear it, and see the PW. thats hard to do while driving a rig WOT. true, you can also determine that from logging data, but the bench shows that to you point blank, without risking anything, other than a few injectors.

 

No conventional scanning equipment that I know of will show an injector going erratic.

Yet, spin up the bench with an injector firing, and it clear as day at what DC, and RPM it's happening.

Having good scans, you can replacate the rpm/DCs any car runs thru and can then see where and how long the injectors MAY be erratic. May or may not be a problem on a particular car, but it may be why some guys have large headgasket collections. Without knowing for sure where you are with issues like this can lead to knocking the corners off the piston domes, or hammering the rod bearings out.

 

and yet again I will say ...

If you are hacking up the code (inserting new code, modifying existing code, deleting code, or exploring code) or if you exploring the ramifications of changing table, constant, and flag values then an ECM test bench is absolutely, without a doubt, invaluable.

If you're changing specific values in known tables, constants, and flags in order to achieve a known desired result then an ECM bench is not necessary.

Is everyone just 'discussing' around this for the sake of being hard-nosed?

t

 

Wow, I can't believe how many times the same argument has come across in this thread. Without real world tuning, you could not confirm your thoughts of tuning, but without the bench, real world tuning would not exists. How many more times can this be said?

For me, a tuning bench would come in really handy to rebuild or expand the resolution to any one of the tables when writing code. Why? Because the relation of that one table impacts so many others that in a real world situation, it would not be worth the risk to find that programming *hole* when dealing with such expensive chunks of metal. True, I would find the hole either way, and I truely wouldn't know until it was tested in the real world, but anything to increase my chances are well worth the time and effort vs. rebuilding an engine again and again over a missed value.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Can the egg exists without the chicken? Where did the chicken come from? An Egg. Who laid the egg??? A chicken... Moral: Grumpy built his own chicken after tearing the one that *** built apart and reverse engineered it.

 

What you did in this example is make guesses, based on your PAST tuning experience. Its not based on what the ECM bench told you. Your just trying to replicate it based on your past results.

I admit I jumped the gun with reporting what I found that day, as I should have taken a step back before opening up...but oh well..live and learn...In the end though I basically did the same thing as you did and hashed through the logic of it and came up with the same information...based on past experience. But turning things around the test of increasing the fuel pressure, without previously knowing that it would effect WOT pw the way it did, from the BLM trim, the ECM bench would have been useless....and if my motor was going to blow, it would have blown....

Also I have to say this forum has to have the MOST paranoid people I have ever seen with regards to engines. I mean a single post can't go by without someone talking about how a motor is going explode like a hand gernade if the slightest thing is outta kilter. I think if a motor is off a little on tune, its not going to self distruct instantly, like some make it out to be. Holy beans, these things are able to take a little punishment, at least the ones that I have seen do. Anyone read the article on a stock van 350 pulled from the junkyard, that one of the magazines tried to destroy? I think before the operator of the dyno screwed up and hit the nitrous before the motor was at WOT, it too over 350 shot of HP and made ~700HP....yeah this is on a stock crank, stock pistons etc etc.

I really don't think a forged setup, or even a stock hypercrap piston setup for that matter is going to detonate apart the first time the timing is a little too advanced.

Christ, a buddy of mine has a 383 lingenfelter car, that pings like there is no tomorrow every time he goes down the strip at 11.8 on street tires.....now that is not for me and i wouldn't continually do it. But that has been 5 years now and he still has yet to have a problem. Even when I talk to him I say he is nuts...but to each his own.

I guess my experience with motors holding up must differ from others that come here. Which I guess brings me back to my original point that the ECM bench has its place with code hackers, etc....but that is about it...and even they have to come back to conventional measures to test out their findings...Why not just do that in the first place? But again I do see instances that a bench could be handy dandy...

 

You see / hear a lot of paranoia, but i'll bet in practice noone is that cautious, all the time anyway. But that doesn't mean it's not the way to preach and think. As an engineering manager, if your shop has any sort of ISO certifications, etc you can appreciate the concept of process and doing things the right way to ensure consistency, quality, troubleshooting, etc. I'm sure you also know that in the real world processes get bent often whenever contract or other circumstance demand.

Now picture, one of your charges is forced to skip some steps of process, maybe rols through reviews as a formality with noone really checking anything, etc.

Sure it might never be noticed again. Or it might cause a minor slip up and some embarassment. Or it could sink a 55million dollar contract and embarass your company. And you can always weigh that risk.

Or you could spend a little time checking things over, maybe reading the literature, careful documentation, etc. So even if you have to let a minor flaw get past, you know it's there and have a good starting point if anything goes wrong. And research lets you know what to look for, but should always be verified as reasonable if you need to count on it. A lot of quacks out there writing stuff because they like to be published.


Or you could just sit around and look at pretty charts, read the sales pitch, maybe push some buttons on a spreadsheet. Leave the dirty work to the engineers and stick to status meetings. I mean, if you don't know what the black box does, and don't care to try to understand it and only want to scoff at it then get out of the lab.

Seriously. You're attempting to argue with engineers about the value of simulation. Stop and think about that for one second.

 

Frankly LOL....you don't want to hear my viewpoint on ISO 9000: 2000, ISO 14001, ISO 17025, Qs 9000, Tl9000, Ts 16949 ISO 9001....and you would not have wanted to be the guy across the table from me today in a meeting either trying to push yet another certification requirement on us,...and yeah he was with a 2.5 million dollar account...

*** I hope you actually do not actually buy all that stuff....hook, line and sinker I suppose.

Once you get everyone certified in one program, you come out with another one.....someones getting awefully rich...maybe I am just pissed its not me.....but at the end of the day, it does only one thing...makes it harder to do business in this country. See now you got me going. lol

Look I just wanted to clarify a few things that I admitted in the posting earlier not fully understanding what people were trying to convey. I believe that I was dead on with my questioning the validity of what a few said, and asking the relevant questions. There is no need for anyone to take any offense to what I am saying.

I see the benches usefulness and see their limitations more clearly now. Its the same opinion I had before, only now i know I am not missing anything. If the time arises that I want to delve into code changes etc...I will probably invest in one. But for now as I said before...I am confident in my techniques and ability to achieve what I wish to do.

 

lol, i guess you didn't pick up the sarcasm about bending process. It all boils down to the basics and common sense. Like i said, some research, checking into things, try to cover your bases at least. Sounds like you do more manufacturing type stuff though, the design work i do doesn't need any certificates. Our ISO stuff is lost somewhere in a folder on the network and about 5 years out of date. desk procedures. ahahaha

Sounds like you get it and are cool. You remind me of my old roommate in school. We used to argue all night, damn close to war. Usually over semantics. Sometimes you never learn

 

But you know what came before the chicken or the egg????

I'm venturing a guess here, but,



Grumpy


I've been follwong this thread, and can say that I WILL have one! Even if I don't get into the code like I plan to. It would be cool just to fire up when someone's over to show them!

Now, I can also see why many people would have no use whatsoever for one. Before I thought I couldn't live without, but for strictly just tuning, I don't think I would NEED one, but it would be nice to see the effects of some the changes, if only on a lab scope, hearing and injector, or even an LED.

It is always good to hear the point of view from different backgrounds though, such as an engineering backgroud vs. tinkerer vs. inexperienced...

 

You really had me scared there! Thought I was going to have to come through the screen and slap you around j/k

Again guys, no offense should be taken by my questions. I am not trying to belittle anything, nor trying to keep anyone from buying of these benches.

Guess I just needed to get some questions answered.

Jesse