Which is Better, the test

[bruce]

Well, the games afoot.

Since the only vehicle I have easy access to, and since it's my time and money, I'll be using my car. Not an exteme GN but it's realitively healthy. And since I'm using my own money, there is no need to try and please anyone with the results.

The topics are ease of use and accuracy.
And how much of a difference there is in resolution, and what effect that has on performance. Using this data takes the need out of having to use a 9 sec. car. While I'm sure some engineers might want to argue theory, this is going to be about real world.

Steve picked up a DFI from Lonnie over the weekend, and I've made arrangements with Steve to pick it up tomorrow.

And as fate would have it, I ran a sanity check on 1227749, Syclone ecm, to GN conversion today. I changed the injector BPC to a known good value, and changed some other misc variables for like the speedo and DIS patch. Then went for a drive.
The Syclone uses 30 PPH injectors, and I have 55s and a 36.
Tuning the cruise mode, idle, transistional stuff was about 45 mins taking my time using the Tunercat R_T, Romulator, and WB.
WOT still needs work, but close enough to be acceptable.
Cold start could take some polishing, but that's more time, then anything else to let the engine repeatedly cool.

And with the DFI having it's own harness that means plugging it into the ecm bench is a given for testing.

And with TurboLink working on the Syclone stuff I can read PW to .00 msec., and timing to .1d...

So far, buying used, like the DFI is, the ecm is $35, $15 for the adapter pieces, $100 for R-T, $130 for the Romulator, and $150 for a used DS. I haven't seen a used T/L hence the DS price for the scanner. So far the used DFI at $300 is winning, pricewise.

The 3 bar MAP is a given since both use it.
The ecm bench is also just a common enitity.
I'm ignoring the price of the transistors for the oem ecm, since this isn't a race car, and for this level of performance using saturated injectors would be fine.

I'll be running both ecms, in car, and on the bench.

Normal disclaimers apply.
No EE's hurt in the commision of this testing.
Your Mileage WILL vary.
Not to be attempted without adult supervision.

A Special Thanks to Ken, Lonnie, and Steve.

 

[bobc455]

Will this just be a test of 1/4 mile? Or will you be aiming for complete drivability, checking MPG, things like that?

-Bob Cunningham

 

[aDFIguy]

I'm interested. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by bobc455
Will this just be a test of 1/4 mile? Or will you be aiming for complete drivability, checking MPG, things like that?

-Bob Cunningham

Every way I can slice the testing.

Cold start
Cold drivibility
Time to start

warm start
warm drive
prolonged idle

Some of the transistional tuning for AE is going to be opinion, I just don't know how to try and compare it equaly.

I have some rolling start timing equipment, and then some standing start stuff.

MPG

BTW, picked it up tonight, and redid the adapter harness to line up with my car.
Then spent some quality time redoing the tables some, to known good timing, and fueling stuff for idle and cruise.

So gonna read the manual, tonight and hopefully be ready to do some test driving in the am....

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by aDFIguy
I'm interested. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Me too, LOL

I'm kinda pushing things, in trying to get the initial results since I have another more serious engine in the works. So I'm going to try doing things on a stockish engine, and then one that is a wee bit more serious.

Looks to be interesting.
It's a bit scary how things did fall into place on being able to do this.

 

[TurboBob]

old dfi or Gen 7?

Bob

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by TurboBob
old dfi or Gen 7?

Bob

Old, Gen VI
Batch Fire.

 

[bruce]

Well, it seems like there's a few secrets about dinking with the Gen VI's.
You never want to run Calmap 6.xx in any windows environment. It corrupts the file(s).
You want to run off of a bootable disc, to keep the files intact.
Something like an old 386/486/25 is the perfect machine to run Calmap on. thou with Winders 3.1 on it, it boots pretty quick. I guess that happens when the system isn't bloated with eye candy. <G>

ANYWAY.

Each value that you enter is the VE table is worth .0627 seconds. That's from the Manual, and is real close to what the numbers read in View mode.

So, at say 6K RPM the max entry that you can use, ie to run at say a 90% DC is 145. The next change you can make to reduce that number is 144. So 144 to 145 is a bit less then 1%. To change the WOT a little less then one percent means a AFR of 12.5 would drop to 12.375. Which is farther then changing the PE AFR .1 in the GM ecms. So the WOT tuning is actually coarser with the aftermarket. I'll let the math guys sort thru that, if they want to get real particular. Now in the GM world you can change say the VE2 or MAF values to fudge the AFR between the PE increments.

So GM takes it by a nose for WOT PW tuning.
R_T runs on contemporary laptops.

If your going from say a harness that uses the MAP input on the GN ecm, then you have to add a wire to the adapter harness since there is a pin difference.

Now if the weather's nicer tomorrow, hopefully I can undo the changes I made to the car trying to have it to run with corrupted software, and get back to actually seeing what I need to do tune wise.

So far R_T, has 6.32 beat all to pieces for ease of installation and use.
So far GM wins on WOT resolution.

 

[Craig Smith]

Originally posted by bruce

So, at say 6K RPM the max entry that you can use, ie to run at say a 90% DC is 145. The next change you can make to reduce that number is 144. So 144 to 145 is a bit less then 1%. To change the WOT a little less then one percent means a AFR of 12.5 would drop to 12.375. Which is farther then changing the PE AFR .1 in the GM ecms. So the WOT tuning is actually coarser with the aftermarket. I'll let the math guys sort thru that, if they want to get real particular. Now in the GM world you can change say the VE2 or MAF values to fudge the AFR between the PE increments.

First off, I disagree with what you just stated. I don't think a 1% change in fueling would produce any distinctly measurable change in AFR, given that any AFR measurement is inherently noisy.

Let's also keep in mind that you have chosen as your test subject a system that hasn't been actively supported or developed in many years. In all fairness, a Gen 7 system as well as the others now out there are much more sophisticated in terms of pulsewidth resolution. You are working with one of the pioneer systems of the industry so please keep this in mind as you attempt to form a true comparison of the capabilities of your setup vs. "the aftermarkets". The Gen 6 was a great system in its day, but that day has passed. Accel and the rest of the industry has much more to offer.

So far R_T, has 6.32 beat all to pieces for ease of installation and use.

Give both systems to a "newbie" with no experience with either one and see which one goes in first. Don't forget to give the newbie an ECM without the modifications that you, unlike 99.9% of the world, know how to do.

I'm sorry, but this test is anything but "fair and objective". You are clearly out to try and prove a point so proceed as you will. The rest of us will be watching.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Craig Smith
First off, I disagree with what you just stated. I don't think a 1% change in fueling would produce any distinctly measurable change in AFR, given that any AFR measurement is inherently noisy.
Let's also keep in mind that you have chosen as your test subject a system that hasn't been actively supported or developed in many years. In all fairness, a Gen 7 system as well as the others now out there are much more sophisticated in terms of pulsewidth resolution. You are working with one of the pioneer systems of the industry so please keep this in mind as you attempt to form a true comparison of the capabilities of your setup vs. "the aftermarkets". The Gen 6 was a great system in its day, but that day has passed. Accel and the rest of the industry has much more to offer.

Give both systems to a "newbie" with no experience with either one and see which one goes in first. Don't forget to give the newbie an ECM without the modifications that you, unlike 99.9% of the world, know how to do.

I'm sorry, but this test is anything but "fair and objective". You are clearly out to try and prove a point so proceed as you will. The rest of us will be watching.

There are hundreds of Gen VIs still in use, and they were years newer then the oem GN ecm. So your first point is moot.

Noise or not, I just reported what's documented in the ACCEL manual, it wasn't any thing I dreamed up, or imagined.

The Gen VII came out only this year, so using a VI is still valid, IMO.
If you want a state of the art model evaluated, send me one. How's that?.

I resent your passing judgement on something that's not even done yet, all I did was post the ACCEL's Manual's data. And ease of installation. BTW, have you ever installed a R_T?. Or are you just showing your bias?.
So far in the past threads, about the aftermarkets and actual operating data, you've contributed nothing, and still have not contributed anything other then some opinion. So far you kind sir are the one acting biased.

If you doubt my intergrity, then by all means post some real data on your system and we'll look at it. I've asked for that in the past and have been ignored, so please don't get in a snit, when I go out and spend my money to get the info., that you have at your finger tips.

So far this is the only attempt I know of where things are being handled objectively. Will it be perfect?, no, I don't have the resources to do that, but it will be real world as done by an average guy working out of his garage at home.

I can see your concern, since I have enough information to be dangerous. Unlike the average guy that can only read Press Releases to gather data, I can do some actual testing.

I've put my money where it counts and bought the bits to test, so to me obviously it is actually worth putting my money where my mouth is, to do some real testing.

So again please keep your attitude in check.
Like I said, I don't have any axes to grind.

And I see it only as being smart to start with a basic aftermarket ecm, and learn from that. Then if it's worth while progress from there. That only makes sense, it's just like learning to walk before running.

Let's all just try to be objective, and open minded, here. This has the potential to be something meaningful. And yes, sometimes the truth does hurt, so let's keep that in mind also.

 

[bruce]

Cranking Routines.


On the Gen VI's.
One little item, is that during crank and at less then 500 RPM the injectors fire on every distributor pulse.

On the Sy ecm it starts at a relatively long pulse width and then decays that length down, as you continue to crank the engine. And they fire on every 3rd dist pulse.

No big thing, but to me it's interesting to know.
Especially if you wind up with a flooded motor.

Speaking of which.

On the Sy, if you flood the motor, full throttle during crank, cuts the injectors, and that gives you a clear flood mode.

Gen VI, just continually pulses the injectors.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Craig Smith


Give both systems to a "newbie" with no experience with either one and see which one goes in first. Don't forget to give the newbie an ECM without the modifications that you, unlike 99.9% of the world, know how to do.

ECM modifications?.
For saturated drivers none are needed.

For P+H, then there are firms that can do that, so it not something a newbie has to be able to do.

And as far as the adapter, well, that's just learning to do a little soldering. Yes, wiring is something SOME people avoid but some folks tolerate learning it. And if someone hands you a Gen VI, it also needs an adapter harness, so that issue is a wash, anyway.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by bruce

So far R_T, has 6.32 beat all to pieces for ease of installation and use.

Let me clarify this some.
The Gen VI has no diagnostics, and there's no mention of the default of 3.1 msec. for no MAP signal, anythere.

While Missing the wire was an error on my part, tracing it all down was very time consuming, obviously self diagnostics would have pinned the problem down, having a clue about the 3.1 would have been nice. In a perfect world I would have picked it up quicker using view mode.

 

[Laterrr]

Originally posted by bruce
Well, it seems like there's a few secrets about dinking with the Gen VI's.
You never want to run Calmap 6.xx in any windows environment. It corrupts the file(s).
You want to run off of a bootable disc, to keep the files intact.
Something like an old 386/486/25 is the perfect machine to run Calmap on. thou with Winders 3.1 on it, it boots pretty quick. I guess that happens when the system isn't bloated with eye candy. <G>

Bruce,
You've got something wayyy wrong with your software. I have used the 6.32 software in Win 3.1 DOS boxes, Win 95 DOS boxes, Win 98 DOS boxes, and lately, a Win XP DOS (?) box. Never had a laptop with NT, ME, or 2000. None of the ones I used ever corrupted any files.
Later,

Craig Watson

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Laterrr
Bruce,
You've got something wayyy wrong with your software. I have used the 6.32 software in Win 3.1 DOS boxes, Win 95 DOS boxes, Win 98 DOS boxes, and lately, a Win XP DOS (?) box. Never had a laptop with NT, ME, or 2000. None of the ones I used ever corrupted any files.

You're right, I must certainly did.
I retired the various .exe'd I have an one was corrupted. Well at least the 98 machine looks to be talking DFI, to the ecm.

The 98 laptop even has a battery that holds a charge, LOL.

 

[quickt]

Originally posted by Laterrr
Bruce,
You've got something wayyy wrong with your software. I have used the 6.32 software in Win 3.1 DOS boxes, Win 95 DOS boxes, Win 98 DOS boxes, and lately, a Win XP DOS (?) box. Never had a laptop with NT, ME, or 2000. None of the ones I used ever corrupted any files.
Later,

Craig Watson

If you use 6.32 in windows it will be corrupted 90% of the time. It may be in cells that are not even used or that hard start or hesitation at 5 psi boost and 3250 rpms you never know where it will raise its ugly head. Always best if used in DOS only.

 

[quickt]

Originally posted by bruce

While Missing the wire was an error on my part, tracing it all down was very time consuming, obviously self diagnostics would have pinned the problem down, having a clue about the 3.1 would have been nice. In a perfect world I would have picked it up quicker using view mode.

My fault there Bruce. I forgot to tell you about hooking up the map. I have done so many I just aSSume everyone know that needs to be done.

 

[bruce]

Turns out the DFI I have, has a dead IAC circuit.

While I had a problem getting ahold of the ACCEL guys, it seems I was just lucky enough to call on the days one of the techs was sick.

The policy is for a $150 estimate, which includes any minor repairs, and shipping on top of that. They said the 150 should take care of the IAC problem.

The other thing is that the IAC tries to maintain a tight RPM at idle, so if your actual RPM isn't really close to the commanded, then the IAC just runs, and runs, and runs. While figuring that out the IAC, I have one screwed into a housing, and got warm enough you didn't want to hold it for very long.

One the oem ones, you can set the various idle *deadbands* (idle error limits), from 12.5 RPM to about any RPM you want.

With the oems, they also close the IAC, and let it run fully extended for a sec., so as to help keep the IAC metering orfice *clean*. The Gen VI opens it and lets it reset there instead of in the closed position.

Repair cost, and cost for having a spare, favors the oem.
IAC routine, favors the oem.

And both adapter harnesses I've seen both had broken traces. One I may have caused, but it was a matter of correcting it to match my harness, so I had to unwrap it.

 

[Craig Smith]

I don't believe the heat being generated by the IAC motor itself is a concern. They will draw current even when not moving, and I agree that they get VERY hot after about 5 minutes of running time - even sitting still.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Craig Smith
I don't believe the heat being generated by the IAC motor itself is a concern. They will draw current even when not moving, and I agree that they get VERY hot after about 5 minutes of running time - even sitting still.

In the grand scheme of things the temp isn't, it was just a data point. Might answer an unasked or future guestion, thou. I hadn't seen it mentioned before.