MPFI with Dynamic-efi EBL

[Walt Halley]

Just bought and installed the muti port mod ECU from Dynamic-efi. The
VSS is not installed as the ECU arrived the day we left for a trip to
Montana. Had to stop at Wally Amderson's place to pick a Men's Mall
for the GM connectors to mate the Holley system with the GM's. Thought
I had a good understanding of how it worked. Had a Holley MPFI
installed and most connections were pin for pin with the exception of
MAP and the fuel pump voltage. The Holley did not use thie fuel pump
input. The MPFI was running super lean at RPMs less than 2200 and
got rich above this. Contacted BobR at Dynamic-efi through Bob Drewes
in SESD. BobR called while we were on the road (surprised me, but
indicates that he is interested in what we are doing) and said that
this voltage input from the fuel pump was where the EBL gets its
voltage for the INJ pulse width offset. This value defaults to 0 micro
seconds at 0 volts the nominal voltage of 12 volts is about 900 micro
seconds. We were trying to run it about one tenth of a second short
thus the lean condition. Put 12 Volts on the line and the thing
started to run pretty good.

Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran
rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to
1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT
stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the
high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression
when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128
indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high
(15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was
being introduced.

Lucy you have splanin to do.

Don't want to cause any concern because the longer the unit runs
though these mountains the better it seems to run. The fuel economy is
less than desired as the engine is running in the neighborhood of 13.0
to 13.8 to 1. Hopfully as we continue doing VE learns with the WB O2
sensor as the VE learn input and get the efficiency to stoich or
better.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Wisdom comes from experience,
and experience comes from bad decisions, ignorance is just being
unaware.

Walt

[Jim Kanomata]

Walt,

Do all the trials for me as I'll be waiting for you to work on my Holly with the add ons.

Have a safe trip.

 

Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
ji...@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502

[George Beckman]

Walt,

Great news on getting the EBL multiport unit.  I agree that it is odd that the AFR is rich and the BLMs are still adding gas is a poser.   I had a phone conversation with Randy recently and was having the same kinds of thoughts.  To be sure, I just looked it up... again... and we are correct.  High numbers (above 128) means added fuel.   So, I probably am as confused as you are.

I can imagine that your mileage is terrible because 12.8 is Power Enrichment.  My coach almost always shows 3 mpg when PE kicks in.  4 at the very best.

You mention using the WB as your source of AFR.  I don't remember what WB system you are using, but LC-1 has the setting point for the cross-count voltage mid point. It may be worth checking to make sure that it is set correctly. (.49?)  LC-1 also has a fuel setting, and each fuel has a different stoichiometic value.  (Constant/Scalers Closed Loop- Stoich)Also, make sure that the bin is set for 14.7 in the bin.  If it was a hotrodders bin, they may have tweaked that rich.  Those guys love running at 11.5.  Glad I am not buying their gas.

Last.  Multiport are individual injectors on each side, unlike TBI which using the unique snake like path of the intake lets each injector inject on both sides.  So, If you are using a NB on one side and have the WB on the other side, a bad injector on the NB side could play havoc with the WB side as fuel for those four injectors is based on a correction for the other side.  (what a sentence)

Other than that, "I got nothin'."

On Jun 30, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:

Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran

rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to

1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT

stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the

high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression

when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128

indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high

(15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was

being introduced.

Lucy you have splanin to do.

Don't want to cause any concern because the longer the unit runs

though these mountains the better it seems to run. The fuel economy is

less than desired as the engine is running in the neighborhood of 13.0

to 13.8 to 1. Hopfully as we continue doing VE learns with the WB O2

sensor as the VE learn input and get the efficiency to stoich or

better.

----

Best Wishes,

George

http://www.pggp.com

[Surbo]

Walt;

Are you running a dual plane or singe plane intake manifold?

Bob D in SESD w/GM TBI

[Walt Halley]

Bob

We are running a 403 CID with a single plane aluminum manifold from a
1979 Cadillac that had the 350 Olds with MPFI. The throttle body is
from a 1994 MOPAR 360 CID (shame on me, but it was it was made by
Holley). Injectors are Accel 21 PPH modified to fit the Cadillac fuel
rail. The greatest duty cycle I have seen is about 75% as we climb the
Rockies.

Walt

> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bruce Hislop, Perth Communications]

If I recall, when you are using the WB learn the INT is fixed at 128.

Bruce Hislop
Perth Communications
br...@perthcomm.com
Sent from my Blackberry Curve

[Reid]

YUP.

[Walt Halley]

Thanks Bruce that clears some ot the fog.

Walt

On Jul 1, 9:53 am, "Bruce Hislop, Perth Communications"

[Walt Halley]

With the new upgrades in EBL it will handle 3 BAR MAP now so we can
get you to more rallys and back home again.

Walt

On Jul 1, 12:30 am, Jim Kanomata <jimkanom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walt,
> Do all the trials for me as I'll be waiting for you to work on my Holly with
> the add ons.
> Have a safe trip.
>
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA

> j...@appliedairfilters.comhttp://www.appliedgmc.com
> 1-800-752-7502

[Walt Halley]

George

Checked the closed loop stoich it is at 14.7 AFR. What do you think
about changing it to 15.4 AFR? Read somewhere that 14.7 AFR was
chosen to enhance the catalytic converter and 15.4 is max economy. The
way EBL handles the fuel the AFR changes as more power is required.

We run a AEM UEGO (universal exhust gas oxygen sensor) it puts out 0
to 5 volts with 2.34 volts being 14.68 AFR.

Thanks for the comments any or all should help clear the fog.

Walt

> Georgehttp://www.pggp.com- Hide quoted text -

[George Beckman]

This is interesting.

On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:23 AM, Walt Halley wrote:

Checked the closed loop stoich it is at 14.7 AFR. What do you think

about changing it to 15.4 AFR?  Read somewhere that 14.7 AFR was

chosen to enhance the catalytic converter and 15.4 is max economy. The

way EBL handles the fuel the AFR changes as more power is required.

It may be that once you get your VSS working you will not be concerned by the 14.7.  Both Randy and I have noticed our coaches rarely run at 14.7.  Lean Cruise stays engaged way longer than we ever thought.  I have 3.07 gears and rarely tow.  Randy and Margie tow a fairly heavy Jeep with 3.70s  Randy was concerned for a while that there was no leeway between LeanCr and Power Enrichment.  I find I do have some space between the two and that may be because I have delayed PE in my bin a bit.  My last hill climb to 5K feet made me revisit that a bit.

We run a AEM UEGO (universal exhust gas oxygen sensor) it puts out 0

to 5 volts with 2.34 volts being 14.68 AFR.

Randy is always reminding me that I tend to get things upside down.  Narrow Bands, high voltage (.5) means rich and low (0) means lean.  Wide Bands are just the opposite just to mess with the minds of the amateur.  Narrow find the mid point of .45 for Stoich. WB use 2.5v.  I am including pictures of the settings portion of the LC-1 cable output.  

I personally use Narrow to run the engine and WB for my information.

I am including two pictures of the innovate.  First is default showing 2.5v:

BobR, told Randy that he needed to do the following:

Then select the Innovate 0-5V output (preferences) and reprogram the LC-1 output. From the programming display select analog 2 output, check 'use AFR', then in the boxes place:

0 volts: 10 AFR

5 volts: 20 AFR

That should do it.

However with BobR's  adjustment to the WB output it looks to me like Innovate this 2.36 is Stoich which is not really any difference from what you had.

   Second is the adjusted

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

I'm a little late to this discussion so may not be quite in sync with the thinking.  However, the numbers you are seeing may not necessarily be bad.  Without looking at a log I can only speculate on a couple of things.  First, if the BLMs are at 160 to 172 your overall setup is lean because the ECM is having to add fuel to maintain 14.7.  You don't say but if your WB is showing 12.0 I would presume you are in PE Mode.  If you are in closed loop, you should be around 14.7 especially if the INT is staying close to 128 which means it and the BLMs are correcting the mixture to 14.7.  The INT will go to 128 when you are not in closed loop. 

Your statement that when AFR is low (10 to 1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128 and when AFR is high the BLM and INT should show higher than 128 is not necessarily true.  What that means is that the ECM is either taking fuel away or adding fuel in order to maintain 14.7.  So if you are in closed loop, you should always see close to 14.7.  Why we try to get BLMs adjusted closer to 128 is that when you go into modes other than closed loop, the AFR might not result in what the ECM is commanding. 

Having said all of that, I'm not sure what exactly you are seeing without looking at a log.  Any possibility of posting one?  Based on what you say your WB tells you, I'm guessing other than closed loop when AFR is 12.0 to 1 -- Or your WB is having problems --- Or you have something else causing problems.  As far as something else causing problems, if you are in closed loop and see 12 to 1 AFR, then a vacuum leak or exhaust leak could cause BLMs to go high with WB is reading rich (ECM is adding fuel when it really doesn't need to because NB is getting false readings.  The more I think about what you say you are seeing the more plausible this theory sounds.

So, my attack plan (without seeing a log) would be:

1. check for vacuum and/or exhaust leaks.
2. If no leaks continue with 3 - if leaks, fix and re-run a test to see where BLMs are (step 3 may not be necessary)
   
3. Try to get BLMs closer to 128 by default (raise BPC number by about 10).  If you haven't read the Google Page "EBL Tweaks - BLM Tuning" procedure that George and I developed you might want to review: <http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>
   
4. If BLMs get consistently closer to 128 then do a VE Learn (I would delay doing WB learns until you get things working better - IOW it is hard to know or trust what the WB is telling you until you know things are running right or close to right.  WB tuning is really for fine tuning and helping with WOT, etc.  You may be chasing ghosts with the WB until you know things are running right)
5. I agree with George about changing the AFR.  I would get the VSS on and use lean cruise to run your engine more lean.  This has proven to work well and the code has safeguards to check to make sure it is commanding the correct AFR.  Changing the AFR number might cause you to be lean during PE - a no-no.  

I may have confused the issue more than help but hopefully will give you some things to think about :-)

Randy (just my 2 cents worth - but thinking a log would be helpful)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

Walt,

Randy, as usual, is right on the money.  I agree with his assessment of doing an across the board fuel table change.  I base that on high BLMs (regardless of what the WB says, and your statement that it is running better all the time.  Once we get the fuel tables tuned, the BLMs will be having little effect most of the time.  This is important, as ECMs tend to forget things when we change batteries or loose power in other ways.  EBL is a flash system for the bins but I don't know if that is true for other ECM memory items.

You have not said, but do you have two sensors, a NB and a WB or are you using the WB to do a NB emulation?   I ran my other coach for about 9k miles doing emulation from the WB.  I am waaay happier using a heated NB to do the simple 14.7 chores and the WB to check on not only 14.7, but more to check on PE, Cruise, warmup, etc.  

And yes, it is great BobR called you on the road.  He is a very talented guy, but even more, a fellow interested in his customers; always eager for feedback and to learn.

On Jun 30, 2010, at 9:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:

Don't want to cause any concern because the longer the unit runs

though these mountains the better it seems to run. 

[Walt Halley]

Randy

Posted two files a GMC403-5-ebl.dat and a GMC403-ebl 00009.bin could
you look at these and give me your opinion?

Tghanks for your time.

Walt

>    1. check for vacuum and/or exhaust leaks.
>    2. If no leaks continue with 3 - if leaks, fix and re-run a test to

>       see where BLMs are (step 3 may not be necessary)

>    3. Try to get BLMs closer to 128 by default (raise BPC number by

>       about 10).  If you haven't read the Google Page "EBL Tweaks - BLM
>       Tuning" procedure that George and I developed you might want to
>       review:
>       <http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>

>    4. If BLMs get consistently closer to 128 then do a VE Learn (I would

>       delay doing WB learns until you get things working better - IOW it
>       is hard to know or trust what the WB is telling you until you know
>       things are running right or close to right.  WB tuning is really
>       for fine tuning and helping with WOT, etc.  You may be chasing
>       ghosts with the WB until you know things are running right)

>    5. I agree with George about changing the AFR.  I would get the VSS

>       on and use lean cruise to run your engine more lean.  This has
>       proven to work well and the code has safeguards to check to make
>       sure it is commanding the correct AFR.  Changing the AFR number
>       might cause you to be lean during PE - a no-no.
>
> I may have confused the issue more than help but hopefully will give you
> some things to think about :-)
>
> Randy (just my 2 cents worth - but thinking a log would be helpful)
> '77 Eleganza II "403"
>
> On 6/30/2010 11:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:
>
>
>
> > Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran
> > rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to
> > 1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT
> > stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the
> > high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression
> > when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128
> > indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high
> > (15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was

> > being introduced.- Hide quoted text -

[George Beckman]

I am not Randy and not as sharp as he, but I do have a couple of observations.

First, just looking at the advance, and thinking of Randy's findings, I believe the engine will take more advance eventually, especially when you get the VSS going so you can use LeanCr.  We are really bumping spark in LeanCr.  But that is for much later.

Second, I do think the fuel tables need a complete, across the board change.  I tried a VE learn, and found that it was instantly adding 12 to almost ever cell it entered over 1700 RPMs.  The problem here, is that was putting most cells at 100, which is a no no.

I am including the learns I got running your log and your bin and the final cells for the same:

I agree with Randy.  We have some work to do before we try any WB learns.

Because the tables are topping out, I believe the BPC needs to be changed.  Yours is set at 138, and that is what I have for a 455 with two injectors (TBI)   I doubt I understand multiport and how many injectors you have, etc. but I am thinking that number must be changed.   That should allow you to be able to _subtract_ from the tables which now need adding.

I admit ignorance here.   There is an Excel spread sheet called BPC-Port.xls that will calculate this for you.   I tried, but had no idea what your fuel pressure is.  It comes set up for a 355 (interesting displacement) and the 350 calls for BPC of 176.   Note (I believe) the Inj #hr is always your injectors at 43.5, i.e. their rating.  THe Fuel PSI is actual- what it runs at with vac line disconnected and engine running.  

I am including a picture of the SS as it loads.

On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Walt Halley wrote:

Posted two files a GMC403-5-ebl.dat and a GMC403-ebl 00009.bin could

you look at these and give me your opinion?

[George Beckman]

Walt,

I may not have been clear.  The spread sheet is on the EBL CD.

Silly Question.  How do we tell the bin (in Tuner Pro) that you have MultiPort?  We TBI folks who upgraded to the new WUD are using EBL_V30.XDF.  Is that correct?

On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:09 PM, George Beckman wrote:

There is an Excel spread sheet called BPC-Port.xls that will calculate this for you.

[George Beckman]

Walt and all,   

George shouldn't work at night.

I had the wrong bin open when I saw 138.   (No wonder I saw 138.  I had my bin open!)   Walt's BPC is set for 228.

Still, the BPC must be changes so you can lower the tables.  The spreadsheet should help lower the 228, I am guessing.  Back of the envelope, wild guess.  193.  

On Jul 1, 2010, at 9:09 PM, George Beckman wrote:

Because the tables are topping out, I believe the BPC needs to be changed.  Yours is set at 138, and that is what I have for a 455 with two injectors (TBI)   I doubt I understand multiport and how many injectors you have, etc. but I am thinking that number must be changed.   That should allow you to be able to _subtract_ from the tables which now need adding.

[Walt Halley]

George

Option Word 6 Bit 7 turns on Port injection. Yes the port uses
EBL_V30.XDF.

Walt

[George Beckman]

Thanks.  I glanced through the Option Words and missed it.  Thanks.  

On Jul 2, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Walt Halley wrote:

Option Word 6 Bit 7 turns on Port injection. Yes the port uses

EBL_V30.XDF.

[Walt Halley]

Randy

We have been useing all of the sensors and other devices on a Holley
MPFI for several years and the WB has been controlling the Holley
computer quite well. The only change made was changing the ECU to the
dynamic-ebl unit. Because we got rained out this morning in Glacier
Park we had a little time to experiment and found a parameter called
"INJ-Single Fire Mode PW-Port only" and reduced it by about 30% and it
looks promissing. Have to get it on the road and see what happens!!!
At least when I do a VE learn now it wants to reduce the Fuel values
instead of adding to them all the time. I'll try to do a log and post
it later along with the .bin.

I like what I see in this unit so far. Would like to get the VSS
hooked up but I guess that will have to wait until I get home.

Film at 11:00pm!!!

Walt


On Jul 1, 1:36 pm, Randy Van Winkle <rlvan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>    1. check for vacuum and/or exhaust leaks.
>    2. If no leaks continue with 3 - if leaks, fix and re-run a test to

>       see where BLMs are (step 3 may not be necessary)

>    3. Try to get BLMs closer to 128 by default (raise BPC number by

>       about 10).  If you haven't read the Google Page "EBL Tweaks - BLM
>       Tuning" procedure that George and I developed you might want to
>       review:
>       <http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>

>    4. If BLMs get consistently closer to 128 then do a VE Learn (I would

>       delay doing WB learns until you get things working better - IOW it
>       is hard to know or trust what the WB is telling you until you know
>       things are running right or close to right.  WB tuning is really
>       for fine tuning and helping with WOT, etc.  You may be chasing
>       ghosts with the WB until you know things are running right)

>    5. I agree with George about changing the AFR.  I would get the VSS

>       on and use lean cruise to run your engine more lean.  This has
>       proven to work well and the code has safeguards to check to make
>       sure it is commanding the correct AFR.  Changing the AFR number
>       might cause you to be lean during PE - a no-no.
>
> I may have confused the issue more than help but hopefully will give you
> some things to think about :-)
>
> Randy (just my 2 cents worth - but thinking a log would be helpful)
> '77 Eleganza II "403"
>
> On 6/30/2010 11:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:
>
>
>
> > Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran
> > rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to
> > 1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT
> > stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the
> > high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression
> > when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128
> > indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high
> > (15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was

[Walt Halley]

Randy

Posted new .bin and .dat files today. They are GMC403-6ebl.dat and
GMC403-403_00021.bin It looks like tweeking tne single fire mode PW
helped a lot. It still runs rich going up the mountains but when it
levels out the AFR gets back to around 14 to 15 to 1. Fuel maps
still need to be smoothed out and outher things need to be tweeked.
This is a tweeker's paradise.

We are leaving Saint Mary, Montana today and head for Cut Bank and
Great Falls, Montana so we will be able to do some dynamic tuning.
Maybe by going down hill we can get some bett fuel milage.

Many thanks to Bob R at dynamic EFI for his fine work on this
system!!

Thanks for everyone's help in this learning process.

Walt


On Jul 1, 1:36 pm, Randy Van Winkle <rlvan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>    1. check for vacuum and/or exhaust leaks.
>    2. If no leaks continue with 3 - if leaks, fix and re-run a test to

>       see where BLMs are (step 3 may not be necessary)

>    3. Try to get BLMs closer to 128 by default (raise BPC number by

>       about 10).  If you haven't read the Google Page "EBL Tweaks - BLM
>       Tuning" procedure that George and I developed you might want to
>       review:
>       <http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>

>    4. If BLMs get consistently closer to 128 then do a VE Learn (I would

>       delay doing WB learns until you get things working better - IOW it
>       is hard to know or trust what the WB is telling you until you know
>       things are running right or close to right.  WB tuning is really
>       for fine tuning and helping with WOT, etc.  You may be chasing
>       ghosts with the WB until you know things are running right)

>    5. I agree with George about changing the AFR.  I would get the VSS

>       on and use lean cruise to run your engine more lean.  This has
>       proven to work well and the code has safeguards to check to make
>       sure it is commanding the correct AFR.  Changing the AFR number
>       might cause you to be lean during PE - a no-no.
>
> I may have confused the issue more than help but hopefully will give you
> some things to think about :-)
>
> Randy (just my 2 cents worth - but thinking a log would be helpful)
> '77 Eleganza II "403"
>
> On 6/30/2010 11:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:
>
>
>
> > Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran
> > rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to
> > 1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT
> > stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the
> > high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression
> > when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128
> > indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high
> > (15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was

[George Beckman]

Walt,

I really think that you are chasing an endless circle.   I would put the single pulse back the way it was.  There is no way that your engine is ever going to run correctly unless you get these fuel tables straightened out.  I know that the single pulse thing you did seems to have helped the WB readings, but I don't think you should look at the WB until some major corrections have been done.  

1.  The NB is showing cross counts.  Cross counts only can happen when you are very very near 14.7, regardless of what the WB says.  Narrow Bands don't know beans, except for an extremely narrow range.  So, you are not running rich.  In fact, your computer thinks you are a bit lean.

2.  The reason you have high BLMs is because the computer is desperately trying to add fuel.  It cannot because you fuel tables are maxed out.  

3.  VE learns will not help in your situation.  In your normal operating range, the VE cells are all at 100s.  This leaves the computer with no working room.  Until this is corrected, VE cannot learn.  It tries.  It tells you that it wants to add fuel to the cell but the cell cannot hold more fuel.  You can do VEs forever and will gain nothing.

4.  You must raise BPC.   I suggest 26%, to 255  (It turns out that 255 is the max for BPC which I do not understand.  It makes me wonder if your fuel pump is putting out too little pressure for the specs on the injectors... but that is for a later time.  You are on a vacation trip and can't be fiddling endlessly with that sort of thing.)

5.  You must reduce fuel tables.  (I suggest 18% across the board, although you have some in the idle area that are not in sync with the rest of the table.)

6.  Flash that bin into a high slot where so you don't overwrite what you have.

7.  Watch your Duty Cycle closely.  You are below 50% now but we don't want 100% at WOT.  BobR likes 85%.  You are currently way low.

8.  With the above corrections to the bin VE learn will probably add and subtract in areas.  I am guessing idle areas will have to be bucked back up.  The working areas will go up and down.  

I am attaching a picture of your VE tables in a VE learn with the first bin and log.  Notice the note  indicating overflow on the right.  VE wants to correct but has hit the ceiling.

  

On Jul 3, 2010, at 6:33 AM, Walt Halley wrote:

 It still runs rich going up the mountains but when it

levels out the AFR gets back to around  14 to 15 to  1. Fuel maps

still need to be smoothed out and outher things need to be tweeked.

This is a tweeker's paradise.

[Walt Halley]

George

Can't always get to the net on the road . Enjoyed talking today!!

We were out driving to the Devils Tower in Wyoming and discovered the
BLMs would toggle from 143 to 172 at the same time the Throttle
Closed switch would change. By changing fuel pressure up and down the
lower BLMs would change respectively. Found a way to give it some
Kentucky Windage the BLM will only change the VE cells 12 as it
learns. So, figured how much fuel was needed at cruise and subtracted
12 from the cells. After driving awhile the cells were increased by 12
after learning. It now runs at commanded AFR. Still need to know why
BLM goes to 172 right after leaving idle mode.

Walt

> 

[George Beckman]

Walt, 

Good to talk today.  Sorry I was not more help.  We need more smart guys to chime in on this one.

As I understand it so far we have

1.  BLMs at 172  (pegged)

2.  We have Tables at 82 or so

3.  We have VE learn trying to add 12

4.  We have BPC pegged at 255  (was at 228 and cells were 100 with DC below 50)

5.  You have a gauge and fuel pressure set at 42 which should give us 24#s per injector.

6.  The Port spread sheet say the BPC should 228.

7.  Cross counts are as expected and a known O2 sensor is showing rich  (11s and 12s) on both the gauge and WUD.

When you said changing fuel pressure would raise and lower, can you explain more?  When you raise pressure, BLMs should go down.  That would be good.  At 172 the BLMs are pegged and we don't know what the ECM is really trying to do.

Without some change in BPC (which is pegged) or raising fuel I really can't figure any other way out of this.  I am assuming that the injectors are correct size, and so pressure is all we have.   I mention that because if the injectors are 24# and you have the pressure at 42 or so the BPC should be at 228 but we have it pegged at 255.  The numbers are not jiving.

When you say subtracted what was needed at cruise I am confused.   If VE learn is trying to add 12, the cells need to be added to, to try and get them closer so a learn adds or subtract 3 or so.   I guess you could put them up by 10 or 15, but I only subtracted 18 when we raised the BPC to the upper limit of 255, so we will be at 100 again soon.  

To review  (jump in guys) we have

1.  BLMs at 172  (pegged)

2.  We have Tables at 82 or so

3.  We have VE learn trying to add 12

4.  We have BPC pegged at 255

5.  You have a gauge and fuel pressure set at 42.

6.  The Port spread sheet say the BPC should 228.

7.  Cross counts are as expected and a known O2 sensor is showing rich  (11s and 12s) on both the gauge and WUD.

From that I see injectors are not putting our 24# at 42lbs as they are supposed to.

On Jul 5, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Walt Halley wrote:

We were out driving to the Devils Tower in Wyoming and discovered the

BLMs would toggle from 143 to 172  at the same time the Throttle

Closed switch would change. By changing fuel pressure up and down the

lower BLMs would change respectively. Found a way to give it some

Kentucky Windage the BLM will only change the VE cells 12 as it

learns. So, figured how much fuel was needed at cruise and subtracted

12 from the cells. After driving awhile the cells were increased by 12

after learning. It now runs at commanded AFR. Still need to know why

BLM goes to 172 right after leaving idle mode.

[Walt Halley]

George

When I increase fuel pressure the lower BLMs that occur when the
closed throttle light is on will also increase. It will go from about
128 to 145 depending on the pressure. Of course the higher BLMs that
show up when the closed throttle light is off are pegged at 172. It
seems to me the adjustments are working backwards. If the pressure is
reduced the BLMs go down, indicating we are getting closer to what the
ECM wants by removing fuel. Confusing!

When I change the VE tables to get the proper cruise AFR, I look at
what the AFR is while at cruise. This is always rich because BLMs are
pegged at 172 (its added 12 units). After the ECU has added these 12
units to the cruise area on the VE tables these areas are reduced
(and Flashed into the ECU) by an amount that will yield the commanded
14.7 AFR for cruise. If I need an amount of 72 in the VE table I take
out 12 and flash 60 into the table. After the BLMs add the 12 the net
result is 72 (it works). The Lean cruse mode is not invoked. This
idea came to me because the BLM will only change the VE tables by a
maximum of 12 per VE learn. IMHO that is why more than one VE learn is
needed to correct the VE tables.

Remember this system works with the Holley ECU the only thing that has
changed is the ECU. Is there a possibility that the O2 sensor on the
GM unit is Inverted compared to the one Holley uses? I got bit on the
IAC motor that Holley uses its internal wiring is different.

Walt

[George Beckman]

This is an interesting question.  I would say no, even though WB and NB are reversed from teach other.  The NB is 0 to 1 volt and 0 is lean.  The WB is 0 to 5 and 5 is lean.  But the voltages are so different it would not work at all.   To be sure something is not crossed, you could remove the Wide Band input from the ECM Channel 0 and just use your gauge.  Then you would know only the NB is getting into the computer.

On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:13 AM, Walt Halley wrote:

Remember this system works with the Holley ECU the only thing that has

changed is the ECU. Is there a possibility that the O2 sensor on the

GM unit is Inverted compared to the one Holley uses? I got bit on the

IAC motor that Holley uses its internal wiring is different.

This next one is not the way I would say it.  It may be that we are saying the same thing, but I would not say it is rich when the BLMs are at 172.  The BLMS go up because it is lean.  172 means it has added fuel, but does not mean it is rich.  It added fuel because the NB told the ECM it was lean.  172 is your max.  Even if it added that much fuel we can't say it is rich because what if the limit were 190, would the ECM add fuel to 190?  This is the problem.  We have no idea what it thinks it needs, because we have BLMs pegged, we have VE learns pegged, trying to add 12 and we have VE cells pegged at 100.  Each of the three indicate lean.  The computer has tried every way it can to add fuel, regardless of what the Wide Band says, narrow band says lean. 

If the engine were Rich, BLMs would fall.  If the Engine were Rich, fuel tables would be subtracted from in VE Learns.  If the Engine were Rich, high cell numbers would be great because we could lower them across the board.

When I change the VE tables to get the proper cruise AFR, I look at

what the AFR is while at cruise. This is always rich because BLMs are

pegged at 172 (its added 12 units). 

[bc...@juno.com]

The barefoot NB sensor actually puts out a simple voltage.
But the WB does not, it is part of a servo loop system that
tracks oxygen. The servo signal might have an inverted
direction, but that is a design choice, not a property of
the sensor.

The real issue is, can a WB sensor supply a NB type
signal. Most of the output voltage sweep is of no use
for this function. A comparator IC can be set up to
generate a NB like signal, switching at about the same
OX levels as a NB would. It might be a bit slower though,
due to frequency limits of a stable servo loop. My WB
does this, but the frequency limit is about 6 HZ.

Bruce Roe
**************************************************************
George Beckman <gbec...@pggp.com> 6 Jul 10

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

Sorry I haven't been involved in this discussion, although not sure I
can help. 4th of July has been a really busy time for us with very
little down time to play with stuff like the EBL :-)

You say this system works with the Holley ECU? I talked briefly with
George and he said you had the Holley TBI still on and available. When
you say this is the same as with the Holley, do you mean switching back
to the TBI or have you run the Port Injection with the Holley ECU?
Sorry, but I have not followed the sequence of events you have gone through.

I think George said something about you using a variable fuel pressure
regulator. To help troubleshoot I would disable the variable part if
that is possible. I just looked at your BPC - BPC vs VAC and the values
are all set at the same value - 228 (this is on your first .bin you
posted). If you are running a variable FP regulator, then this could be
your problem. This table allows you to change the BPC value based on
the variable FP. That would explain a lot of the strange behavior we
are seeing. So if you could verify this for me then we can go from there.

Randy (also noting that your voltage to your fuel pump is a little low)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

If indeed, you are running a variable FP regulator, then with the BPC
set as constant across all Vac conditions then this could explain the
numbers you are seeing. If this is the case, then I would set the FP
to a constant pressure if possible, then start over with the initial
.bin you started with and do a run to see what kind of numbers you are
getting. Post the log and the .bin and we can then take the next step.
If we take this a step at a time, then I think we will be able to get
things sorted out. After that, we can then start to look at the
variable FP and how to set up that table properly - if you want to run
variable pressure. Variable pressure is good for the Hot Rodders trying
to get max HP but I'm not sure if with our narrow RPM range that it is
really needed?

Randy (anxiously awaiting answers)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

Good to hear things are starting to work better. I suspect the variable
FP initially was causing you some problems with what you were seeing in
the numbers.

I'm still thinking something is not quite right. BPC numbers should not
be up around 254. I mentioned that there is a parameter that has to do
with higher FP. This Page talks about that parameter:
<http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---adjust-fuel-pressure>
I'm not sure how that parameter relates to Port Injection. I see that
your values are higher than what I have in mine. You should experiment
by raising them by about 120 usec and see what you get. I think this
will allow you to lower the BPC values back down to around 228. Again,
you may have to experiment a little. There is also a Port only
parameter called INJ - Small PW Correction - PORT that you may also
raise by some usec value across the board. There is not enough of a
description to help me understand what this does. Anyway, a little
experimentation might help to see if you can get your BLMs to be
consistently on the lower side of 128. If that happens, you can lower
the BPC number to get back close to 128. A couple of learns at that
point and you should be seeing consistent BLMs close to 128. Keep an
eye on the VE table entries to make sure they behave themselves.

Randy (thinking there is some additional things to learn about Port
Injection)
'77 Eleganza II "403" (that might like Port Injection)

On 7/6/2010 7:03 PM, Randy Van Winkle wrote:
> (anxiously awaiting answers)

[Walt Halley]

Randy

Here is what I have convinced myself is happening in the relationship
between the BLM and the INT. I believe the logic is the same as the
relationship between the O2 sensor and the INT. That is the INT will
continue to insert or take away fuel as prescribed by the Rich/Lean
table as long as the O2 sensor does not exceed the preset values in
the table. IOW the INT will continue to put fuel in if the last
command by the O2 sensor was you are too lean. Conversely it will
continue to take fuel out if the last command was you are too rich.
The “cross over points” are set in the Rich/Lean table. The same is
true with the INT as long as the BLM increases demand for fuel the INT
will continue what it was doing, adding fuel. The BLM will continue
increasing the values in the VE tables until one of two things
happen.

1. The maximum value of 12 units of fuel is hit
2. The INT has moved 4 counts.

If the maximum value is reached one will have to flash the new VE
learns and let the BLM continue requesting more fuel. If the request
for fuel continues, exceeds or requests 12 units the process of
flashing the new VE values is again necessary. The problem I
experienced was: the BLM continued requesting fuel until the AFR was
10 to 1 because the INT did not move the required 4 counts. This was
because it was trying to exceed 100 units in the VE table. It would
request 112 units in the VE table but only get 100 (max). Until George
sent me a new VE Table with lower figures in the cells the BLM could
not get enough fuel into the tables to get the INT to move 4 counts.
When I flashed George’s new table I thought the same old thing was
happening but it required several VE learns until I saw the lower MAP
areas starting to retreat from 172, several more learns and the higher
MAP areas started to respond likewise. Once the INT had moved the
commanded 4 counts the BLMs promptly started to reduce the fuel it had
requested previously. I noticed that the lower MAP areas would max
out (while accelerating) adding fuel and the BLM would freeze and
continue adding fuel to all areas of the VE tables it visited. While
looking at the VE learn corrections I noticed that there were
several
areas that had 12 in the cells. I continued doing VE learns until the
INT would become active and started moving the commanded 4 counts and
started doing something other than it was. Namely staying at 128.

I hooked up the VSS today and now can get into the “Lean Cruise” mode,
it is commanded to run at 16.4 AFR which it does quite well. Getting
the proper pulse counts per mile is an experience in itself tweak, run
a little, tweak, run a little, tweak, etc. until it matches the
measured mile markers. The only thing I see happening that I have not
been able to resolve is, it says I am running down the road at 254
MPH. I get 10 to 11 MPG at this speed in “Lean Cruise”. Not bad but
gas might be cheaper than tickets. Obviously there is an area that
adjusts this. I just haven’t found it yet.

Thank God I am retired and on vacation, could not justify the fuel
expenditures otherwise!!!

Sorry for the lengthy diatribe but did not know how to put it more
succinct.

Had a wonderful visit with Bob Drewes and his lovley wife in SESD
today. What a Guy!!

Been having trouble getting sites with web access. Stopped at an Iowa
rest area to get this off.

Walt



On Jul 1, 1:36 pm, Randy Van Winkle <rlvan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>    1. check for vacuum and/or exhaust leaks.
>    2. If no leaks continue with 3 - if leaks, fix and re-run a test to

>       see where BLMs are (step 3 may not be necessary)

>    3. Try to get BLMs closer to 128 by default (raise BPC number by

>       about 10).  If you haven't read the Google Page "EBL Tweaks - BLM
>       Tuning" procedure that George and I developed you might want to
>       review:
>       <http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>

>    4. If BLMs get consistently closer to 128 then do a VE Learn (I would

>       delay doing WB learns until you get things working better - IOW it
>       is hard to know or trust what the WB is telling you until you know
>       things are running right or close to right.  WB tuning is really
>       for fine tuning and helping with WOT, etc.  You may be chasing
>       ghosts with the WB until you know things are running right)

>    5. I agree with George about changing the AFR.  I would get the VSS

>       on and use lean cruise to run your engine more lean.  This has
>       proven to work well and the code has safeguards to check to make
>       sure it is commanding the correct AFR.  Changing the AFR number
>       might cause you to be lean during PE - a no-no.
>
> I may have confused the issue more than help but hopefully will give you
> some things to think about :-)
>
> Randy (just my 2 cents worth - but thinking a log would be helpful)
> '77 Eleganza II "403"
>
> On 6/30/2010 11:22 PM, Walt Halley wrote:
>
>
>
> > Using the EBL multi port defaut .bin and Bob Drewes spark table it ran
> > rich in most areas. The puzzling part was when the AFR was at 12.0 to
> > 1 the BLM indicated values in the area of 160 to 172 and the INT
> > stayed close to 128. When the AFR was 15.0 to 1 the BLM stayed at the
> > high level and the INT remained at 128. I was under the impression
> > when the AFR was low (10-1) the BLM and INT should show lower than 128
> > indicating that fuel was being removed and when the the AFR was high
> > (15-1) the BLM and INJ would show higher than 128 indicating fuel was

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

Sounds like you are getting a good handle on how the VE Learns operate
as well as BLMs and INT. The internal BLM learn function, introduced in
the original 7747, will "learn" as long as it is operating within the
limits set by the parameters. Once it hits the max, or min, number then
BLM learn ceases however the INT will continue to add or remove fuel as
needed. Once you start getting to the limits of the BLM parameter,
however, you are reaching the limits of what the system can adjust. I
view VE learns, introduce with the EBL, as a way of fine tuning the
BLMs. Consequently, in my opinion, if you are way off on the BLMs,
especially hitting the limits, I believe other adjustments should be
made rather than to let the VE learn continue to make those large
adjustments. I wrote about this in the Google Page about BLM tuning
<http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---blm-tuning>.

Another problem I have with VE learns doing large corrections is that
the fringe cells (those cells you cannot get to and still do learning)
don't get corrected so you have large jumps from a "learned" cell to an
"unlearned" cell. To correct this you have to do a lot of manual
smoothing of the VE tables. I prefer to make manual changes to the BPC
and VE Tables to get them in line so that BLMs are within a reasonable
variance from 128. Then VE learns can fine tune the VE table for
optimum performance which helps lean cruise and PE modes. In your case,
the BPC seems to be too high so I suggested earlier that you experiment
with the offset parameters in order to get the injectors to stay open a
little longer thus allowing you to reduce the BPC. Once that is
accomplished, you can then see what the EBL wants. If many of the VE
table entries are over 90% and the EBL wants to add more fuel, then I
would up the BPC slightly and lower the VE tables across the board and
try again. If things look good then time for VE learns. Again, in my
opinion, you should get all the base values (BPC, VE Table entries, etc)
in good shape before you do VE learns. I think overall you will have a
better running engine.

Randy (finding your discoveries at the limits of BLM interesting)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

On 7/8/2010 5:48 AM, Walt Halley wrote:
> Randy
>
> Here is what I have convinced myself is happening in the relationship
> between the BLM and the INT. I believe the logic is the same as the
> relationship between the O2 sensor and the INT. That is the INT will
> continue to insert or take away fuel as prescribed by the Rich/Lean
> table as long as the O2 sensor does not exceed the preset values in
> the table. IOW the INT will continue to put fuel in if the last
> command by the O2 sensor was you are too lean. Conversely it will
> continue to take fuel out if the last command was you are too rich.

> The �cross over points� are set in the Rich/Lean table. The same is

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

Yes, the VSS allows us to play with a new parameter - lean cruise. I
don't understand is that you say that you are seeing 254 mph show up.
Is this on the speedometer from the WUD? I don't remember your cruise
control setup - a Rostra? You are changing the pulses per mile until
you match the mile markers? What measure are you using to match the
mile marker? I can assume that on the trip display the miles traveled
equals the mile marker but the mph on the main display is show 254? I
have not played with the new parameter because I have a Delphi CC at
4000 ppm and a /2 board that delivers 2000 ppm to the ECM so I have just
left the VSS parameter at the default. Perhaps you have discovered a
bug in the new parameter? I don't know of any other parameter that
would affect how the mph is displayed other than on the preferences of
the WUD where you can select kph or mph and limit the max mph. I have
mine set at 80 mph limit so that I get a larger sweep on the speedometer.

Randy (thinking you could have short driving days at 254 mph)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

On 7/8/2010 5:48 AM, Walt Halley wrote:
> I hooked up the VSS today and now can get into the �Lean Cruise� mode,

> it is commanded to run at 16.4 AFR which it does quite well. Getting
> the proper pulse counts per mile is an experience in itself tweak, run
> a little, tweak, run a little, tweak, etc. until it matches the
> measured mile markers. The only thing I see happening that I have not
> been able to resolve is, it says I am running down the road at 254

> MPH. I get 10 to 11 MPG at this speed in �Lean Cruise�. Not bad but

> gas might be cheaper than tickets. Obviously there is an area that

> adjusts this. I just haven�t found it yet.
>
>

[Randy Van Winkle]

Walt,

I have a Sprint Broadband Card hooked up to a Cradlepoint WiFi Router so
I'm a rolling hotspot. This has worked out great with internet access
just about everywhere. Especially nice for Margie when rolling down the
road.

Hey, if you are in Iowa, it is not too much further South to Missouri.
You could stop in here - I can provide hookups.

Randy (thinking a mini-rally working on EFI would be fun)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

254 is pretty fast, Walt.  Ruth does not like me to drive that fast.  *smile*

I looked and your VSS setting is 2000 pulses per mile.  I am assuming you are still using Druber's divide by two card?  Are you saying that the miles traveled are correct, but that the speedo is off?

I am not sure what the filter does, but I suppose you could check that one out, too?

On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:48 AM, Walt Halley wrote:

The only thing I see happening that I have not

been able to resolve is, it says I am running down the road at 254

MPH. I get 10 to 11 MPG at this speed in “Lean Cruise”.

[George Beckman]

Hope you get the VSS worked out.

We have a Verizon USB card hooked to a Cradlepoint and it is also perfect.   If nothing else you can look at 

http://autos.msn.com/everyday/GasStationsBeta.aspx

and find the cheapest gas in an area.  

Randy does have a great place but I have to warn you, when his good friends drive all the way from California to visit, their coach sometimes has to sit in the "elements" while Randy and Margie's is ensconced in the shop.  I have tried to tell him he could move the Dear John Tractor out and make more room, but even Bob Drewes is not help there, saying green has priority.

On Jul 8, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Randy Van Winkle wrote:

I have a Sprint Broadband Card hooked up to a Cradlepoint WiFi Router so I'm a rolling hotspot.  This has worked out great with internet access just about everywhere.  Especially nice for Margie when rolling down the road.

Hey, if you are in Iowa, it is not too much further South to Missouri.  You could stop in here - I can provide hookups.

[Walt Halley]

Randy

The 254 MPH shows under the dial display. I have set the dial display
to max at 80 MPH as you suggested.


Yes I am using a Rostra cruise control the VSS is set to 9250 PPM this
is close to the odometer, off only one half mile in one hundred miles.
Still tweaking!

When I first installed the VSS I drove around the parking lot. The
engine stalled as soon as the "needle" on the speedometer started to
bounce from zero to max. Had to tweak the Valet options until the
engine continued to run.

Sent an e-mail to BobR at dynamic about the anomolly on the speed
indication, he seemed surprised. Asked if I was using the 2.2d version
if the WUD, replied that I was.

Walt

> > adjusts this. I just haven�t found it yet.- Hide quoted text -

[George Beckman]

Almost sounds like a buglett in the WUD.  Or as we used call them in my software, "a feature".

On Jul 8, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Walt Halley wrote:

Yes I am using a Rostra cruise control the VSS is set to 9250 PPM this

is close to the odometer, off only one half mile in one hundred miles.

Still tweaking!

[Randy Van Winkle]

Hopefully, BobR will find a problem in the code.

Randy (who is guessing a software bug)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Surbo]

Howdy;

The 254 mph may not be far off...I think Walts front wheels were going
at least that when he got out on the wet grass on our lawn :>)) Sure
was great to have Walt & Sarah stop here.

B Drewes in SESD

> > if the WUD, replied that I was.- Hide quoted text -

[George Beckman]

Gang,

I have set my SA tables to a set value in the idle range to keep it steady.  I have set the idle bit to a constant range.  I still notice that the spark is jumping around a bit when idling and a tiny bit of surge.

In the Picture, the upper tables are High Idle compensation and Low Idle compensation.  I am assuming that the RPM value is RPMs above the set idle value.  The logic here is a bit strange because the High Idle degrees are subtracted degrees and the Low are added degrees.  I suppose because both advancing and retarding taper off when the RPMs vary more than 150 that spark has only much effect on idle?

In the Picture the lower set of tables seem to be at odds with each other. For instance, if Map is at 30, the High Map Side is set at 78.43 and the Low Side for 47.06. Would not a Low of 21.57 make more sense math wise?  

Should I make changes?  My question is based on the fact that these four tables can all fiddle with spark.  When idle falters or surges, MAP tends to twiddle around because of a mind numbing number of IAC parameters.  It looks like these four tables could be all trying to change spark advance and sometimes one pulling while the other is pushing.

I suppose Randy will have to once again patiently tell me my thinking is upside down.  Or, perhaps, leave well enough alone.

[George Beckman]

Gang,

The EFI list is running fine.  Part of the lack of messages is that there has been some back channel chatter about the WUD as it appeared that it did not show the speedometer speed correctly when using VSS pulses other than 2000 per mile.  The Odometer was correct and BobR has already fixed this in _two_ days!  Walt has a trial fix right to see if the problem is corrected.  I am sure we will hear soon about the problem and how it was fixed.

BobR is super responsive.  Not only did he fix the bug and recompile the WUD application but he added a PE bar at the bottom of the Trip screen, like the Lean Cruise but a different color.  

Three cheers for BobR.   It is rare to find a person who stands behind his product so willingly.

[Bruce Hislop, Perth Communications]

BobR must spend a lot of his time personally answering questions each. He has always replied to my questions within the day.
Very rare indeed.!

Bruce Hislop
Perth Communications
br...@perthcomm.com
Sent from my Blackberry Curve

---

From: George Beckman <gbec...@pggp.com>

Sender: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 17:50:51 -0700

To: <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific

Gang,

The EFI list is running fine.  Part of the lack of messages is that there has been some back channel chatter about the WUD as it appeared that it did not show the speedometer speed correctly when using VSS pulses other than 2000 per mile.  The Odometer was correct and BobR has already fixed this in_two_ days!  Walt has a trial fix right to see if the problem is corrected.  I am sure we will hear soon about the problem and how it was fixed.

[Gerald Wheeler]

If I were to order the EBL product today, would it come with all the updates this list has discussed??

 

JR Wheeler NC/OR

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: George Beckman

To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Sent: 7/10/2010 10:51:03 PM

Subject: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific

Gang,

The EFI list is running fine.  Part of the lack of messages is that there has been some back channel chatter about the WUD as it appeared that it did not show the speedometer speed correctly when using VSS pulses other than 2000 per mile.  The Odometer was correct and BobR has already fixed this in _two_ days!  Walt has a trial fix right to see if the problem is corrected.  I am sure we will hear soon about the problem and how it was fixed.

[Randy Van Winkle]

Gerald,

Right now you would get the latest version of the EBL Firmware and WUD.
The problem that Walt encountered with the VSS Parameter has a fix but
is being tested by Walt. I don't believe this will be made available
until it is confirmed to work. The good news is that the firmware is
solid and the current level and is not being changed with this latest
fix. This fix will only require downloading a new copy of the WUD and a
new XDF mask file to use in TunerPro. I wouldn't hesitate to order the EBL.

Randy (Agreeing that BobR does a good job of supporting the EBL Community)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

Gerald,

This is my take.

EBL is super solid.  I have developed on the side software for 22 years.   If there is software, there is a bug. (We call them "features".  The difference is, does the developer acknowledge the bug and fix it or do you get to wait for the next version that you have to pay for?  With BobR, he answers questions.  He fixed this tiny problem in two days.

EBL itself is the result of EFI experience and study.  BobR is not new to this process.   The scope of what WUD reports is extensive.  It opens the whole engine controls to you.  Suddenly you can see exactly what the engine is doing, what each sensor is doing and make quick adjustments.  

Since EBL (I have spark control and VSS) I am seeing more improvements than I could have hoped for.  Going back would be like putting a blindfold on.  I drove the Honda this weekend and felt like I wanted to glance over and see if I was in lean cruise.  How much mileage I was getting.  What the spark was doing.  What the Air/Fuel ratio was.  

On Jul 10, 2010, at 8:08 PM, Gerald Wheeler wrote:

If I were to order the EBL product today, would it come with all the updates this list has discussed??

 

[Gerald Wheeler]

Randy, George, Bruce, Emery and others:

Here is my situation. I installed Dick Paterson's engine rebuild in my
coach 3 years ago and installed the group buy Howell EFI at the same time.
I drove the coach for two 6 mile runs at that time and it has sat ever
since; it seemed to run very well for those short runs. Of course, the
engine has not been broken in, so I need to put some miles on it this
summer prior to driving the coach from the Oregon coast back to NC this
September. I plan to have the CCD and the EBL. My question to the group
is: should I buy and install the EBL now and also convert to the CCD??
OR, should I just run the standard Howell setup back to NC?? OR should I
install the EBL without the CCD and run it back to NC?? I await the
wisdom of this group.

JR Wheeler NC/OR

> [Original Message]
> From: Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com>
> To: <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 7/10/2010 11:14:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific

>
> Gerald,
>
> Right now you would get the latest version of the EBL Firmware and WUD.
> The problem that Walt encountered with the VSS Parameter has a fix but
> is being tested by Walt. I don't believe this will be made available
> until it is confirmed to work. The good news is that the firmware is
> solid and the current level and is not being changed with this latest
> fix. This fix will only require downloading a new copy of the WUD and a
> new XDF mask file to use in TunerPro. I wouldn't hesitate to order the
EBL.
>
> Randy (Agreeing that BobR does a good job of supporting the EBL Community)
> '77 Eleganza II "403"
>

[Randy Van Winkle]

JR,

If you are going to eventually end up with the EBL and CCD, I would go ahead and do it so you can be taking advantage of the EBL and Computer Controlled Spark sooner rather than later.  We all talk about all of the tuning and stuff we are doing with the EBL making it seem that there is a lot that needs to be done with the EBL, but in reality, it works much better than the stock Howell right from the initial install.  And the CCD will provide better control of the spark than the old vacuum and mechanical mechanism ever will. 

Having said all of that, a couple of caveats:  I assume you have some time prior to going back to NC.  I would do the following:

1. Fire up the current setup and run it some to make sure the Howell is still running good, IOW, all the sensors, injectors, etc are functioning properly.
2. Install the EBL, turning off the Spark Control, and make sure everything is running good with that change.  This is easy and is simply a matter plugging in the new computer.  Unless you are really adept at de-soldering, soldering, I would suggest buying the kit from BobR that has already installed the EBL onto a 7747 ECM.  He does nice work and will minimize any possible problems plus allow you to keep your current 7747 as a backup.
3. Install the CCD stuff, turn on spark control in the EBL, and enjoy the benefits of the computer controlling the spark.  This will be the most involved and time consuming part of the process, but many of us have gone through the experience.
4. Do you have a Rostra CC?  If you don't have a VSS signal, I would suggest getting a VSS unit to put inline with the speedo cable.  With VSS, you can start taking advantage of DFCO and Lean Cruise, but that can wait if need be.
   
5. This setup should run good right from the start, but now you have the ability to do some tweaking to really take advantage of what the EBL has to offer.  

Many of us have been through these upgrades and are willing to provide assistance.  I assume you will be coming to DuQuoin?  George and I along with others will be there.  I, for one, would like to see your setup.

Randy (thinking fun times are just ahead)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Gordon]

Gerald;
I do not have the system installed. I have read most posts and as a
summary, there is no doubt in my mind that both the EBL and the CCD
provide a quantum leap from just the EBL. On the other hand there are
apparently many of those from the group buy who have voiced the opinion
that the stock Howell is adequate and runs perfectly well. Others have
carefully documented their problems with the stock Howell and the huge
improvements with the EBL and CCD.

The wisdom you seek is already well documented. The most valuable thing
you might do is take the time to read the archives. This will both
provide you with an education and save other's a lot of time repeating
their finding.
Gordon

--
"There is still time to enjoy your childhood while playing in a bigger sandbox!"

[Bruce Hislop]

Gerald,
Do your injectors have a domed top on them? or do the wires plug into a
connector at the top and exit the connector at right angles to the
injector? If they are domed top, then you have 80lb per hour
injectors, and those people seem to be ok... the Howell Bin they
supplied seems to work for those people. At some point the injectors
changed from 80pph to 63pph injectors and those people (myself included)
seem to have the problems.
I purchased my coach in the spring of 2008. The carb had been changed to
a Rochester (IIRC) and it never ran great.. choke sticking etc. I
purchased and installed a Howell system in the fall of 2008 just before
I stored it for the winter. The Howell system started and ran OK but it
would "Bog" on acceleration etc, however it did run much better than the
carb. I did alot of fooling with the Bin but still it was never right.
I had Dick Paterson overhaul my engine last summer and after getting the
fresh engine installed, of course my Bin was out to lunch again with
Dick deeper breathing mods. I drove it over to Howell's and I must say
they were great, they spent half a day with me and I thought it was much
better, but it was back to bogging before I got home.

I had seen the EBL system and decided to take the plunge and ordered it
before I went to Howells'. When I got back from Howell's later that day
the EBL was sitting on my office desk. I escaped the Office and went
home to try the EBL. It was pretty much Plug and Play since I ordered
the board installed into a 7747 ECM. I loaded the GMC 454 bin since it
was closest Bin to the 455 and tried it. It started right up and ran
smoother than ever!. I figured out the "VE Learn" and went for a 5 mile
trip and did an update, then came back and did another update. Next day
I drove to Borrmann's to have one of Dave Lenzi's relay arms installed
and did a VE learn both ways. The engine never bogged or stumbled.

Next day after that we left on a 800 mile vacation and never had an issue!

Since then I have added CCD, ESC and Wide Band O2, as well as the VSS
for lean cruise.

The EBL is rock solid and an Olds 455 now comes with it. I would not be
afraid of it, however I do carry the Howell ECM with me since it weighs
nothing and keeps Murphy's law at bay.

My only outstanding problem is my idle from stone cold. It acts like
it's too rich and starts to miss, even blows some black smoke when I rev
it to clear it. Yet if I try to lean the idle it will start to rev up
and down which points to lean. Once it gets out on the road it will run
perfect for the rest of the day, even after sitting for hours.

You can only improve how your coach runs and I think you like to tinker
with settings... ! 8-)

Bruce Hislop
Perth Communications
519-273-3300
br...@perthcomm.com
www.perthcomm.com

Emailed using Thunderbird!

[Emery Stora]

On Jul 11, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Gerald Wheeler wrote:

Randy, George, Bruce, Emery and others:

Here is my situation.   I installed Dick Paterson's engine rebuild in my
coach 3 years ago and installed the group buy Howell EFI at the same time.
I drove the coach for two 6 mile runs at that time and it has sat ever
since; it seemed to run very well for those short runs.   Of course, the
engine has not been broken in, so I need to put some miles on it this
summer prior to driving the coach from the Oregon coast back to NC this
September.   I plan to have the CCD and the EBL.   My question to the group
is:  should I buy and install the EBL now and also convert to the CCD??
OR, should I just run the standard Howell setup back to NC??   OR should I
install the EBL without the CCD and run it back to NC??   I await the
wisdom of this group.   

JR  Wheeler   NC/OR   

I would recommend installing both now.  If you need any assistance in wiring and hooking it up I and others here will be happy to advise you.

Emery Stora

77 Kingsley

Santa Fe, NM

[herm beeck]

Yes, the wisdom of this group is way above my head. Just talked with Paul Barts at the hospital.  He is having open heart surgery . He said to run this problem by you experts. Maybe BobR will read this. Got my engine running for 4 minutes then it dies. I am using the 7747 ECM and a TB unit from an 87 GM 350, all other sensors came from same donor truck. Fuel press is 12.5 . No codes are set during this short run. Troy from Howell suggested that something is getting hot for the ECM to shut down. How can something get hot in 4 minutes. Just want to get it idling for a longer period so that I my further improve this experiment. Any steps, suggestions are appreciated. Thanks herm --- On Sun, 7/11/10, Emery Stora <emery...@mac.com> wrote:

From: Emery Stora <emery...@mac.com> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific

[Bruce Hislop]

Easy place to start is to take off the air cleaner and watch the injectors, you can see the fuel. If fuel is there, then suspect electrical, otherwise if fuel disappears then its a fuel problem.

I usually find electrical (spark) is abrupt stall, whereas fuel problems cause a stumble before stalling.

What kind of ignition is he running? HEI or computer controlled?

I'm guessing he is just running the straight 7747, no EBL?

Bruce Hislop
Perth Communications
519-273-3300
br...@perthcomm.com
www.perthcomm.com

Emailed using Thunderbird!

[Randy Van Winkle]

Herm,

We will all probably have more questions than answers, at least initially.  Bruce has a good suggestion.  By watching the injectors you can get a feel for what is happening - or not happening.

OK, for the questions:

1. Are you running the computer controlled spark with this setup?
2. Are you able to do any more than just idle?  Can you run up the RPMs?
3. Do you have the capability to take a log?  This requires a laptop, the free WinALDL software, and a cable?
4. Where are you located?
5. Are you able to immediately restart and run another 4 minutes?   If not, how long do you have to wait before a restart?
6. Is your fuel pump wired directly from the ECM through a relay or do you have an Oil Pressure setup?
7. 455 or 403?
   

Not enough info to diagnose but I can perhaps offer a few possibilities. 

1. If the injectors suddenly shut down, then that can be caused by a problem with the wire running from the distributor to the ECM.  I have experienced this problem.  An intermittent short (caused by heat?) could cause a shutdown.
2. Something could be happening to your fuel supply.  This is where a Fuel Pressure gauge would be helpful.   Can you tell if the Fuel Pump continues to run?
   
3. I would check all wiring looking for a loose connections.

Some general comments:  The 350 ECM and TBI setup may not supply enough fuel for your engine without some additional tuning.  Do you know the flow rate of the injectors.  I'm guessing the 12.5 psi will be way too low to supply enough fuel.  However, having said that, it should at least allow you to start and run your engine.  Also, some believe the bore size of the 350 TBI is not big enough to supply enough air.  I'm not totally convinced of this but might be something to keep in mind as you continue your "experiment".   I only bring up these last few issues as something to keep in mind after you get your immediate problem solved. 

Randy (thinking a log is going to be necessary to help find this problem and do the required tuning of a 350 setup)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

Gerald,

When are you leaving for NC? Ruth and are going to be up your way. Perhaps we could schedule a little play time.

Best Wishes,
George
Sent from my iPad

[George Beckman]

This is true. CCD even with the Howell was huge. The only trouble was, you were running blind. With EBL you can see everything.

Best Wishes,
George
Sent from my iPad

[Gordon]

A GM 350 will never work properly even on a 403.  Your stock fuel flow at 13 psi is @ 50pph.  You need @ 80pph if you want to keep the injectors from exceeding their duty cycle.
Your stock GM fuel pump can't do it.  If you take the fuel pressure to 25psi+ (with an aftermarket pump) you will get enough fuel, but your injectors will have trouble opening at this pressure.  With the GM 350 TBI, and the best intake system possible, you will only have @ 480cfm of air at 4000 rpm so you will have to start cutting back on the fuel @ 2800rpm and you power will be way down.  IIRC you will be running seriously short of air @ 3000rpm.  You need a minimum of 600 cfm for a 403.  If you have a 455 things are that much worse.
Does your fuel return line go back to the tank?  The 4 minute run time at idle is often an indicator of no fuel return line directly to the tank.
If you find someone who can make a 350 TBI work properly on either a 455 or even a 403, please give the details.  Many have tried and I can't find anyone who has been successful.  You must remember that this 1 11/16 bore is used on the 4.3l, the 5.0L and the 5.7L.  It does not even work well on the 5.7L, as the power falls off after 3500rpm.  On a 383 Chev, dyno runs show it falls off after 2800rpm when compared to a stock 454TBI with 2" throttle bores. 
I think you are in for a struggle.
Gordon

[Gordon]

Two other bits of info I find in my saved stuff;
1 psi = 4% fuel flow increase.  You need a 60% increase, so a 15psi increase brings you to 27.5 psi.  The injectors will not work properly at any rpm.
You can increase the airflow @ 5% on a 350TBI by purchasing a spacer plate to raise the injectors.  With 500cfm, you will still be out of the ballpark.

On 7/11/2010 12:16 PM, herm beeck wrote:

[herm beeck]

Gordon I am running an aftermarket fuel pump from Summit, the return goes to the tank. Is this why the Holley TB is used, for fuel press adjustment? The GM TB does not have the adjustment. I have a Holley TB that I can try. Would be satisfied with getting it to idle for a longer time. Not ready to start the driving thing yet. I am using the computer controlled distributor.   Thanks for your help herm --- On Sun, 7/11/10, Gordon <wiz...@telus.net> wrote:

[herm beeck]

Randy I have the oil pressure setup. Bypassing this switch does nothing I can restart the engine right away Uses the computer controlled spark It only idles, stalls when moving the throttle The fuel pump is wired thru a relay, the pressure is a constant 12.5 psi. I do have a fuel gage in the high press side.   thanks for your help herm E ll , Arizona

--- On Sun, 7/11/10, Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

[Gerald Wheeler]

George,

We will be leaving Charleston, Oregon, sometime after September 10th. You
are more than welcome to drop in and spend some time here. I can provide
hookups. Same invite goes to any GMCers traveling the southern Oregon
coast this summer. Bert and Fay intend to drop in after the FMCA rally in
Redmond, sometime mid-August. My thanks to Randy, George, Emery, Bruce
and Gordon for info on the CCD and EBL. I have a 403 from Paterson (Dick
sez it is a 409 now) in my 78 Royale. I have been reading the posts ever
since Henderson set up the Google group. However, I have to admit most of
what I read I didn't understand since I did not have my coach with me nor
had I even run the EFI. I will call BobR this next week and order the EBL
with the 7747. All the info I collected and printed is at my NC home, so
I do not have access to it. What type of laptop should I invest in to
view and change the EBL tables (also what cables are needed)?? What type
of distributor should I purchase (this was some of the info I left at
home)? One of you bought a CCD distributor from Dick Paterson recently.
I don't know of any junk yards here in my part of Oregon that I could get
the correct connectors needed for the CCD, does anyone have some that they
can sell me? Randy, I think you are running a 403; can you sell me a copy
of your chip (or do I even need one)?? Emery, I printed out the changes
needed to the Howell wiring harness for the CCD, but that info is at home
too. I apologize for being a pest in getting this EFI/EBL/CCD going. I
would like to attend the GMCMI rally this fall, but it falls too late in
September for me to attend; I need to be home in NC several days prior to
the first of October.

JR Wheeler NC/OR

> [Original Message]e
> From: George Beckman <gbec...@pggp.com>
> To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: 7/11/2010 8:27:48 PM

> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific
>

> Gerald,
>
> When are you leaving for NC? Ruth and are going to be up your way.
Perhaps we could schedule a little play time.
>

> Best Wishes,
> George
> Sent from my iPad
>

> On Jul 11, 2010, at 9:53 AM, "Gerald Wheeler" <jrwhe...@earthlink.net>

wrote:
>
> >
> > Randy, George, Bruce, Emery and others:
> >
> > Here is my situation. I installed Dick Paterson's engine rebuild in my
> > coach 3 years ago and installed the group buy Howell EFI at the same
time.
> > I drove the coach for two 6 mile runs at that time and it has sat ever
> > since; it seemed to run very well for those short runs. Of course, the
> > engine has not been broken in, so I need to put some miles on it this
> > summer prior to driving the coach from the Oregon coast back to NC this
> > September. I plan to have the CCD and the EBL. My question to the
group
> > is: should I buy and install the EBL now and also convert to the CCD??
> > OR, should I just run the standard Howell setup back to NC?? OR
should I
> > install the EBL without the CCD and run it back to NC?? I await the
> > wisdom of this group.
> >
> > JR Wheeler NC/OR
> >
> >
> >

> >> [Original Message]

> >> From: Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com>

> >> To: <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>
> >> Date: 7/10/2010 11:14:49 PM

> >> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific
> >>

> >> Gerald,
> >>
> >> Right now you would get the latest version of the EBL Firmware and
WUD.
> >> The problem that Walt encountered with the VSS Parameter has a fix but
> >> is being tested by Walt. I don't believe this will be made available
> >> until it is confirmed to work. The good news is that the firmware is
> >> solid and the current level and is not being changed with this latest
> >> fix. This fix will only require downloading a new copy of the WUD and
a
> >> new XDF mask file to use in TunerPro. I wouldn't hesitate to order the
> > EBL.
> >>
> >> Randy (Agreeing that BobR does a good job of supporting the EBL
Community)

> >> '77 Eleganza II "403"
> >>

[Surbo]

Herm;
If it idles and stalls when you open the throttle, check the TPS
(throttle position sensor) to see if it is sending a signal to the
ECM. WOT should be over 4 volts. Did you do an 'intial tps
calibration' when you installed the TBI.
The instructions for the calibration are here:
http://www.gmcmidwestclassics.org/Web%20pages/Tuning%20the%20TBI.pdf

Bob Drewes in SESD w/GM TBI

On Jul 11, 8:51 pm, herm beeck <hbe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Randy
> I have the oil pressure setup. Bypassing this switch does nothing
> I can restart the engine right away
> Uses the computer controlled spark
> It only idles, stalls when moving the throttle
> The fuel pump is wired thru a relay, the pressure is a constant 12.5 psi.
> I do have a fuel gage in the high press side.
>  
> thanks for your help
> herm
> E ll , Arizona
>

> --- On Sun, 7/11/10, Randy Van Winkle <rlvan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From: Randy Van Winkle <rlvan...@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] BobR is Terrific
> To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, July 11, 2010, 3:37 PM
>
> Herm,
>
> We will all probably have more questions than answers, at least initially.  Bruce has a good suggestion.  By watching the injectors you can get a feel for what is happening - or not happening.
>
> OK, for the questions:
>
> Are you running the computer controlled spark with this setup?
> Are you able to do any more than just idle?  Can you run up the RPMs?
> Do you have the capability to take a log?  This requires a laptop, the free WinALDL software, and a cable?
> Where are you located?
> Are you able to immediately restart and run another 4 minutes?   If not, how long do you have to wait before a restart?
> Is your fuel pump wired directly from the ECM through a relay or do you have an Oil Pressure setup?
> 455 or 403?
> Not enough info to diagnose but I can perhaps offer a few possibilities. 
>
> If the injectors suddenly shut down, then that can be caused by a problem with the wire running from the distributor to the ECM.  I have experienced this problem.  An intermittent short (caused by heat?) could cause a shutdown.
> Something could be happening to your fuel supply.  This is where a Fuel Pressure gauge would be helpful.   Can you tell if the Fuel Pump continues to run?
>

> I would check all wiring looking for a loose connections.Some general comments:  The 350 ECM and TBI setup may not supply enough fuel for your engine without some additional tuning.  Do you know the flow rate of the injectors.  I'm guessing the 12.5 psi will be way too low to supply enough fuel.  However, having said that, it should at least allow you to start and run your engine.  Also, some believe the bore size of the 350 TBI is not big enough to supply enough air.  I'm not totally convinced of this but might be something to keep in mind as you continue your "experiment".   I only bring up these last few issues as something to keep in mind after you get your immediate problem solved. 

[herm beeck]

Bob I will check my voltage at the TPS   Thank you herm --- On Sun, 7/11/10, Surbo <bmdr...@iw.net> wrote:

[Randy Van Winkle]

JR,

With the EBL, you only need a .bin file. I originally started with the
455 .bin that is distributed with the EBL. I can send you my current
.bin but we will have to make sure your setup is compatible. Are you
running or plan on having a VSS signal to the EBL? Let me know when you
get to that point and we can get you set up.

BTW... I suggested the steps to take to get you going with the EBL and
CCD. I would not try to do everything at once but do each of the steps
and make sure things are running good before going to the next. That
will minimize where problems might exist if you run into some issue.

Randy (thinking George could be a big help if he makes it to your place)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Ken Henderson]

JR,

I suggest you follow Randy's guidance.  But if you can't, DO at least install the EBL before starting east.  If you don't, you may suffer as I did with the basic Howell.  I spent about a year and a half fooling with mine, including from here to Santa Rosa and back, changing chips beside the road (obtained several times each from Howell and Robert Musgrove), and STILL had bad off-idle stumbling.

After Bruce H. finally bit the bullet & jumped into EBL, I followed suit.  The day the kit arrived, I soldered it into my old 7747 and cranked the engine.  It ran and I had lots of other things to do, so I shut it down until the next morning.  The next morning, I cranked up and immediately drove to a rally only 75 miles away.  I knew at the first stop sign that I had a major improvement.  During that short 150 mile trip, the coach ran better than it EVER had.  That with the almost generic BIN and NO tuning -- I had no idea how to DO any tuning.

All the other stuff, CCD, VSS, VE Learn, tuning of multiple parameters, etc., are productive and useful -- but just the bare EBL alone is worth far more than its cost and I wouldn't try again to survive without it.

JMHO,

Ken H.

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com> wrote:

JR,
...

[Emery Stora]

Jerry

I will find the info that I posted on the connections for the CCD and send them to you.

As to laptop computers, most no longer have a serial connection so you will need a serial to USB converter.  I had one but it didn't work well with the EBL so I recently ordered one from BobR.  That one worked very well.  It cost me $30 plus $10 shipping.  If you order it with the EBL you can save $10 as that is what he will charge for shipping the EBL and whatever else you order at the same time.

You should download the program Tuner Pro.  It is free on the Internet.  BobR will furnish a program (a mask) that you use with Turner Pro to set up the program for the setup of your engine -- the injectors that you use, your initial timing, etc..

Emery

[Gordon]

Herm;
I think that GM TB does have a fuel pressure adjustment.  Please forget it and switch to your Holley if it is a 600cfm+.  Get the numbers or colors off the injectors so we can figure out what you have.  Then you can start with a ballpark fuel pressure and the thing will run.  I haven't seen the answer yet to the size of your engine?  Order the EBL and you will soon be happily motoring along.
Gordon

[George Beckman]

Thanks so much for your kind offer.  

We are trying to get our act together for the week of July 26.  We are buying a second house (well making an offer) and that can chew up our time.  Our only other window is near the end of August.

We will keep you informed.  

   

On Jul 11, 2010, at 7:08 PM, Gerald Wheeler wrote:

Same invite goes to any GMCers traveling the southern Oregon

coast this summer. 

[Gordon]

Ken;
IIRC there was more than just you scratching your shiny noodle over chips at Santa Rosa?  I listened to some of the discussions which took place day and night, and walked away, thinking there is a group of smart guys that can't make the dam EFI work.  I will stick to my QuadraFlusher.
I began doing dollar per mile calculations (not mpg) 45 years ago.  At Santa Rosa I was running trouble free @ $0.40 per mile for fuel.  $2000 per year for 5000 miles, and I get to keep my hair.  Then I started doing research on EFI and discovered MegaSquirt.  I tracked down some local guys with MegaSquirt and found they were running all manner of vehicles, from daily driver's to fully automated 1/4 miler's with the rpm, fuel and transmission controlled  by the ECM, for the entire run.  Now, with the success of the EBL, I am convinced it is these simplest route to EFI on a GMC.  MegaSquirt is a great hands on electronic build project, but requires a lot more skill to put it together.  I believe the results are comparable.
I was expecting this EFI group to go dead, for lack of need, a long time ago.  I did not imagine the number of GMCer's wanting EFI information, to be this large.  I'm glad for your frustration, as it led to you founding gmcmh-efi.  If you had an EBL at Santa Rosa, none of us may have benefited from this group.
Thanks;
Gordon

[George Beckman]

Hey, guys,

I asked a question last week and it went into the black hole of nobody answered.   Any ideas on the idle and four tables?  Just wondering.  

Begin forwarded message:

From: George Beckman <gbec...@pggp.com>

Date: July 9, 2010 8:28:45 AM PDT

To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [GMCMH-EFI] Idle Spark Advance Settings

Reply-To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Gang,

I have set my SA tables to a set value in the idle range to keep it steady.  I have set the idle bit to a constant range.  I still notice that the spark is jumping around a bit when idling and a tiny bit of surge.

In the Picture, the upper tables are High Idle compensation and Low Idle compensation.  I am assuming that the RPM value is RPMs above the set idle value.  The logic here is a bit strange because the High Idle degrees are subtracted degrees and the Low are added degrees.  I suppose because both advancing and retarding taper off when the RPMs vary more than 150 that spark has only much effect on idle?

In the Picture the lower set of tables seem to be at odds with each other. For instance, if Map is at 30, the High Map Side is set at 78.43 and the Low Side for 47.06. Would not a Low of 21.57 make more sense math wise?  

Should I make changes?  My question is based on the fact that these four tables can all fiddle with spark.  When idle falters or surges, MAP tends to twiddle around because of a mind numbing number of IAC parameters.  It looks like these four tables could be all trying to change spark advance and sometimes one pulling while the other is pushing.

I suppose Randy will have to once again patiently tell me my thinking is upside down.  Or, perhaps, leave well enough alone.

[Emery Stora]

I just wanted to change the subject line as we've now had 23 messages with BobR is Terrific. Not that he isn't but many messages are way off that topic now.

[George Beckman]

Well, I like that topic.  (Emery, you can have your dollar later.)

On Jul 12, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Emery Stora wrote:

I just wanted to change the subject line as we've now had 23 messages with BobR is Terrific.  Not that he isn't but many messages are way off that topic now.

[Ken Henderson]

Gordon, et al,

Isn't it great that we have this group!  I didn't have any idea either that it would take off so; I just wanted to spare the general GMCNet audience the dumb questions it was obvious I'd be asking.  I had no idea there were so many smart folks ready to jump into the fray and answer all my questions before I even knew to ask them.  Now I'm really glad they've all volunteered so much information, well organized, and posted where I can review it repeatedly as I try to catch up so that I can at least see their coat tails, whether I can get close enough to grab them or not.  The information's here and constantly growing; it's just up to me to absorb and apply it. :-)

Many thanks to ALL of you, including you, Gordon.

Ken H.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Gordon <wiz...@telus.net> wrote:

...I was expecting this EFI group to go dead, for lack of need, a long time ago.  I did not imagine the number of GMCer's wanting EFI information, to be this large.  I'm glad for your frustration, as it led to you founding gmcmh-efi.  If you had an EBL at Santa Rosa, none of us may have benefited from this group.

[Randy Van Winkle]

George,

I have not messed with these values.....yet.   However, if I were to mess with these values, here's what I think I would try.  First, I would zero out the two tables, SA - Idle High Compensation and SA - Idle Low Compensation. The other two won't matter as they are just multipliers applied to the two SA tables. That, then should force the SA to stay constant based on the idle bit being set that forces the use of a constant SA.  I would then see how it idles and tweak the VE tables in the idle area to try and get a smooth idle.  Also, might want to tweak the SA constant to see if a little higher or lower will affect how it is idling.  I doubt that you will get a really smooth idle - probably will roll up and down a little.  But once you get the best you can, then go back to the compensation SA table and start adding in a degree or two until idle stabilizes. 

Oh, before doing this, make sure your IAC is adjusted to around 5 - 10 steps at idle.  If I recall, being at 5 steps at idle forces the idle plates to be tipped a little which allows the air flow to help suck in the gas, otherwise, gas accumulates and doesn't flow evenly causing idle to surge and fall back.  In fact, we were discussing the problems of the idle plates being flat (or closed) in Santa Rosa and made some adjustments that helped your idle and off idle "feel" not to mention the little puff of black smoke I noticed when following you - cough, cough....

Let us know how the "experiment goes".  Wish I had time to play with this.

Randy (questioning if this is a good approach but seems logical to me)
'77 Eleganza II "403" 

[Ken Henderson]

Randy, George, et al,

While you've got SA on your mind I'd like to ask your help:

We returned yesterday from the 500 mile round trip to GMCDL Dillard, GA.  On the way up I did VE learn all the way and found no more than about 5% change in any cell.  I noticed along the way that the SA table was showing 40* most of the time under light to moderate load, and that NO knock counts were accumulating after little bursts at startup.  I checked and found Max SA set to 40* and left it there.

Before flashing from the updated BIN, I attempted to turn on DFCO and Lean Cruise but apparently haven't yet learned how (with all the fun going on, I didn't take time to review the Tweaks for help) because on the return trip, neither ever operated, AFAIK -- I never saw their indicators on WUD illuminate.  I had done nothing about the SA, keeping the 6* initial setting and the tables untouched.

During the return 250 miles, I did another learn, again with only slight changes recorded.  And no enroute knock counts.  And with SA mostly at 40*.

Before flashing the new BIN when we got home, I set the Max SA to 43*, changing nothing else.

I have heard that the Cad likes more advance than the Olds.  Should I set the Max SA even higher?  Should I edit the SA tables, increasing them by a % until I force knocks to occur?

This is all trivial stuff to y'all now, but I really am just beginning to take those baby steps.  Don't want to mess up the great running system I've got now, but I know it's a long way from optimum -- I don't think I'm getting near the power the engine's wanting to produce.

It was interesting (exciting) to see the Trip display register 9.1 mpg while towing.  But on the way up I overflowed the tanks, slightly after emptying the Main tank, with a 30 gallong fillup.  On the way back, BEFORE the main tank was empty, I filled up again, with no overflow, using 37+ gallons.  With that kind of variance, not unexpected for my GMC, I don't know how I'll ever set the "fudge factor" for accurate MPG calculations. :-(

TIA,

Ken H.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com> wrote:

George,

I have not messed with these values.....yet...

[Randy Van Winkle]

Ken,

Sounded like you had a good trip, but lots of questions :-)

DFCO is a little tricky to get to work well so check out the tweak
<http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---dfco-adjust>
- I think it will give you what you need to get it going. There is an
RPM parameter that is set too low (around 50) by default. This was
keeping my DFCO off because my RPMs vary up and down by 50 rpms most of
the time. I think I set it up to around 250 rpms. It is intended to
restart fueling if you suddenly take it out of gear.

Lean Cruise should work with just a change to the HiWy - Min MPH value
to when you want lean cruise to come on. The rest of the tables should
work as is. But this tweak may help you get it adjusted to your
preferences
<http://groups.google.com/group/gmcmh-efi/web/ebl-tweak---lean-cruise-off-on>

I'm surprised that your Max SA was set at 40 degrees. It should be 42
degrees for an HEI distributor. We discussed this way back about the
physical limitation of the distributor when being controlled by the
computer. That physical limitation is just over 42 degrees so the 42
number gives a little safety margin. It is just a coincidence that you
are seeing 40 degrees on the WUD while your Max SA is set at 40
degrees. With Max SA set to 42 degrees and initial SA set to 6 degrees,
you have the possibility of seeing 48 degrees on the WUD.

So, if you want more SA, then I would do as you were considering. Up
the main spark table, either % or a + offset. I would go by about 2
degrees until I see some knocks occur. If you are confident in your
Knock Sensor this should work, otherwise, having someone who can hear
knocks ride with you might detect knocks before the sensor (I usually
see some knock counts before I hear them. Once you reach this point,
you need to determine which cells are having the counts. This will
probably be somewhere in the range of 2200 - 3200 RPMs and above 75
MAP. At this point, I felt my 403 could use a little more advance so I
upped all cells by another 3 degrees except those in the above ranges,
then did a little smoothing using the graph. The graph allows you to
move the cells on the graph to get a nice smooth transition between
cells. So I now have about 45 degrees in the area where I generally
cruise - between 50 - 60 MAP and around 2800 rpms (I have a 3.70 FD and
the 403 doesn't seem to mine a little higher rpms). Actually, George is
using my Spark Table on his 455 and has reported that he is very happy
with the way it is running. I have set another few degrees for Lean
Cruise so when in Lean Cruise I normally see 47 degrees on my WUD.

BTW... you say you don't want to mess up your great running system. I
keep my "great running .bin" in flash location 0 and never touch it. I
can always go back to it, if I feel I'm getting too far off base, and
start over. From time to time, I updated this location with a new .bin
that has survived the test of a few thousand miles.

And, yes, doing the mpg calibration is an interesting exercise with the
way our tanks fill -- or don't fill. Luckily, my calibration was right
on from the get-go. I think the only good way to validate is long
term. On longer trips, taking the mpg for the entire trip and check
that back against the WUD will give you some confidence in how the flow
rate is set. Sometimes, hard to do if you don't keep the WUD running
during the entire trip. I try to keep mine running all the time so that
I will have a complete picture from the WUD. Maybe BobR could find a
way to keep the mpg info across laptop disconnects -- Hmmmmm.

Randy (thinking this is not trivial stuff to anyone)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

Ken,

DFCO and LeadCr conflicted on my coach because I have 3.07 gears.  With the slip in our torque converters, I can be going 25 when the engine restarts from DFCO.  I needed to be sure that LeanCr didn't hang on so long that I couldn't get into DFCO.  Then when in DFCO at the 25 mph, when the engine restarted, the idle plus help from the torque converter was boosting the RPMs back to DFCO range.  I felt an annoying surge of start and shut off a couple of times.  Our Honda five speed has been known to surge in a parking lot in low gear, so it can be a common problem.

If yo like I can take pictures of my settings, or send my bin.

Best Wishes,

George

Sent from my iPad

[George Beckman]

Just to add to what Randy said, 40 is pretty low, in my view, also.

I think for those of us who are trying to get the best MPG possible, spark is one of the key places.  LeanCr certainly helps, but needs an accompanying spark adjustment in LeanCr.   

As Randy said, my 455 is running at 47 and not knocking.  Randy and I hope to do some road testing at various levels, before DuQuion, to see if we can tell what MPG does.  Being 1600 miles apart can slow some of our GMC play time.  We have a plan.  We will see if it works.

On Jul 12, 2010, at 8:56 PM, Ken Henderson wrote:

During the return 250 miles, I did another learn, again with only slight changes recorded.  And no enroute knock counts.  And with SA mostly at 40*.

[Randy Van Winkle]

Ken,

As a point of clarification, the main spark table takes into account the
SA - Initial Advance (in our case, 6 degrees). IOW, the computer gets
the SA value from the main spark table and subtracts the 6 degrees
initial advance, then does the other minor pluses and minuses to arrive
at a total SA which it then compares to the Max SA (42 degrees). If
greater than 42 it uses 42 otherwise it uses what it calculates and this
is what is sent to the distributor. Also, note that displaying stuff in
degrees is for our benefit, the actual internal calcs are referenced in
time. The WUD adds back in the initial SA (6 degrees) before displaying
on the screen. So, in additional other words, what you see in the main
spark table and what you see displayed on the WUD is the total SA at the
crank (it includes the 6 degrees of initial spark advance).

Let me know if I haven't confused the issue enough and I will try again :-)

Randy (thinking if we want more than 48 degrees SA we need to up the 6
degrees initial SA)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[George Beckman]

GJR  (Good Job Randy)  

I think the sentence below is the one that is hard for us to get in our heads.  Once we realize the WUD is giving us actual, at the crank, advance it helps.

On Jul 13, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Randy Van Winkle wrote:

So, in additional other words, what you see in the main spark table and what you see displayed on the WUD is the total SA at the crank (it includes the 6 degrees of initial spark advance).

[Gordon]

Randy;
May I suggest we take another pole and adopt 8 degrees as the initial
setting. I lost the vote last time because there were so many who were
too lazy to change from 6 to 8. The idea of 8 being the initial, is to
get 50 degrees maximum which is what you can comfortably use with lean
burn and low rpm (2600). Too lean a mixture with higher rpm will
actually reduce your fuel savings because the ECM can't advance the
timing enough to get the fuel burned before BDC.
Gordon

Randy (thinking if we want more than 48 degrees SA we need to up the 6
degrees initial SA)

> '77 Eleganza II "403" -

[Randy Van Winkle]

Gordon,

George and I have a plan to run several "tests" to see if we can
determine what advance is needed at what AFR for the flame front to
produce it's Peak Pressure at 14 degrees after TDC. It may indeed be
that we need 50 degrees (or more) in order to achieve this. We believe
a measured course with the coach running with CC will give us a
repeatable scenario where we can measure engine efficiency. Engine
efficiency measure will be by the WUD Trip screen that gives us mpg (to
a tenth of a mile/gal.). We hope to build our spark table, lean cruise
table, and SA when in Lean Cruise around the results.

Randy (thinking it will be an interesting experiment)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Ken Henderson]

Well, now I am confused because it sounds like the only reason for the initial advance entry is to reduce the SA table values.  I guess I had it backward and figured that adding to the initial advance would add to every SA table value.  Lets' try it out as described by Randy, using a simplified hypothetical set of table values:

Initial:          6        6        6       6

SA Table  10      20      30    40

Net              4       14      24    34

Minor +-      3         6        9    12

Total Req'd 7       20      33   46

40 Max ==>7       20      33   40

Is that right?  If so, then to get more advance on the bottom line, I've got to raise SA Max (that's OK / understanddable).  But if I've got a choice of either LOWERING Initial SA, or raising the SA Table entries.  That lowering business really confused me.  

I presume I have no control of "Minor +-" since I don't know what it is.

How would SUBTRACTING 8* instead of 6* fulfill my desire for MORE advance?

I'm admittedly too tired to be trying to understand this tonight. :-)

Ken H.

[George Beckman]

Well,

I wasn't too lazy because I was at 0.  However, now I feel lazy because I would have to change.  Ha.  8 would also have been easier because it is the last little bump, where as 6 is the last little valley.  I do better with peaks than with valleys.

If we can hold off on deciding until after late September, Randy and I may have an idea of how lean mixtures and spark advance work in our 12,000 lbs rigs.  

The Test:

We plan on finding a level piece of freeway near Springfield, Missouri. Randy probably has one in mind as that is where he lives. We do each test in two runs, down and back to eliminate any changes in elevation and wind factor. We set the cruise and flash bins without shutting down the engine so each run has the same throttle setting. We take a log of each run so we can replay. We hit the space bar at the beginning and end of the test section. We also hit clear on the Trip screen at the beginning of the run so we get the tenths MPG recorded for the exact distance. We turn around and do that bin again.

I, like you, am all excited about the 47 and 48 degrees advance I am seeing, pushing 3.07 gears with a 455. In my coach we will be turning about 2400 RPMs for this test. Conversely, Randy's coach will be turning 2800 or so. Neither of us are getting any knocks. But, we know that maxium power happens when the maxium cylinder pressure occurs at 14 degrees after dead center. We are hoping to see where advance starts to give diminishing returns on power.  We also would like to see how lean vs. advance work. How lean is 48 degrees good for, etc.

I believe I have found too lean a lean cruise mixture. The trouble is, I am commanding one thing (19) and the Wide Band is showing another (17.4 at best). Lots of discussion about why the WB does not agree with the commanded (computer's guess) setting. We wish we knew because at that mystery mixture, the lean cruise kept dropping out as the engine struggled to "get power". It would quickly catch up to the set speed and go into lean cruise only to have speed begin to decay.

It may be a pipe dream to think we can tell, driving up and down the road. This is why we wanted Randy to install a dyno where his Dear John tractor sits in his shop. It seemed no inconvenience to me. I am sure Margie would really like a dyno. *smile*

On Jul 13, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Gordon wrote:

May I suggest we take another pole and adopt 8 degrees as the initial setting.  I lost the vote last time because there were so many who were too lazy to change from 6 to 8.  The idea of 8 being the initial, is to get 50 degrees maximum which is what you can comfortably use with lean burn and low rpm (2600).  Too lean a mixture with higher rpm will actually reduce your fuel savings because the ECM can't advance the timing enough to get the fuel burned before BDC.

[George Beckman]

Randy have been friends since high school.  We think alike many times.  We were obviously writing our answers at the same time, 1600 miles apart.  Randy uses 100 well chosen words.  I use 2000 rambling words.  It has been like that for 47 years.  sigh

On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:00 PM, Randy Van Winkle wrote:

George and I have a plan to run several "tests" to see if we can determine what advance is needed at what AFR for the flame front to produce it's Peak Pressure at 14 degrees after TDC.  It may indeed be that we need 50 degrees (or more) in order to achieve this.  We believe a measured course with the coach running with CC will give us a repeatable scenario where we can measure engine efficiency.  Engine efficiency measure will be by the WUD Trip screen that gives us mpg (to a tenth of a mile/gal.).  We hope to build our spark table, lean cruise table, and SA when in Lean Cruise around the results.

[George Beckman]

I "think" the WUD adds the 6* and 8* to show us actual crank advance.  The limit is in the module, and the only way around that is to crank on the distributor.

(33 words)

On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Ken Henderson wrote:

How would SUBTRACTING 8* instead of 6* fulfill my desire for MORE advance?

[Gordon]

Randy;
I find it incredible that you are going to the n'th degree to obtain
detailed and valuable information for us all. Much more fun than my day.

After trying to balance a walk-in cooler temperature, for 8 hours, I am
considering hooking a gun up to the control panel. The next cook who
touches it will be found stone cold on the floor. A large piece of
plastic wrap got on the back of the evaporator and the solution was to
turn down the thermostat 10*F a couple of times. Then the compressor
iced up so the solution to that was to put a heater pointing at the
compressor. When I came in this morning, I had a temperature of 50*F
in the cooler, because of 1" of ice covering the entire front and rear
of the evaporator, plus 2" of ice on half the compressor. Why didn't it
just blow up?
Now I have 33.4*F in the cooler, I can go home.

Thanks for sharing all of your tuning;
Gordon

[Randy Van Winkle]

Ken, Sorry if I have confused the issue. Your table is correct as far
as you go with it. Let me see if I can clarify. For starters, the
minors adjustments are just that - minor (having to do with module
latency) so your example is much too aggressive for real world but can
work for example.

So, in your last column, you are looking for a total of 46 degrees. The
ECM can only deliver a max of 40 degrees (in your example - 42 in all GM
HEI environments) so the 40 degrees you show is the MAX that the ECM
will deliver. However, when this 40 degrees goes to the engine, there
is another 6 degrees initial set at the distributor (and reflected in
the initial SA parameter). So, in your example, you would add another
6 degrees to get what is delivered at the crank. So I added one more
line to your table, and one more column. I also took out the Minor +-
as that confuses the issue. For my example, I'm assuming that Total
Req'd is the Total SA that I want to achieve at the Crank (you may have
a different definition). So your table would look like this

Initial 6 6 6 6
6

SA Table 10 20 30 40 50
Net 4 14 24 34 44
Total Req'd 10 20 30 40 50
40 Max 10 20 30 40 40
Total at Crank 10 20 30 40 46

One more thing. You should set the max SA to 42 degrees and forget it -
it must stay at 42 degrees. I'm not sure why yours was 40 degrees but
make it 42 and no, you should not raise SA Max. 42 degrees is a
physical limitation of the HEI distributor. The main spark table as
well as the WUD is set in such a way to always reflect (with minor, very
minor, variations) what is seen at the Crank. If you want more SA at
the crank, (more than 48 degrees), the only way to achieve this is to
raise the initial SA value which means that you must also twist the
distributor to set the same advance (with the brown wire disconnected).

Randy (wrestled with this whole concept for quite a while - but now
confident in my understanding)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Ken Henderson]

Thanks, Randy, now that we're talking the same visual language, I'm beginning to understand.

I'll set SA Max to 42 & leave it there as soon as I close this.

And, in line with my original comment about Cad500 liking more advance than I'm offering it, I vote with Gordon for a standard 8* initial, which is what I'll set the first time it's convenient.  From what I've heard, and y'all's comments about lean cruise, I'm not sure that even 50* total will be enough.

Thanks a bunch,

Ken H.

[Bruce Hislop, Perth Communications]

Remember the ign wire contacts on the distributor are only 45* apart (360/8=45)
Since the dist turns at 1/2 Rpm,42* advance = 21* in the dist or nearly 1/2 way to the next ign wire contact. I'm thinking we could goto 10* initial and keep the rotor contact closer to the desired ign wire contact....
Or I could be all wet too.

Bruce Hislop
Perth Communications
br...@perthcomm.com
Sent from my Blackberry Curve

---

From: George Beckman <gbec...@pggp.com>

Sender: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:29:48 -0700

To: <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] Idle Spark Advance Settings

[Surbo]

Bruce;

Bruce wrote; > Since the dist turns at 1/2 Rpm,42* advance = 21* in

the dist or nearly 1/2 way to the next ign wire contact<

You better think on that again, the rotor needs to be at the next cap
contact (or close) when the next cylinder needs spark, which is 90*
crank rotation or 45* distrib rotation.

On the distrib initial setting and the SA initial setting, there would
be nothing wrong in setting the distrib (brown wire disconnected) to
10* BTDC and then setting the SA initial to 10* , and then adjust the
SA table to satisfy the engine. This should get the spark in the 50*
BTDC range. If SK shows up during a datalog, adjust the cell/s for
that MAP/rpm cell accordingly until you satisfy the SK situation.

Bob D w/GM TBI and 8* initial

On Jul 13, 7:45 pm, "Bruce Hislop, Perth Communications"

<br...@perthcomm.com> wrote:
> Remember the ign wire contacts on the distributor are only 45* apart (360/8=45)
> Since the dist turns at 1/2 Rpm,42* advance = 21* in the dist or nearly 1/2 way to the next ign wire contact. I'm thinking we could goto 10* initial and keep the rotor contact closer to the desired ign wire contact....
> Or I could be all wet too.
>
> Bruce Hislop
> Perth Communications
> br...@perthcomm.com
> Sent from my Blackberry Curve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: George Beckman <gbeck...@pggp.com>
>
> Sender: gmcm...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:29:48

> To: <gmcm...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: gmcm...@googlegroups.com

> Subject: Re: [GMCMH-EFI] Idle Spark Advance Settings
>
> I "think" the WUD adds the 6* and 8* to show us actual crank
> advance.  The limit is in the module, and the only way around that is
> to crank on the distributor.
>
> (33 words)
>
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Ken Henderson wrote:
>
> > How would SUBTRACTING 8* instead of 6* fulfill my desire for MORE
> > advance?
>
> ----
> Best Wishes,
>

> Georgehttp://www.pggp.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Gordon]

Ken;
I think there are a few additional factors for the rest of us to keep in
mind when following your tuning. You have a 23', lighter than average
26'. When you reference lean cruise, it may be important to know your
final drive ratio and/or your rpm operating range. Is your Cad500 only
500 or 510-520 from overbore? All of these little different factors can
amount to a big screw-up if someone with a heavy slug of a 26' with a
403, joins the group, towards the end of you tune. Putting your tables
on another engine might not work very well.
The need to keep referring newbies to the tweaks is important as a route
to greater initial understanding. I have followed most of the posts
carefully since day one and still re-read some several times to in order
to reset my thinking when I get lost. One day soon, I must quit my
silly job and get started on my conversion. Then you will see a lot of
questions.
Gordon

On 7/13/2010 5:22 PM, Ken Henderson wrote:
> Thanks, Randy, now that we're talking the same visual language, I'm
> beginning to understand.
>
> I'll set SA Max to 42 & leave it there as soon as I close this.
>
> And, in line with my original comment about Cad500 liking more advance
> than I'm offering it, I vote with Gordon for a standard 8* initial,
> which is what I'll set the first time it's convenient. From what I've
> heard, and y'all's comments about lean cruise, I'm not sure that even
> 50* total will be enough.
>
> Thanks a bunch,
>
> Ken H.

"There is still time to enjoy your childhood while playing in a bigger sandbox!"

[Randy Van Winkle]

Bruce,

I wrote the following back around the start of the Google Group or maybe when George and I plus you and others were using email to exchange ideas.� Thanks to Ken, we have taken our initial email exchange group to a usable format with the Google Groups.

In the following, I tried to explain why there is a physical limit of 42 degrees for the dynamic SA and the relationship between dynamic SA and Static SA:

What you see in the table is what you will get at the�
crank if the static timing is set at 6 degrees and the initial timing in�
the .bin is also set at 6 degrees. �The 6 degrees, in this example, is�
subtracted out of the calculation so what is commanded is 6 degrees less�
than you see in the table or displayed on the WUD but will be added back�
in at the crank. �Now, having said this, I have seen conflicting�
statements on this on various descriptions, including your last�
statement in this post. �Im assuming you mean that if you don't have the�
6 degrees in the initial timing parameter in the ECM you will get 48�
degrees at the crank. �The reason for having a static advance of around�
6 degrees is to help with cranking and it also comes into play during�
limp mode. �Too much SA during crank causes kick back, too little causes�
"windmilling".�

Yes, the max. spark advance is set in the program at 42 degrees�
(actually I think it is 41.9 something) and the calculated SA is checked�
against this value and changed if it exceeds.�

For the degrees of separation, we have to remember the distributor is�
turning at half the crank. �The ECM table values are displayed so that�
we understand them relative to the crank or actual advance. � So 42�
degrees is actually 21 degrees in the distributor. �I posted the�
following sometime back as a description as to how I think dynamic or�
computer controlled timing works:�

This is the area that has cost me some sleep. �There is a latency�
between the pickup and the firing. �The ECM compensates for this by�
using a latency table. �The latency table is different for different�
modules. �I think sometimes we can cause a problem if we get a module�
that has different latency than what is in the table. �Usually, not�
talking about too many degrees but as RPMs increases if the latency�
doesn't track or change properly, then # of degrees can get higher. �Off�
brand modules, such as Autozone's Duralast, can have higher latency at�
the lower RPM end so I have read.�

My understanding of dynamic timing is that the timing window is based on�
the length of time that the contact on the rotor is in proximity with�
the plug wire contact in the cap (the ECM actually deals with SA in�
terms of time -- Scanners display in terms of angular measure (degrees)�
so that we can understand the SA relative to the crank). �I think I will�
go measure this distance and calculated how many degrees this really is.�
� My guess it is close to 21 degrees (42 at the crank). �Static timing�
is added back to this dynamic timing.�

And, yes, I think we are thinking too much about this! �Although, this�
discussion has gotten me to think about "how" this acutally works versus�
just accepting that it does. �I have studied the code and this�
discussion is now making some of the code logic make more sense.�

Followed by this:�

I measured the rotor and the distributor contact area. �The rotor is�
approx.. 5/16" and the lug on a plug wire on the cap is 3/4". �The�
radius of the cap is 2" making the circumference is 12.56. �So, .75/�
12.56 = # of degrees / 360. �# of degrees = 21.5.�

Now these measurements are approximate so the actual degrees may be�
slightly different but close enough to validate my thinking that the�
reason the ECM limits the TSA to 42 is because of this measurement. �The�
latency is added to the SA after the total is calculated which makes�
sure the rotor and distributor cap lug are in position.�

� I believe this shows why there is a limit of 42 degrees on the�
commanded SA. �To get more SA (more than 42 degrees) to the crank one�
would have to increase the static and not change the initial timing�
parameter, or reduce the initial timing parameter and not change the�
static. �This is what I was trying to say earlier if I get a chance to�
play with this some.

Randy (thinking my brain runs too retarded - I need a brain advance setting)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Gordon]

Summary?
To get 50* advance, set static to 8* and leave initial at 6* in the bin?
Thanks;
Gordon

On 7/13/2010 9:15 PM, Randy Van Winkle wrote:

Bruce,

I wrote the following back around the start of the Google Group or maybe when George and I plus you and others were using email to exchange ideas.  Thanks to Ken, we have taken our initial email exchange group to a usable format with the Google Groups.

[Randy Van Winkle]

Gordon,

No, 42 max dynamic plus 8 degrees static will give you 50 degrees at the
crank provided the main spark table has been bumped to command 50 or the
lean cruise adder plus main spark table will equal 50. Right now I am
getting 47 total with my initial set to 6 both static and in the .bin
initial parameter. There is some rounding that takes place in all these
calcs so there may be +/- 1 degree in what is expected.

In your example, you would get 2 degree increase in SA across the board,
but I don't recommend using this method because now your main SA table
and your WUD will not be the same as what you get at the crank.

Randy (feeling like this is a shell game - degrees, degrees, who's got
the degrees)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Larry Davick]

This thread has got my brain leaking out my ears.

If I understand this correctly we are limited to about 45 degrees of spark advance by virtue of the way the distributor is made - the rotor only sweeps the cylinder lug for 20 something degrees. Therefore there is no way to advance the spark without moving the distributor.

But modern cars use coil packs and crank sensors. Is there value in advancing the spark beyond 50 degrees, or are we at the edge of the benefit of SA?

Of course coil packs and crank sensors might allow for a better spark. I know that Gordon has talked about the coil pack from Ford vans as being a junkyard gem (FORD?)

Does any of what i just typed make sense?

Larry Davick

[Gordon]

Thank you;
gordon

--

[Randy Van Winkle]

Larry,

I think you have it about right. We can twist the distributor to get
more initial advance which will allow more total advance.

Is 50 degrees about the limit of what we can expect in terms of
benefits? My guess is that we are. The earlier you start the flame
front the more chance you have that you will be pushing the wrong way on
the piston. Also, the more time it takes for the flame front to reach
peak pressure, the more time there is for the unburned mixture to absorb
heat and build pressure which leads to detonation. Normally, the flame
front should be a smooth burn until all the mixture is burned - not an
explosion. However, as heat and pressure builds up in the unburned
mixture, there is a chance a spot in that unburned mixture will reach a
point where it will detonate, e. g., a knock occurs. Modern engines
have cylinder and piston designs that promote a fast flame front so can
run will much less advance. Because of the faster flame front there is
less time for heat and pressure buildup, therefore less chance of
knock. Our engines, however, have a slower flame front so need more
advance. I think some of the gurus believe around 40 degrees is close
to optimum during cruise for our engines. However, George and I have
been working on lean cruise and with a lean mixture, you have a mixture
that is harder to get the flame front going therefore an even slower
flame front. We believe that you must advance the spark even more,
maybe approaching 50 degrees to get peak pressure to occur at the
optimum 14 degrees after TDC. We hope to get some test results that
will confirm what the setting should be.

Distributorless Ignition Systems (DIS) are used on modern cars because
they can provide for more precise timing. Some cylinders can benefits
from more advance than other cylinders so the DIS allows timing to be
different on each cylinder based on KS feedback. Also, no distributor,
rotor, sparkplug wires - all those things that wear out and cause
possible problems are eliminated. Coil Pack at each spark plug. I
guess that would make it more expensive, but, hey, 100,000 miles without
changing plugs - good deal.

Some put the DIS on older engines in order to get more advance - past
the around 50 something limits.

Randy (thinking my brain needs more advance - maybe I need to install a DIS)
'77 Eleganza II "403"

[Ken Henderson]

One of our wiser but less voluble members asked me an important question last night:  How does the ECM control the CCD?  More specifically, does the ECM "predict" the advance for a given cylinder based on the last time it stimulated a spark signal?  Or, does the CCD offer the maximum spark it's capable of with the ECM then sending a delay signal until it wants the spark to occur?

In other words, does the ECM command advance or retard, with the CCD, of necessity, providing the other?  Or, "What does the brown wire do?"

If that doesn't make your head hurt or your brain run out your ears, you have my admiration. :-)

Ken H.

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Randy Van Winkle <rlva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Larry,

I think you have it about right.  We can twist the distributor to get more initial advance which will allow more total advance...

[Randy Van Winkle]

My understanding is that the ECM gets the signal from the pickup coil
and uses that to send the required "advance" to the CCD. This is all
done with time. We think in terms of degrees because that was the way
it was with the old static timing and mechanical/vacuum advance
mechanisms. So advance is calculated using time with the pickup coil
being the trigger and it also used to trigger the injectors. When the
ECM starts using the pickup coil pulse, after starting, I believe the
subsequent firing is based on time. IOW...you can twist the distributor
while the engine is running and the timing will not change. However,
when you do a key off and restart, you better be close to your initial
timing or damage could occur. I wish I could find something definitive
on this subject because I'm on the edge of my understanding.

The brown wire is a 5v signal wire that tells the ECM to control
timing. With it disconnected, the ECM does not control timing and the
distributor just fires at its base static timing - based on the pickup
coil pulse. Once the brown wire is hooked up, the ECM now controls the
timing based on its tables. There is a time during cranking when the
ECM is not controlling but when certain parameters are met (RPM ??) then
the ECM takes over. Anyway, when you set static timing, you want the
brown wire disconnected so that the ECM is not trying to control the
spark, otherwise, you can't get a good initial static timing setup for
the engine.

Randy (needing to take a pill for my head)
'77 Eleganza II "403"