DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, 24 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 057 In this issue: RE: 1999 truck PCM's ROM Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: Av gas Re: carb and porting heads Re: Av gas Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: Carbon pistons?. Re: Ford IAC Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: Bosch ecu question Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: Av gas Re: dual spray injectors Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: Carbon pistons?. PROMs and Copyrights... Resolution. Fw: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM EFI questions See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ian Jones" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:08:17 -0000 Subject: RE: 1999 truck PCM's ROM There are methods to read in situ but not the way you are suggesting doing it. Your EPROM reader will supply 5V to the whole board and the processor will start driving lines your EPROM reader is driving. Not good. What processor is in the unit? Ian www.cobi.demon.co.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu > [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Jake > Sternberg > Sent: 23 January 1999 17:15 > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: 1999 truck PCM's ROM > > > > I have a PCM (powertrain Control Module a.k.a. ECM) > from a 1999 GMC sierra pickup truck. The connectors > are almost bigger than the circuitboard itself. > > Well, anyway.. i have it open, and here's the info > from the flash ROM chip: > > Intel > 16236995 > AB28F400BX > E 5012 > U7400142Q > Flash > > 44 pins > > It's a surface mount device, but i plan to solder > little wires to it and to a connector so i can > plug it into my ROM burner (while it's in vivo). > > Does anyone have any suggestions or information > as to whether this could be a bad idea or has > anyone done it? I asked GM for a PCM programmer > kit but surprisingly, they refused to give me one. > > Thanks! > > -jake chickens@xxx.edu > ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:14:18 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... At 02:50 AM 1/24/99 -0500, you wrote: >Okay, so what about free-distribution then? If I buy a chip from ADS, make >copies of it and then give them to friends with the same car, there must be >some "illegality" in that since these guys are benefitting from ADS' >expertise but ADS is getting nothing from it...even if I didn't make a >profit from it. Basically, it's not my firmware to copy and distribute >(freely or not), right? But change the PromID and it's yours to sell etc. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:31:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Av gas At 12:24 AM 1/24/99 -0700, you wrote: >I use nothing but AVGAS 100LL fuel in my '85 Corvette and on occasion in my >supercharged truck for towing in the summer. Think of it as Turbo Blue, >but much cheaper! ($1.56 a gallon) > >When running it in your computer controller car, make sure you use a lead >tolerant O2 sensor. Otherwise a brand new non-lead tolerant 02 sesonr will >die in just under 1 tank of gas. (I went thru a few of them before my lead >tollerant o2 sensor arrived) I run AVGAS in the Vette because of my high >12.4 compression. Mix that with 110+ degree days, and NO pump gas will work. I had always heard that, but ran the 100LL in my 85 Buick GN for 4 years on a stock AC O2 sensor with no failures. I was paying 1.83/gal in Bryan, TX. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:59:48 -0500 Subject: Re: carb and porting heads - -----Original Message----- From: Carmine Nicoletta To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 2:00 AM Subject: carb and porting heads Get a copy of the installation instructions for the GM HO 350 retrofit, they are/were available seperately. It gives the part no. for the ecm you want, chip no, KS + ESC module. Then buy Doug Roe's Q-Jet book, the stock jetting even for a stock engine stinks, IMHO.. Bruce >I'm contemplating porting the cylinder heads of my 305 >(84 TA 5.0L HO engine, 4bl Quadrajet carb). What effect >would this have on the stock settings for the carb? >Would the ECM PROM need to be changed? Any pointer would >be appreciated. Thanks. > >Carmine > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:05:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Av gas - -----Original Message----- From: David A. Cooley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 9:41 AM Subject: Re: Av gas It must vary some by refinery. There are just too many different opinions, about sensor life, and actual results. While they might have x grams of lead, they add whatever else they want to the brew. Bruce snipped below >>When running it in your computer controller car, make sure you use a lead >>tolerant O2 sensor. Otherwise a brand new non-lead tolerant 02 sesonr will >>die in just under 1 tank of gas. > >I had always heard that, but ran the 100LL in my 85 Buick GN for 4 years on >a stock AC O2 sensor with no failures. David Cooley N5XMT ------------------------------ From: "Ord Millar" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:33:23 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... I recently read something posted by an aftermarket developer who claimed that it was illegal to distribute parts of the original code on his chips. His solution was to only override some parts (mostly data values), and let the untouched parts run from the ECU's EEPROM. I would guess that it depends on whether or not I already had a factory ECU with the same code in it. Would Hypertech have been allowed to sell chips with copies of GM code to people who didn't already have GM ECUs with the same code in them? (Kind of moot, since no one else would normally want it). I remember hearing about a copyright case a while ago (but for PC software), where the deciding issue ended up being the percentage of bytes that were different from the original. Ord - -----Original Message----- From: Mike To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 3:56 AM Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... >> >>I can tell you (as a past Hypertech employee) that copying the stock binary, >>making changes, and then selling it as your own work is NOT illegal. This >>has been a legal issue of long debate. Once the binary is modified, it is >>no longer copyrighted material. Re-selling of non-modified binaries IS >>illegal, however. >> > ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:59:21 -0700 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... >>I've long suspected that companies like G-Force, Dinan, Hypertech, ADS, JET >>et al cannot possibly all have agreements with all of the car companies >>whose PROMs they tweak...or do they? Somehow it seems unlikely that GM or >>BMW or Volkswagen would disclose to them technical information about their >>systems and what to modify. But how else would, say, Hypertech come out >with >>the Hypertech programmer for LT1s without such insider information so soon >>after the new cars ('Vette, Impala SS etc) were released? >> >>I know in the big scheme of things that this is really pretty small >potatoes >>but it has sorta bugged me for a bit. >> >>Any opinions? Any knowledge? > >I can tell you (as a past Hypertech employee) that copying the stock binary, >making changes, and then selling it as your own work is NOT illegal. This >has been a legal issue of long debate. Once the binary is modified, it is >no longer copyrighted material. Re-selling of non-modified binaries IS >illegal, however. > >To answer your question directly, it would be my guess that to display, >dissect, explain, or otherwise USE the stock image isn't illegal, but to >sell it would be. There's no such thing as plagiarism on binary data... >modify just a byte, and then you can call it your own. I'm sure things get >more complicated when you deal with commercial software that has user >interfaces and so forth... then the images and interface could be protected, >I'd assume. Otherwise, you would see hack programs like "Microsoftish >Words" selling for 10 cents on the dollar of the original program, with all >the functionality. > >And, Hypertech doesn't get any "inside information" from the manufacturers. >Time to market on new factory releases is only possible by purchasing the >first car in town of that model, getting started immediately, and working >hard. Unforeseen technical challenges on selected models will always hurt >time to market, of course. > >-Brock Thanks, Brock--good stuff for all to know and be aware of! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 09:03:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Carbon pistons?. >On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > >> Key word would normally be Carbon Fiber, what messes that up is >> licensed by NASA. >> >> >Anyone have any idea what a set of these things would cost? >> >:P >> >Ben > >An interesting patent is 4683809, available from IBM {pictures, text as a >graphic] and the PTO [text in ascII] > >a carbon-carbon piston does not need rings because of negligable [1/40 of >Al] heat expansion. Is this in the patent--(no rings)--it sounds as though, with expansion this low, it would expand less than the bore, and thus get looser when warmed up, thus giving pretty spectacular blow-by if no rings??? Regards, Greg > > >4546669 covers a fiber-reinforced synthetic con rod. ------------------------------ From: Mike Brown Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 11:08:16 -0800 Subject: Re: Ford IAC Robert, I don't what model Ford IAM that is used on the Edelbrock ProFlo other than it is a Ford Unit. I think it may even have a Ford partnumber on it. I can only tell you how the ProFlo unit deals with it. Its DC resistance is 8.6 ohms and driven from a hi current driver very simular to an injector driver. It is driven with a duty cycle modulated pulse. The total period is always 6.7ms When current is applied to the coil and the shuttle value is pulled back it lets more air in. As it is returned back past center less air passes. The duty of the pulse varies as needed to get to the desired target RPM. Hope this is of some help, mike Robert Harris wrote: > > Looking for specific information on the IAC used by Ford on its TBI pickups. > We have one in hand and are moving on a project using it. > > It appears to be a solenoid operated ( like an injector ) device that opens > closes a shuttle valve. The amount of time open appears to control the air > flow. > > Needed is particulars so we can build a controller. Namely - coil impedance, > frequency range - pulses per second, and pulse widths. Any information on > flow rates would also be appreciated. > > Its part of the Deviant Dark Sides plans to resurrect old technology, claim it > as our own and become list heroes. > > On a similar note, need an exhaust manifold for Christine - did any year big > car 460 have an oxygen bung built in - hate to weld on in myself. > > 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" > 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" > 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant > 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" > > Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:42:52 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... I think that if the GM really wanted too, they could totally cripple the aftermarket prom industry (for GM cars anyway). GM has attorneys on staff (probably hundreds if not thousands). How many aftermarket chip companies could go up against that? My guess is that GM does not pursue the aftermarket chip companies because it would make for really bad PR. Just my opinion. As for reversing engineering and displaying your results. It's probably not really illegal, but if you were to receive a summons that GM was going to sue you in civil court to force you to cease and desist...would you fight it? And if you would, how long would you fight it for? In such an instance, it all boils down to who has more money to spend and/or lose. A sad fact in our "sue happy" society. - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:03:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... > > I think that if the GM really wanted too, they could totally cripple > the aftermarket prom industry (for GM cars anyway). GM has > attorneys on staff (probably hundreds if not thousands). How > many aftermarket chip companies could go up against that? > > My guess is that GM does not pursue the aftermarket chip > companies because it would make for really bad PR. Just > my opinion. > > As for reversing engineering and displaying your results. It's > probably not really illegal, but if you were to receive a summons > that GM was going to sue you in civil court to force you to cease > and desist...would you fight it? And if you would, how long would > you fight it for? In such an instance, it all boils down to who has > more money to spend and/or lose. A sad fact in our "sue happy" > society. and with the net you could just forward 100s of copiies to others who could also forward it until GM could never possibly send a desist order to all parties involved Clive > > -Mike > > ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:16:06 -0600 Subject: Re: Bosch ecu question (off list) John Andrianakis wrote: > Most of the time I deal with Magneti Marelli ecus and some Weber. Hi John, I'm looking for a Magneti Marelli ECU to replace (upgrade) the one used in my Edelbrock ProFlow and another to scavange parts from. It uses an HC11 w/ 32K rom and 4 seq. injector drivers. I would like to find one with an HC12, HC16, or 68332 and 8 injector outputs. Any ideas where I can find such an animal(s), ie. what cars use them? Thanks in advance. Tom Sharpe ------------------------------ From: Orin Eman Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 14:05:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... > I think that if the GM really wanted too, they could totally cripple > the aftermarket prom industry (for GM cars anyway). GM has > attorneys on staff (probably hundreds if not thousands). How > many aftermarket chip companies could go up against that? > My guess is that GM does not pursue the aftermarket chip > companies because it would make for really bad PR. Just > my opinion. Yes, bad PR and bad for sales... there is a segment of the market that considers the availability of 'performance enhancing' chips a factor in what vehicle to purchase. If GM stomp out the chip vendors, and without a doubt they could, then they lose this segment of the market. So I think they are busy looking the other way. As far as copyright is concerned, my guess (IANAL etc.) is that it is technically illegal to sell a chip containing modified GM code - it would be a derivative work. Just changing a few bytes or tables isn't sufficient... However, GM would be hard pressed to prove any actual damages. After all, you need their hardware to run the code! Now if someone was to sell their own hardware with GM code, I would expect GM to stop them. Orin. ------------------------------ From: Doug Bazarnic Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:14:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Av gas >I had always heard that, but ran the 100LL in my 85 Buick GN for 4 years on >a stock AC O2 sensor with no failures. >I was paying 1.83/gal in Bryan, TX. An old dirty O2 sensor will work for quite awhile due to the soot build up. However, when using a new one, the lead instantly coats it, thereby ruining it. I was using my stock '85 o2 sensor until I dropped an intake valve and sent oil and coolant down the pipes. It didn't work after that. :) Doug Bazarnic >=========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. >=========================================================== > ------------------------------ From: John Andrianakis Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:57:37 +0200 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors Ord Millar wrote: > > Hi - I am just returning to the list; I was previously a lurker here but other interests got in the way for a while. > > Does anyone know where I can find some injectors that spray two cones? > Alternately, how about an injector where the spray is at a small (15 degree) angle relative to the body? > Or, in a perfect world, one that does both? (Two cones, at an angle). > Worst case, I can try to work with some sort of deflector. > > I am working on a project to deliver fuel at both valves on a multi-valve head. > > Thanks, > > Ord Bosch has various injectors that spray two cones, I seen thm on BMW multi valve engines. What sort of flow rating are you looking for? John Andrianakis. ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 18:57:19 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... > >Yes, bad PR and bad for sales... there is a segment of the market >that considers the availability of 'performance enhancing' chips >a factor in what vehicle to purchase. If GM stomp out the chip >vendors, and without a doubt they could, then they lose this >segment of the market. > But GM has demonstrated that it's not really *that* interested in that segment with the demise of the Impala SS and the rumored demise soon of the Camaro and Firebird - arguably the main carlines that involved any aftermarket computer "chipping" at all. I think more Trans-Am buyers will tweak their computers than, say, Park Avenue owners. Chip modifications have been around for quite some time, since the mid-80s at least and GM apparently showed no interest in all of that time period to do anything about "hacked" PROMs. I should ask myself "Why would they (or any carmaker for that matter?) all of a sudden express an interest to stop hobby-hackers?" In the early going (mid to late 80s), the outfits making money from GM PROMs (the Hypertechs and ADSs etc, etc) were small in size and numbers and GM could have leveraged it's not-inconsiderable legal clout to close down such upstarts in a wink but chose, for whatever reason, not to. Maybe that's evidence of tacit approval? Or maybe they had no legal way to do it? Maybe things have changed in the legal field since the 80s vis a vis firmware protection under copyright law? Keep in mind that one of the tennets of OBD-II was non-removable "PROMs" - that is, program/calibration memories that were not socketed so replacement with higher-emission "performance" PROMs was, except for a vanishingly small number of owners who are skilled in electronics, out of the question. But this was not the choice of GM (I'm quite certain they'd have been happy not having to re-engineer their entire powertrain control computer line) but rather politicians. >So I think they are busy looking the other way. Apparently so. I guess all makers are looking that way since none of the majors (that I know of) have mounted legal challenges to chippers. Maybe you're right when you said above about the "market segment". I think of Ford Motorsports, for instance: They *must* be aware that modules exist to enhance EEC-IV systems but they don't seem to mind. In fact, they may see such modules as encouraging the purchase of stuff from their own shelves. > >As far as copyright is concerned, my guess (IANAL etc.) is that >it is technically illegal to sell a chip containing modified GM >code - it would be a derivative work. Just changing a few bytes >or tables isn't sufficient... > That's what _I_ think too. But I've looked at an ADS chip for an '88 Z24 (P4) compared to the ATZA OEM chip and they really did not change a whole lot of stuff yet they sell (sold?) the thing for quite a tidy sum. Apparently, GM saw no reason to intercede... >However, GM would be hard pressed to prove any actual damages. After all, >you need their hardware to run the code! Sort of the ultimate hardware key :) > >Now if someone was to sell their own hardware with GM code, I >would expect GM to stop them. > Looking at traditional GM code, I'd say that for that hardware to work with GM PROMs, it'd have to be designed pretty-much trace-for-trace the same as the GM ECM since the code is so deeply integrated with the hardware, which certainly would be grounds for an "Ahem...what do you think you're doing?" letter. - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:28:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Carbon pistons?. - -> a carbon-carbon piston does not need rings because of negligable - -> [1/40 of Al] heat expansion. Sure. Same with a properly designed and fitted cast iron piston. However, the tapered skirt at the bottom and rings on the top dramatically reduce cylinder wall friction. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 10:25:00 -0500 Subject: PROMs and Copyrights... - -> I can tell you (as a past Hypertech employee) that copying the stock - -> binary, making changes, and then selling it as your own work is NOT - -> illegal. This has been a legal issue of long debate. Once the - -> binary is modified, it is no longer copyrighted material. Re-selling - -> of non-modified binaries IS illegal, however. By US law copying, modifying, and reselling code is a Federal crime. Several states also have anti-hacking and anti-piracy laws that cover this. Hypertech and others get away with their practices because the OEMs have chosen, for whatever reasons, not to take them to court. There aren't any Copyright Police looking around for violations; GM or Ford or whoever has to set the ball rolling. Just because Hypertech and others are not being prosecuted doesn't make what they're doing legal - all any OEM would have to do is file, and it would an open-and-shut rubber stamp trial. There are ample precedents on the subject of piracy of ROM code - IBM, Apple, and Phoenix BIOS all filed suit against code pirates and won. I've discussed this subject with several chip vendors, who all seem to engage in the same kind of wishful thinking as Hypertech. Personally, I don't think the chip vendors are hurting anyone, and by some lights they might even be doing the OEMs a favor. But the law says what the chip vendors are doing is unlawful and actionable, and pretending it isn't is merely self delusion. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ From: "Espen Hilde" Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 01:45:25 +0100 Subject: Resolution. Hi ! Seeking a good solution to high powered streetable engines......some questions pops up.... Where is the weak link in the Efi system when it comes to resolution? MAP SENSOR: Going from 1 to 2bar halfs the resolution....3bar even worse. Is staging map sensors a posibility? 0 to 5 volts : how acurate can the ecm measure the input from the sensors? Is 0 to 10 v better? or frequensy? ECM: Computers ability . INJECTORS:Huge injectors on idle or high rpm must give bad resolution. How fine can they do their task? To expand the range of the system we have some options,Using staged injectors,peak and hold drivers, sequential efi and increasing rate fuel pressure regulator. When triggering the injector just once insted of two each revolution you have a better chance of avoiding to be in the non linear part of injector delivery at small opening times.And one longer time means more acurate than two small?Batch fier is once each revolution isnt it? Is it possible to say what maximum injector that can be used with a reasonable idle resolution? Is there some good info on this aria anywhere? Espen Hilde ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:21:07 -0500 Subject: Fw: PROMs and Copyrights... What I've heard is the the auto industry was to make all the code available to anyone wanting to develope a diagnostic tool that would be compatible with automotive computers. The EPA and GM are still hassling it out (since 81). Key words were anyone, and diagnostic tools. So if they went after someone, then the EPA issue would have to be settled, and even gm has limits to who it will fight. So rather than have to give it all away, they perfer to tie it up, and just let sleeping dogs lie. Bruce >I think that if the GM really wanted too, they could totally cripple >the aftermarket prom industry (for GM cars anyway). GM has >attorneys on staff (probably hundreds if not thousands). How >many aftermarket chip companies could go up against that? ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:30:37 -0500 Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Guenther,Max wrote: > > >On Jan 21, 11:49pm, James Ballenger wrote: > >Great scott! Please keep me up-to-date on this project. I want to FI a big > >Poncho myself when I have the time to do the same. > > > >--andrew > > > >I'd really rather have a Buick. I was thinking a Buick 455 and two GM TBI on > > a dual quad intake. Just make some adapters from four bbl to TBI's and GM > >HEI's are still available for that engine (junk yard). Now for the > >PROM........... > >Max > > I've got a 455 Buick in my 79 monte. When EFI conversion time comes, it includes an Edelbrock 4 bbl intake and 8 injectors. It's been a long time plan, and the car is now dissappearing in NE road salt. But when the time comes, that's what it gets. Was just thinking yesterday that the switch pitch converter should be connected to tcc control , and detent solenoid should remain manual control. BTW, 350 Buick HEI works, but must use drive gear from 455 points dizzy. Shannen ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:48:32 -0500 Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > > Clarence Wood wrote: > > > > Please give more information on "motor-vac". How does it work? How much does it cost? Where do you get it? > > > > Thanks, > > Clarence > > > > At 06:40 PM 1/21/99 -0500, you wrote: > > (snip)>I don't know if it acts as a sponge or what, but the presence / absence > > >of carbon on the intake valves makes a SIGNIFICANT difference in > > >driveability. The 3.0 litre V6 in my aerostar had a BAD stumble off idle > > >when partly warmed up - to the point that on a cold day if I fired it up > > >and drove to the corner down the street it would invariably stall when > > >pulling away unless I floored it. Tried everything. Finally used a > > >"motor-vac" on it, which does an excellent job of decarbonizing - and > > >it's been perfect since. > > > > > > > It is a fuel system / engine cleaner unit that connects to the car and > draws a calibrated amount of fuel into itself. You add a very > concentrated cleaner to the gas, which is then tun through the system, > from the filter forward under pressure. You run the engine through a > cycle with this beasy connected and the intake valves, cyls, lines, and > injectors are clean enough you couls eat off of them. I was a doubter > myself 'till my brother called me and said they needed a guinea pig for > the distributor to demonstrate the gizmo on - and knowing my AeroScare > was misbehaving, and he could not fix it. > Never know it was the same truck. > The unit is expensive - several thousand if I remember correctly, and my > brother has not bought one - yet. Apparently they are also "rotunda" > branded and sold to Ford dealers - and sold under several other brand > names. About the same size as an antifreeze recycler or bar fridge. Just to add a little to this, I used to do motor-vacs in the shop I worked in. They worked great, but recommended price was about $80.00. They are made by a co. owned by Snap-on. Anyone interested can search on the web, there's a page for them somewhere. Now for the good stuff... The special cleaner was similar to GM Top Engine Cleaner. So similar that we saved a bundle by switching to it! Concetration that seemed to work best was 1/2 can to 5 gals gas. Machine was simple 12V pump, tank, mechanically adjustable pressure regulator, and timer. So the DIY'ers can easily make one! Hardest part is making hoses to connect to FI system. If you play your cards right, the whole thing could be done for very little $$. Shannen ------------------------------ From: "ron.boley" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:55:42 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Mike wrote: The bigger question on copying and modifying the OEM code is who out here does emissions testing on the final results? The OEM's spend huge $$$ on testing and I suspect are on the hook for any changes that effect emissions. Do any aftermarket tuners who make PROM changes recertify the cars or even test for emissions? The thought of the trying to stand your ground with state and local Environmental Groups/Associations, the EPA would make anyone pale. Ron > > > > >Yes, bad PR and bad for sales... there is a segment of the market > >that considers the availability of 'performance enhancing' chips > >a factor in what vehicle to purchase. If GM stomp out the chip > >vendors, and without a doubt they could, then they lose this > >segment of the market. > > > > But GM has demonstrated that it's not really *that* interested in that > segment with the demise of the Impala SS and the rumored demise soon of the > Camaro and Firebird - arguably the main carlines that involved any > aftermarket computer "chipping" at all. I think more Trans-Am buyers will > tweak their computers than, say, Park Avenue owners. > > Chip modifications have been around for quite some time, since the mid-80s > at least and GM apparently showed no interest in all of that time period to > do anything about "hacked" PROMs. I should ask myself "Why would they (or > any carmaker for that matter?) all of a sudden express an interest to stop > hobby-hackers?" > > In the early going (mid to late 80s), the outfits making money from GM PROMs > (the Hypertechs and ADSs etc, etc) were small in size and numbers and GM > could have leveraged it's not-inconsiderable legal clout to close down such > upstarts in a wink but chose, for whatever reason, not to. Maybe that's > evidence of tacit approval? Or maybe they had no legal way to do it? Maybe > things have changed in the legal field since the 80s vis a vis firmware > protection under copyright law? > > Keep in mind that one of the tennets of OBD-II was non-removable "PROMs" - > that is, program/calibration memories that were not socketed so replacement > with higher-emission "performance" PROMs was, except for a vanishingly small > number of owners who are skilled in electronics, out of the question. But > this was not the choice of GM (I'm quite certain they'd have been happy not > having to re-engineer their entire powertrain control computer line) but > rather politicians. > > >So I think they are busy looking the other way. > > Apparently so. I guess all makers are looking that way since none of the > majors (that I know of) have mounted legal challenges to chippers. Maybe > you're right when you said above about the "market segment". I think of Ford > Motorsports, for instance: They *must* be aware that modules exist to > enhance EEC-IV systems but they don't seem to mind. In fact, they may see > such modules as encouraging the purchase of stuff from their own shelves. > > > > >As far as copyright is concerned, my guess (IANAL etc.) is that > >it is technically illegal to sell a chip containing modified GM > >code - it would be a derivative work. Just changing a few bytes > >or tables isn't sufficient... > > > > That's what _I_ think too. > > But I've looked at an ADS chip for an '88 Z24 (P4) compared to the ATZA OEM > chip and they really did not change a whole lot of stuff yet they sell > (sold?) the thing for quite a tidy sum. Apparently, GM saw no reason to > intercede... > > >However, GM would be hard pressed to prove any actual damages. After all, > >you need their hardware to run the code! > > Sort of the ultimate hardware key :) > > > > >Now if someone was to sell their own hardware with GM code, I > >would expect GM to stop them. > > > > Looking at traditional GM code, I'd say that for that hardware to work with > GM PROMs, it'd have to be designed pretty-much trace-for-trace the same as > the GM ECM since the code is so deeply integrated with the hardware, which > certainly would be grounds for an "Ahem...what do you think you're doing?" > letter. > > -- > Mike ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 20:00:12 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Dave Williams wrote: > > By US law copying, modifying, and reselling code is a Federal crime. > Several states also have anti-hacking and anti-piracy laws that cover > this. > > Hypertech and others get away with their practices because the OEMs > have chosen, for whatever reasons, not to take them to court. There > aren't any Copyright Police looking around for violations; GM or Ford or > whoever has to set the ball rolling. > > Just because Hypertech and others are not being prosecuted doesn't make > what they're doing legal - all any OEM would have to do is file, and it > would an open-and-shut rubber stamp trial. There are ample precedents > on the subject of piracy of ROM code - IBM, Apple, and Phoenix BIOS all > filed suit against code pirates and won. > There is a additional issue here. IBM, Apple, and all of them the others were copying and putting someone elses prom with their own hardware. I don't think IBM or Apple would have messed with someone taking one of their proms changing it and reselling it so long as 1 IBM or Apple prom was bought for each one sold, ie a license for the original code. And each piece of GM hardware you would suppose would have one license to run the GM code included with it. Now if one of the aftermarket companies made their own computer (or copyied someone elses) and were making those and selling them with GM (or someome elses code) then things would be pretty clear. The derivative work works so long as the person making the derivative has the proper number of licesnes for all of his derivatives sold. In most of the aftermarket prom business that is the case. > I've discussed this subject with several chip vendors, who all seem to > engage in the same kind of wishful thinking as Hypertech. > > Personally, I don't think the chip vendors are hurting anyone, and by > some lights they might even be doing the OEMs a favor. But the law says > what the chip vendors are doing is unlawful and actionable, and > pretending it isn't is merely self delusion. > > ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== > I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? > my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? > =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm > > ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:43:25 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... >My guess is that GM does not pursue the aftermarket chip >companies because it would make for really bad PR. Just >my opinion. Aside from the bad PR, it would be bad for sales. Let's say that they kill the aftermarker "speed chips", but Ford doesn't. Are you going to buy a Camaro or a Mustang? Ray ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:35:47 -0500 Subject: Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM Jake Sternberg wrote: > I asked GM for a PCM programmer > kit but surprisingly, they refused to give me one. > > Thanks! > > -jake chickens@xxx.edu A PCM Programmer kit?? What are you trying to get? Shannen ------------------------------ From: dzorde@xxx.com (dzorde) Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 19:03:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: EFI questions Hi everyone, Been a while since I've had any questions so here goes. Finally got around to fitting an O2 sensor to my car (can say that on avgas it still works after 20+ hrs of operation). This car has a Wolf 3D running the engine using MAP, TPS and associated temp sensors. Anyway my car has always been running with bright white tail pipes, hence I figured it was lean. With the O2 I have found something I can't explain. The O2 is always around 0.82V going to 0.9V+ when accelerating (seems very rich), however car runs beautifully. If you lean of the fuel maps to reduce the O2 readings the car just won't run, seems like complete fuel starvation as soon as you touch the accelerator (even tried hardwiring the heated O2 shell to the -ve battery terminal to ensure the voltage wasn't floating or anything stupid). Why can the car only run when rich (had it on a real gas analyser and it said very rich as well) ? Is it the high compression 12.8:1 (or so) ? Another question, because the system is speed density, when you back of the accelerator the engine unloads and picks fuel delivery for its new suited map point (lower load range) causing the O2 to read almost 0V (very lean). Is this normal for a speed density system ? It seems correct to me as the injection is based on looking up a base value in the map, but it doesn't seem very healthy for the engine to lean of everytime you back of. I have been thinking this could be why I have white tailpipes as the car is spending most of its time on and off the gas when racing. Lots of questions, but this one has me puzzled. rgds Dan dzorde@xxx.au ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #57 **************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi".