does any1 make an ecm for tgp's-allows more boost?

[no_doz]

i will be getting a tgp motor within the next few weeks & im interested in putting a larger turbo on it & running however much boost im going to need to achieve 300-350 crank hp (i hope to achieve this, and from what im reading from other 60*v6 guys is that this is much more reasonable than i originally thought. i know my buddy has an 87 dodge 2.2 turbo & that there are companies that make ecms that you can hook up & they will allow for up to 29 psi with some supporting mods (injectors, intercooler, exhaust, etc...) so i figured id see if anyone knows where i could find something similar for my tgp engine?

[923.4v6]

try here http://www.code59.org/index.php?opti...oard&Itemid=38

[ghrarhg]

I don't think you're going to want to run the $59 code. You'd have to re-pin your ECM and the spark tables would need changed. I asked about it a little while ago on tgpforums and was basically told it wasn't worth it.

You don't need a new ECM, all you need is a chip. If you want, check out tgpforums. There are a few people there that will burn you a chip for a reasonable price.

[Guest]

I don't think you're going to want to run the $59 code. You'd have to re-pin your ECM and the spark tables would need changed. I asked about it a little while ago on tgpforums and was basically told it wasn't worth it.

You don't need a new ECM, all you need is a chip. If you want, check out tgpforums. There are a few people there that will burn you a chip for a reasonable price.

So much misinformation.....

The only repinning I've seen that needs to be done, in a '7730 to '7749 swap is the injectors and that is only if you want to use both injector drivers in the '7749.

Ok, I guess there are two possible changes. The automatic guys need to re-pin the TCC output. Some investigation would be needed to know if this effects the '7727 or not.

Everything else stays the same.

Are you really worried about spark tables?

There are other things that would be of more concern, like fueling, and proper constant scalers selection, etc.

It took me all of about 5 minutes, maybe, to set up a starter bin for my Datsun 240Z, yes a Datsun 240Z, using a Nissan 2.8L from a 1981 or 1982 280ZX. The car started right up, and about 10 minutes of tuning for driveability and it was decent, there was still fine tuning to do, but any and every code used will need that, even "patched" $8F can use a lot of fine tuning.

$59 is a very good code, especially if you want to run over 15 PSIG and up to 30 PSIG.

[ghrarhg]

So much misinformation.....

The only repinning I've seen that needs to be done, in a '7730 to '7749 swap is the injectors and that is only if you want to use both injector drivers in the '7749.

Ok, I guess there are two possible changes. The automatic guys need to re-pin the TCC output. Some investigation would be needed to know if this effects the '7727 or not.

Everything else stays the same.

Are you really worried about spark tables?

There are other things that would be of more concern, like fueling, and proper constant scalers selection, etc.

It took me all of about 5 minutes, maybe, to set up a starter bin for my Datsun 240Z, yes a Datsun 240Z, using a Nissan 2.8L from a 1981 or 1982 280ZX. The car started right up, and about 10 minutes of tuning for driveability and it was decent, there was still fine tuning to do, but any and every code used will need that, even "patched" $8F can use a lot of fine tuning.

$59 is a very good code, especially if you want to run over 15 PSIG and up to 30 PSIG.

Well the 7727 is not quite the same. 730/749 are very similar. 7727 is not.

Pic of 730 ecm connections:


Pic of 7727 ecm connections:


more than just a couple wires.

By spark, I meant spark reference. I haven't messed with this much, but I was told the 60* vs 90* difference would be an additional problem.

Why not just run the $8F. There are people that make chips for it since that's what he's after. If he has a TGP, he's already got it. The stock code will run to 14.7 psi of boost. The stock TGP T25 isn't going to do much more than put out heat above 14.7 psi on a 3.1, people with upgraded turbos have run higher than 14.7psi, just has to be tuned correctly.

In case you do want to re-pin:

Here:

http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/quadplugecm.html

Good luck!

[Guest]

I'm aware of the differences in physical properties of the 7727. 7727 is essential an underhood version of the '7730.

I'm aware of $8F, I've used it, $59 is much better.

For those that have been able to get $8F to run successfully, as in smooth, no stalling, etc, especially in an application that it wasn't intended for took a very long time. On the flip side, most people can get $59 running very well in a matter or hours to a couple days. After that it's just the tweaking and fine tuning that many of us like to do.

There is information on using DIS with $59. Too many people think the ECM cares about what engine it's attached to, or what angle the cylinders are on, this not the case, all the ECM sees is is a DRP and then using certain scalers to determine the crank angle and calculate when the next timing pulse should be used.

$59, with is based on $58, was not only used in a v6 application, but also a 4cyl turbo application.

$58 uses a 1 BAR VE table with a boost multiplier to use above 100 KPA, $59 has a true 3 BAR ve table up to 300 KPA, allowing a much more controlled fuel delivery. There is also over 500 points on the $59 main VE table, where as there are about 80 in $8F, and again only up to 1 BAR, using multipliers to add fuel in a course manner without being able to really pull fuel in a rich spot if there is one.

There are other features that either have been added or will be added, such as true WBO2 closed loop fueling control, well organized and defined xdfs, ads, adx files, a community dedicated to the implimentation and use of $59. In the future there will be a knock gauge output (I've tested a beta version and works well, will be released soon), that will display on a Moates "O-meter", in true digit readout of how many degrees of knock there if there is any or can be used with a bar LED set-up, alky or nitrous control, and some other features that I have forgotten about.

The OPs engine will not be in a TGP, he is retrofitting into a Lumina, so I wouldn't limit to just $8F.

[ghrarhg]

I have not actually tried $59, so I'm not sure how easy it is to tune. I didn't really think that $8F was all that bad. I'm running a 5 speed, so I guess that would fall into the category of an application that it wasn't intended for.

Your 240 is running a distributor correct?

I still don't understand what misinformation I've put out. It is not as simple as switching two wires. If the OP is driving an 1st gen Lumina, it's going to be a 7727.

[Guest]

I have not actually tried $59, so I'm not sure how easy it is to tune. I didn't really think that $8F was all that bad. I'm running a 5 speed, so I guess that would fall into the category of an application that it wasn't intended for.

Your 240 is running a distributor correct?

I still don't understand what misinformation I've put out. It is not as simple as switching two wires. If the OP is driving an 1st gen Lumina, it's going to be a 7727.

I'm currently running a dizzy, but am switching to DIS, I would have been running DIS already if I hadn't ran out of time to get the car back together for a Z car show last summer, then I just wanted to drive it.

$59 has been tested in a '7727, and works fine.

Yes it really is as simple as changing one or two wires swapping to $59.

My ECM, a '7749 is actually pinned as a '7730 used in a Cavalier. I'd have to go back and look at the notes, but I believe the only difference, which is only because of the two injector drivers in the '7749 that I made was injector driver grounds and outputs. I could pin it just like the single injector driver of the '7730 and use a '7730 in place of my '7749, in fact I could pin it just like the single injector driver of the '7730 and use the '7749, I would only be using one injector driver though.

The '7727 is a very similar install, install the code and go, unless using an auto and the TCC output might need to be changed, looking on Ludis' site would clear that up by looking at the output used by $58/$59 and comparing that to what pin is used by the '7727 on this same IC output.

So please explain to me why it's not as simple as switching couple wires.

[ghrarhg]

Ok, I'll admit wiring may not be as bad as I was told now that I've looked into it. But wiring isn't the whole issue. Fuelling and Spark are issues too. With $8F, it's already set up for that engine with that ecm.I don't see how my first post was misinformation.

He will need some wiring. Spark would need to be figured out for a 60* as well as other constants for VSS and such. $8F is set up for an automatic w/TGP engine, which is what he'd be running. There are a few people that burn chips for $8F that will do exactly what he's looking for, plug and play. How is this harder than switching over to $59, and all the associated tuning etc?

There are a couple people that I can think of that burn chips for TGPs. A quick visit to the site will tell you that.

I'm not saying that $59 isn't a good code. I may even consider it for my project, but if he's running a TGP setup and a 7727, why not use the code designed for it?

[Guest]

Ok, I'll admit wiring may not be as bad as I was told now that I've looked into it. But wiring isn't the whole issue. Fuelling and Spark are issues too. With $8F, it's already set up for that engine with that ecm.I don't see how my first post was misinformation.

He will need some wiring. Spark would need to be figured out for a 60* as well as other constants for VSS and such. $8F is set up for an automatic w/TGP engine, which is what he'd be running. There are a few people that burn chips for $8F that will do exactly what he's looking for, plug and play. How is this harder than switching over to $59, and all the associated tuning etc?

There are a couple people that I can think of that burn chips for TGPs. A quick visit to the site will tell you that.

I'm not saying that $59 isn't a good code. I may even consider it for my project, but if he's running a TGP setup and a 7727, why not use the code designed for it?

Your first post was chock full of incorrect information about $59, based on what a few misinformed people on a site NOT relating to $59 wrote.

I don't ever recall saying $59 would be easier to use than a mail order $8F tune, but it can provide better results in the end, with more options.

You're making the issue MUCH larger than it needs to be.

I never said not to use $8F, just that there is better available code, for free at that, it may take a little bit of work to get perfect, but no "mail order tune" will ever be perfect anyway, as you suggest using.

The spark changes are minimal, and basically comes down to changing one constant, though there may be a couple other constants to fine tune, which is all available information with in the code59 community.

I suggest you stop and do a lot more research on what changes need to be made before you start making a big deal out of it.

If there isn't a DIS 6 cylinder bin available on the code 59 site, there will be soon enough once I get my Datsun back together where I'll be using a 660 DIS ignition set-up. The communications signals between the DIS ignition module and the dissy ignition module are the same, basically base refernce angle needs to be changed for the ECM to calculate proper crank angle and spark delivery angle.

You'd be surprised just how close the base fueling will be to run another engine.

I started with the v18-4 base bin and have only fine tuned the main VE tables after tuning the BPC table to get the gross fueling close, wich would be like adjusting for a different sized injector. (I am using 32 lbs/hr where as the base bin was for a larger V6 using 24 lbs/hr injectors) This is on a 2.8L straight 6, which when it comes to a base map would be very close to what a genII 2.8 or 3.1L 660 would need. I know what it takes to get a "wrong code" to work on a different engine, hell I know what it takes to make it run a completly different brand of engine, so I think I can say how difficult or not it will be to get something like this to work.

[ghrarhg]

I didn't mean to be a dick about this. I think we're a bit off topic now, considering what the OP asked.

At any rate, I'm actually very interested in code 59 on 660 DIS as this would be incredibly useful to many of us.

I did take a quick look at the Main Spark Table, between $59 and $8F and they are pretty close, but start to differ at the $8F's 2 bar limit. The main issues with spark that I was looking at were "Spark Ref Angle" and "Max Spark Advance/Retard Relative to Reference" as they were all pretty far off.

VE is largely different at Low RPM/Low MAP but that's easy enough. I agree that the bin I'm comparing seems like it would run pretty well off idle, but it looks like it's going to idle like crap before VE tuning.

I'm not sure how much I can help as my car is in pieces too getting a top swap, but I'd be willing to contribute as much as possible in the 660 DIS $59 once it's back together.

[Guest]

You'll learn quick that you just can't compare two bin files of different masks and assume one will work better or worse than the other.

The VE tables alone are only a factor in fueling, there are about a hundred other variables that will have effect on the final fueling, though most people will only need to adjust a few to get a well running engine. There are vaiables like BPC vs EGR, that are basically a base pulse width variable, hence "Base Pulse Constant", sort of like an injector size variable like that used in $8D.

Same goes for the main spark table, there are other tables that have an effect on what the final spark timing will be, not just base spark reference angle and the main spark table. Things like engine temp, run time, speed, etc all adjust how much fuel and spark timing are added or removed from running the engine.

Everybody that I have ever talked to or read about making thier tables in another mask look like ones that they have been using in an original mask, have had nothing but problems trying to get them to run right. This is due to differences in calculations or number of calculations, in each mask. Some masks use more variables than others.

[Superdave]

Yep, you'll have to change the major constants like spark ref angle, BPC, any VSS settings and probably a few other things. I was working on S-AUJP (modified Camaro V8 code) for my engine and have yet to get it to run. VE will have to be completely re-tuned and the SA tables could be copied from another bin. Spark and VE modifiers are the PITA with any bin as well.

Once you get into a new mask it takes quite a while to figure out all it's little routines. There are alot of common things between OBD1 programs though.

[Guest]

Yep, you'll have to change the major constants like spark ref angle, BPC, any VSS settings and probably a few other things. I was working on S-AUJP (modified Camaro V8 code) for my engine and have yet to get it to run. VE will have to be completely re-tuned and the SA tables could be copied from another bin. Spark and VE modifiers are the PITA with any bin as well.

Once you get into a new mask it takes quite a while to figure out all it's little routines. There are alot of common things between OBD1 programs though.

I think yours is a bad example since it was hard to get running on $A1, which was "made for the application", or as close as would be.

I really don't recommend "copying SA tables from another mask" due to the different calculations used by each. I've tried explaining this to you, to start with the basic needed changes to scalers, but leave the tables alone until you actualy hit the key. Then use the BPS vs EGR, or in the case of S_AUJP, adjust the "SETUP-injector size" until you get a decent idle AFR, which should be close to the actual injector size, if not some adjustment to the VE table will be needed to allow you to get the actual injector size in this field. In S_AUJP, the larger the injector constant the shorter the injector PW.

I'm also using S_AUJP in a "non-stock" application, a 365 (a smaller version of a 409), with a custom MPFI intake manifold, in a 1967 Chev truck. It started and ran just fine with just a couple adjustments.

You guys need to not think about this so deepely and only make small changes, or none, you'll be surprised how little it really take, when you adjust the right parameters.