200% duty cycle on injectors

[89S10_Project]

Folks-

I've just been able to pull data for the first time with Tunerpro RT (registration payment is going out tonight, thanks Mark!). In doing so, I see that my injector duty cycle is at 180-200%, and my spark advance settings are all over the place in a regular "sweep" from 4 degrees to off the chart.

I can post the take from my logging session later today, or you can find it here: http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/showthread.php?5697-IT-Guy-gearhead-dipping-my-toe-back-in-the-GM-EFI-world&p=60621&viewfull=1#post60621

I replaced the 4.3L V6 with a 5.7 V8, and as you know the injectors appear identical. I did replace the computer and chip, as well. I am reasonably certain that the chip is factory, for a 5.7 Auto application.

About all I can come up with is I pulled a stupid and put the 4.3 injectors in the 5.7, but I would imagine they'd only be taxed to about 133% of duty cycle - and even that seems impossible. These injectors are rated at percent of time they are on- one would expect that 100% of the time would be the absolute maximum- can't be open 6 seconds out of every 3. Or am I misunderstanding this?

What else could make this occur?

I'm using a definition I pulled off of code59.com , will rerun the test tonight with a code pulled out of the Tunerpro site. It was about midnight when I finally got my DIY USB cable working, so I didn't pursue the issue too far.

[89S10_Project]

Mods, can you please move this to the "GM EFI tuning" section?

My fault, didn't realize this was the Tunerpro section (despite it clearly saying exactly that). Because, dumb....

[lionelhutz]

Duty cycle can only be 0-100%.

There is a mismatch between the adx and the mask.

[89S10_Project]

Please advise, proper ADX and mask for a 1989 5.7l Chevy smallblock, TBI injection, and a 700R4 transmission, with 1227747 ECM?

[Nasty-Z]

Duty cycle can only be 0-100%.

There is a mismatch between the adx and the mask.

This is what I mentioned last night to Phil on the phone , Definitely an ADX/ECM mismatch or a data logging problem with the connection / cable or both causing mis construed data to be read by T/P.

Here is the 7747 ECM thread with everything needed in the thread : http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/showthread.php?304-1227747-ECM-Information-42

TOM

[89S10_Project]

Yep, that's where I got my defs and so on from... will delete all and start over.

I understand there are color codes on the injectors- does this refer to the sleeve on the connection, or is there somewhere else? I plan on pulling the injectors this evening and comparing to a chart (that I'll hopefully be able to find on the Internet) to verify proper injectors.

I've already located a set of takeouts on ebay for cheap, just in case.

[89S10_Project]

At this point I'm not even sure of the ECM I have in my truck. I can't recall if I had a 7747 and ended up replacing it with an 8062 which plugged right in to the existing harness, or vice versa. But pulling the darn thing out from under the dash is super easy. What information do I need to pull off of the labels thereupon in order to ensure I am dealing with the correct defs file and etc?

EDIT: looking in the library, I see the following:



$4E


1228062


4E.xdf (http://tunerpro.net/download/bindefs/GM/4E.xdf)


4E.ads (http://tunerpro.net/download/datastreams/GM/4E.ads)


88-93 2.8 V6 TBI (VIN R) LL2
88-91 4.3 V6 TBI (VIN Z) LB4 w/ Auto (S & T body)
(ADS by Robert Saar)





This truck was built as an 89 S-10 Blazer with the 4.3L V6, Vin "Z". So it must have been a 1228062 ECU.

Truck now has a 5.7 TBI, engine is a 94 GM crate Gen II 350, was running in a 89 C1500 in front of a 700R4 IIRC. I was given (by a most generous friend! :) ) an ECM with chip and everything, ready to plug in. This was 2 years ago, and knowing his eye to detail I'd be very surprised if it wasn't exactly what I needed as I'd already told him what my plan was and he's done a few of these sort of things.

Sooo, pretty darn sure the ECM presently in the truck is a 1227747. Can we confirm that the 1228062 and the 1227747 are wiremap-compatible? I know the connectors fit right in like they're made for it, but that doesn't mean they'rfe all going the same places. This may be our problem.

Worth noting, but I SERIOUSLY doubt this is the problem: I ended up extending the harness from the ECM to the engine by 2' to reroute for heat concerns. I did this by snipping one wire at a time, soldering with high-grade electrical (ie, tin/lead, rosin core) solder, and heatshrinking each with marine-grade tubing. I only did one wire at a time, and the shrink extends past each connection by 1" each side. I solder to Milspec and I've literally soldered stuff for Navy combat systems and have been soldering since I was 9. My solder joints aren't the problem, guaranteed.

[89S10_Project]

(Ya'll pardon me as I mumble to myself in the corner, here....)

Did a quick bit of research, and the answer appears to be here:

http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/showthread.php?4079-89-Chevy-S10-4-3-change-from-1228062-ECM-to-1227747-ECM

That link seems to infer that yes, the 1228062 and 1227747 ECM are interchangeable.....

But it also mentions something else, and something that is gonna make Tom grin and say "I TOLD YOU SO, DUMMY!"....

The 7427 is an easy repin of the connector, and MUCH mmore tuneable. Can someone please help me out here with instructions, sources, etc... I'll be googling for a 7427, in the meantime.... will post what I find here for my own memory and the benefit of those coming after.....

[Nasty-Z]

But it also mentions something else, and something that is gonna make Tom grin and say "I TOLD YOU SO, DUMMY!"....

The 7427 is an easy repin of the connector, and MUCH mmore tuneable. Can someone please help me out here with instructions, sources, etc... I'll be googling for a 7427, in the meantime.... will post what I find here for my own memory and the benefit of those coming after.....

Told you so ....:innocent2:

Although not a repin of the 7747 conector(s) , you will need the connectors from the 7427 as they use (2) 32 pin connectors whereas the 7747 uses a 32 and 28 pin .

Call me or text later tonight , i'll look around , probably have something to help you out :jfj:

TOM

[89S10_Project]

OK I have removed the ECM from the truck and can confirm it is indeed a 1227747 unit. However, it's a NAPA refurb (really doubt this matters, though).

What should I check to ensure proper MEMCAL, chip, etc? I am assuming that since the thing runs (though poorly) it is indeed correct. But I'm also rapidly realizing I know didly-all when it comes to EFI...

[Nasty-Z]

OK I have removed the ECM from the truck and can confirm it is indeed a 1227747 unit. However, it's a NAPA refurb (really doubt this matters, though).

What should I check to ensure proper MEMCAL, chip, etc? I am assuming that since the thing runs (though poorly) it is indeed correct. But I'm also rapidly realizing I know didly-all when it comes to EFI...

What are the 4 letters on the sticker of the larger of the two chips ?

TOM

[89S10_Project]

What are the 4 letters on the sticker of the larger of the two chips ?

TOM
There's a carrier atop it but I can just make out "ARJT"

[89S10_Project]

A quick bit of research - http://www.ebay.com/itm/CHIPS-ARJT-350-TBI-700R4-ECM-1227747-CHEVY-GMC-C-K-R-V1500-2500-G10-35-VANS-/361617881251 - shows this is the proper chip for - 350 TBI 700R4 ECM 1227747 CHEVY GMC C,K,R,V1500 2500 G10-35 VANS

In other words it ought to be exactly right...
So I'm looking right back at the injectors maybe being wrong...

[89S10_Project]

Went to the thread you mentioned, Tom, and it looks like the proper defs I need are in post 3, The following:

"$42-1227747-V4 (and up) .xdf and $42-1227747-V3.adx are advanced files with Data Tracing for TunerPro V5 RT.For Manual and 700R4 trans."

So the files$42-1227747-V5.2.adx (http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/attachment.php?attachmentid=4972&d=1375131735) (85.7 KB, 923 views) and $42-1227747-V5.9.3.xdf (http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/attachment.php?attachmentid=4971&d=1375131735) (344.8 KB, 972 views) ought to be the ones..deleting everything I've previously downloaded and going for those now....

EDIT: Now I have, and am testing again... (and it failed....)

RE-EDIT: Or should I just use A033.ads (http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/attachment.php?attachmentid=1417&d=1326165140) (35.3 KB, 255 views) which in that same post is said to be: "A033.ds is the origanal ALDL file converted to ads."? I'm now downloading this file and will attempt to use it.... I was actually getting indication of 360% duty cycle with the other file...

Re-re-edit: Downloaded the A033.ads. Went to use it. Got an error in Tunerpro "Parser does not support UTEF-8 encodings".

S.O.B....... where's the damn recipe for napalm?

[Nasty-Z]

A quick bit of research - http://www.ebay.com/itm/CHIPS-ARJT-350-TBI-700R4-ECM-1227747-CHEVY-GMC-C-K-R-V1500-2500-G10-35-VANS-/361617881251 - shows this is the proper chip for - 350 TBI 700R4 ECM 1227747 CHEVY GMC C,K,R,V1500 2500 G10-35 VANS

In other words it ought to be exactly right...
So I'm looking right back at the injectors maybe being wrong...


AJRT is also in the link in post #5 that I posted earlier . It is correct for a 5.7 / 700R4. I looked back at which ECM I sent you and verified it was AJRT.

I would check injectors , although I doubt it's the problem.

TOM

[89S10_Project]

Rog all, and concur. I'm looking for my star drivers now...

(What do you want to bet dumbass here put the damned 4.3 injectors on this thing? That's what I get for dragging arse on the job....)

[89S10_Project]

Hey, help an idiot out...

This file: "ARJT 91 C-G-K-R-V Truck 5.7TBI 700r4.bin (http://www.gearhead-efi.com/Fuel-Injection/attachment.php?attachmentid=676&d=1323147333) (4.0 KB, 266 views)" is NOT the definitions file, right? It's what I'd use if I wanted to burn it to a chip and run it, completely not what I need at present, correct?

I'm only asking because I never bothered reading past post 3 or so, where the ADX files I posted previously were put...

EDIT - hmmm, there's an "ARJT.zip". Betcha there's my answer.....or, not. The only thing in it is "arjt.asm".... I haven't a clue what to do with it. Neither does Tunerpro.

[lionelhutz]

Get the ADX from the thead. The ARJT file is the bin that is programmed to a chip for the computer to use. You can use a XDF and Tunerpro to open the bin if you want.

[89S10_Project]

Get the ADX from the thead. The ARJT file is the bin that is programmed to a chip for the computer to use. You can use a XDF and Tunerpro to open the bin if you want.

I did get the ADX. It's still showing me a ridiculous utilization number for the injector.

[lionelhutz]

If you open the new xdf and look at the parameter tree you will find some patches with descriptive information. I don't recall what they do without checking, but you might need to apply patches to the bin before the advance and duty cycle will display correctly. I'm quite certain advance doesn't work without a patch.

[89S10_Project]

If you open the new xdf and look at the parameter tree you will find some patches with descriptive information. I don't recall what they do without checking, but you might need to apply patches to the bin before the advance and duty cycle will display correctly. I'm quite certain advance doesn't work without a patch.

Apply patches to the bin? Yeah, I have a USB arduino cable... and that's all. Pretty sure that is a waste of time

[89S10_Project]

OK looked at it and I do see something about spark advance reading needing to be adjusted in the definition. Here's a question, if it needs to be done to read this ecm and this definition is only for this application, why on earth isn't it already done? That seems a bit like selling someone a car and telling them they're going to have to build an axle.

If I misunderstand and I'm supposed to apply patches to the firmware running on the ECM, well we're right back to my prior statement- I have no way to do so, and am not about to start burning chips before I can see what the motor is doing.'If this is the case, however, I'll be willing to discuss it if someone wants to burn a chip for me and tell me what I'll need to do in order to install it. I believe the first thing I will need to do is to remove the factory chip and solder in a socket, correct?

[89S10_Project]

OK, while I concur that the 200+% duty cycle on the injectors is clearly bad data, I wasn't able to conculsively prove to myself that I hadn't put the 4.3 injectors on the truck while I was dragging butt getting the 4.3/5.7 swap done. I tried to pull numbers off of the injectors but none were to be found. Also, a quick check with a bright flashlight showed the pattern to be questionable- feathering in the middle. At any rate, I got fed up with the questions with the injectors and the fuel pressure, and threw money at the problem.

I could have ordered takeouts from Ebay and waited. But I've been waiting to get this thing running long enough.

Could have gone to the salvage yard and pulled a TBI unit off a V8. But it can be notoriously difficult to see the block markings when the motor is installed, and the weather has been threatening rain all day.

I went to Oreilly and found they had the FPR and injectors in stock. Just under $200 and I was out the door. Yes, it took a chunk out of my wallet, but I just got paid and had a nice raise so I'm not really caring about it- this part of the concern is now "problem solved, problem stayin' solved".... and I still don't have a car payment.

Tore apart the FPR, found the metering assembly and FPR gaskets were all dry and cracked, questionable to say the least- either it was from age, past EOL, or disassembly. Don't know, don't care. It's fixed now.

Just ran the truck for 20 minutes with a much-improved idle being the result. The truck was able to get to operating temp without having me blip the throttle to keep it running. This may well have been the drivability problem I've been having. At the very least it appears to have been a significant part of the problem.

Tom explained the issue with regard the need to update the BIN to resolve the issues with Injector duty cycle and spark advance reading incorrectly. It makes snese the way he put it- basically it would work just fine for the equipment it was designed to talk to. My laptop, working through a hacked interface and reading deconstructed code by third and fourth parties, not so much.

I'm starting to look at a future 16197427 upgrade. I'll need to talk Tom into burning me a chip for a 5.7 in front of a 700R4 first.... :popcorn:

[lionelhutz]

OK looked at it and I do see something about spark advance reading needing to be adjusted in the definition. Here's a question, if it needs to be done to read this ecm and this definition is only for this application, why on earth isn't it already done? That seems a bit like selling someone a car and telling them they're going to have to build an axle.

If I misunderstand and I'm supposed to apply patches to the firmware running on the ECM, well we're right back to my prior statement- I have no way to do so, and am not about to start burning chips before I can see what the motor is doing.'If this is the case, however, I'll be willing to discuss it if someone wants to burn a chip for me and tell me what I'll need to do in order to install it. I believe the first thing I will need to do is to remove the factory chip and solder in a socket, correct?

Well, just don't use the bad data. The rest of the info except the spark advance and duty cycle is likely fine.

[jim_in_dorris]

Okay, I figure I had better chime in here. I have a lot of time in the ASDU (350 TBI auto bin) and can tell you for certain that the timing and BPW/Duty cycle numbers you are looking at are only valid on a patched bin. if you use the $42 xdf and ADX, you are looking at valid information for an unpatched bin. Not sure what you are looking at to get the duty cycle numbers, but it isn't to standard $42 adx xdf because I am looking at them right now running a log I made from my truck.

[89S10_Project]

Thanks Jim, that is the conclusion that Tom and I came to as well. By which I mean Tom came to, and explained it to me. :)

BTW, love the truck. I'd like to find one like it around here for the wife.

[Six_Shooter]

Okay, I figure I had better chime in here. I have a lot of time in the ASDU (350 TBI auto bin) and can tell you for certain that the timing and BPW/Duty cycle numbers you are looking at are only valid on a patched bin. if you use the $42 xdf and ADX, you are looking at valid information for an unpatched bin. Not sure what you are looking at to get the duty cycle numbers, but it isn't to standard $42 adx xdf because I am looking at them right now running a log I made from my truck.


This is basically what I was about to post, because some people that know how to patch the bin in the ECM took it upon themselves to work on these patches to have the DC and SA data in the datastream. :tup:

So just simply ignore that data, because it won't be relevant for you.

[89S10_Project]

Did a test drive this evening, which I logged. I can confirm the truck drives MUCH better now, more power and smoother throttle response. Idle is smooth and there was no occurence of stalling. This problem wasn't related to the faulty indication of the injectors - they're still indicating the same ridiculous number - but the FPR and/or wrong and/or dirty injectors.

[jim_in_dorris]

Ok, try this... when looking at data in tunerprort rt, use the daylight dash instead of the tuning dash. It doesn't have the fields for bpw, it will be less confusing.. what happens is to get those numbers, you have to change the data stream by patching the bin. Since your data stream is the stock gm data stream, the 2 fields you are looking at has nothing to do with the data you thought you were looking at. Kind of like looking at a phone number and expecting it to be a street address.

[89S10_Project]

Yes I understand this. I have been ignoring the bad data for a while now.

I appreciate everyon's input. This issue is now closed. I have started a new thread with commentary on the logs I pulled from the truck- prominent among those is that I am not seeing VSS data.