Bringing TBI and Multi Port Fuel Injection to a New Level.     EFI Conversions and Tuning! Seattle to Portland! E-mail Tuning Consultant!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54

Thread: $EEHack Read Failure Every Time?

  1. #16
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    627
    The easiest way to check if the checksum are altered is to compare the bin, if the OS part have some corrections it might be the issue. They might have changed the start-end points of checksum calculation.

    Still interested to see the bin in its corrupted state. Can you just save it ignoring the checksum message.

    As a last resort try reading the pcm on a bench. If there is some ground issue or noise there, it can cause that kind of behaviour.

  2. #17

  3. #18
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by kur4o View Post
    The easiest way to check if the checksum are altered is to compare the bin, if the OS part have some corrections it might be the issue. They might have changed the start-end points of checksum calculation.

    Still interested to see the bin in its corrupted state. Can you just save it ignoring the checksum message.

    As a last resort try reading the pcm on a bench. If there is some ground issue or noise there, it can cause that kind of behaviour.
    The "save invalid bin" checkbox has no effect in EEHack, unfortunately. I do have bins read using WinFlash attached in the first post of this thread. TunerPro states the only changes between my BIN and the stock one I downloaded are Memory addresses, rev limit, cooling fan activation temperatures, knock limits, and of course VIN information as well as a few values specific to the Hypertech Power Programmer. I don't know if it checks program space but I assume it does?

  4. #19
    Fuel Injected! steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,676
    Quote Originally Posted by spfautsch View Post
    Another thought - he said it has a canned flash on it from a HPP3 standalone programmer. Could this have altered the checksum algo? I'm completely ignorant as to how that works, so just spitballing here.
    i didn't read that part. its totally possible that the bin is just borked then. that bin sucks anyway, you should just flash back to factory and go from there. yes hypertech does odd things with checksums

  5. #20
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Just flashed a new BIN to the car using WinFlash. The BIN was just the GM EE_16200891 with the VIN changed to my VIN and the BLM locker enabled. Flash succeeded, car runs just fine (though it looks like it reset my passive entry system, so I'll need to reprogram that), but EEHack still fails to read in the exact same way. The read process completes successfully but then says there's a checksum error and doesn't save any data.

  6. #21
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Just as an update, I went ahead and read back the ROM using WinFlash to see if it would match what I wrote to the car. Excluding the RAM addresses (which are of course different, but irrelevantly so), the only differences between the BIN I wrote and the one I read back was "Siderail Serial Number" and an "Unknown" value, which considering my experience lead me to believe are in fact values for the passive security system. As soon as I can get my hands on another remote I will be able to test that theory.

    Point is, what I wrote and what I read matched. I then tried to do a read using $EEHack with RAM Dump enabled, to see if maybe excluding RAM from the read was part of the problem. Nope--it took an additional 30 seconds to read, but still declared a checksum error and saved no data. I'm totally stumped.

    Is there any sort of test version of the program with logging specific to this problem enabled I can use to help get to the bottom of this? I'd love to help in any way I can so I can dump CATS and stick to $EEHack, it's a much better program in my opinion...

  7. #22
    Fuel Injected! steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,676
    appreciate you putting all this effort into trying to get it working

    i have no idea why read would repeatedly fail in your case

    i didn't spend much time working on or debugging flash read or building debugging features for it because to be honest nobody uses it, all the stock LT1 bins have already been read and are posted online

    i'd love to help you debug it further but i don't have a ton of time on my hands right now

    i plan to get another version of eehack out the door by the end of summer, i'll try to at least get the bug fixed that prevents a bin from being saved even if the checksum is incorrect, i never tested it since none of my read attempts ever had bad checksums

    also don't really recommend using flash write in eehack till you figure out what's up

  8. #23
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Yeah, that's exactly why I want to help out however I can. EEHack is a way better all-around program, so I'd love to use it on its own--but if it can't read I assumed it wasn't safe to write either. That's why I've been using WinFlash.

    I can completely understand being low on time. I've got plenty of other stuff I can try to fix on the car, but I'll be around to help with anything you need should the time arise.

    Best of luck!

  9. #24
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Update!

    I recently acquired a manual '95 and of course immediately plugged into it. EEHack works with zero communication errors. Reading the BIN works perfectly as well, and I assume flashing does as well (though I haven't tried it yet).

    I'm not sure if this helps any to try to pin down where the problem lies. The car is in far rougher shape than my '94, so I'm not sure "maintenance" is the difference here. The automatic transmission? Something specific to the '94 with the OBDII-style 16-pin connector?

    Figured I'd put it out there.

  10. #25

  11. #26
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Haven't had an opportunity to swap PCMs yet (I might get around to that tomorrow) but I did have a chance to drive the '94 for a bit on an errand to try to replicate an issue I experienced a few days ago where the car banged off the rev limiter rather than shifting into third. Couldn't replicate the issue (which further makes me think clutch packs, but we'll see how a fluid and filter change does for now), but did get some nice datalogs that show some of the weird data being experienced. Just as you had mentioned, the knock counts do go back down to sane levels after the glitch, but the data does appear in the graph and makes me curious as to whether the analyzer is taking these glitchy data frames into account.

    datalogbad.png

    dataloggood.png

    I'll update again once I have a chance to swap PCMs.

  12. #27
    Fuel Injected! steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,676
    i agree that the data is corrupt for that frame, BLM cell 50 isn't a real thing.

    it's either corrupt data in ram from the ECM itself or corruption on the datastream wire. i'd suspect the second, as corruption in ECM ram would cause your car to stumble and die.

    except for in insanely small mathematical cases, interference on the wire will cause the checksum to be invalid, that's the entire point of having one. when the checksum is invalid it should reject that data in eehack and discard. i mentioned earlier there are some potential bugs concerning checksums in eehack. i'll try to get you a new version to try shortly

    your analysis results in the knock map will obviously be totally off but fueling corrections are probably still useable because we're averaging into cells, if you have 100 good records and 1 suspect one, you probably wont notice the bad one. that's why averaging is used for fuel analysis in the first place, but that's assuming your data set is large enough.

  13. #28
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    627
    I have noticed similar spikes in logs at random rate, and I was almost sure it was an error in spi communication between e and t side, due to some of the patches I had over that bus. Now that guy have similar problems which should also be related with the random dtcs popping for a single frame.

    Corrupted ram is out of question, so it could be shorter than expected message or corrupted message being passed. Some closer look at the debug log and the logged data should reveal the cause.

  14. #29
    Fuel Injected!
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Orange, CA
    Posts
    65
    Just went out and swapped PCMs, and confirmed that when I put the '94's PCM into the '95, I get zero connection errors. I didn't start the car since I didn't know what would happen putting an automatic PCM into a manual, but I don't need to start the car to get errors randomly on the '94, so no big. So there does appear to be a problem inherent to the chassis somewhere, not inherent to the PCM. Time to tear into the ALDL harness as well as inspect all the grounds, perhaps this weekend.

    Also, steveo, how does the "Transmission Perf Button Pressed" indicator work in EEHack? It shows up as "ON" constantly on mine unless I ground pin 13 on the grey connector, at which point it reads "OFF" until the ground is disconnected. From what I've read this switch is just a momentary switch with a ground connection, so perhaps it should be the other way around? Maybe it's different on an F-Body?

  15. #30
    Fuel Injected! steveo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    2,676
    could you please try the latest beta out to see if you get any similar data corruption? i dont know anyone else getting that problem consistently enough to be a guinea pig

Similar Threads

  1. First Time Posting Long time as a fly on the wall
    By Mrgto68 in forum Introductions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-17-2018, 02:00 PM
  2. Long time listener, first time caller.
    By Shameless in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2018, 08:26 PM
  3. EEHack continuous checksum failure ???
    By kris72079 in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-01-2017, 12:17 PM
  4. Would Checksum failure cause these issues?
    By trippyjoey in forum GM EFI Systems
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 10-01-2014, 11:22 AM
  5. ERROR: PROM I/O returned failure?
    By brian617 in forum TunerPro Tuning Talk
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-13-2013, 03:51 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •