Info on 2015 ECM used in Caddy CTSV sport please?

[edcmat-l1]

Sorry, I guess I've offended you guys and I really didn't mean to. I'm very far from trying to say that I'm any smarter than you and especially to say that I understand these systems as well. But I do understand electronics, hydraulics, and a few other things and I get your point about the impedance. I haven't measured it either. However, I do not think the ECM has any more than 14 volts or so to drive those DI injectors unless they have done some very fancy things with the power supply. By logic, over-voltage really should not be an issue. Regardless of how much amperage is available to use, 14 volts is not going to burn out a port injector. You probably can hook it across a car battery and go away until the battery runs down and most likely the injector will still be just fine, though I can't say I've done that. It shouldn't even be a concern unless they have somehow doubled or tripled the voltage being delivered to the coils in the injectors.

Now Squirrel, this is interesting. I'm not blindly tied to the 2015 CTSV-Sport if something else will work better, and as near as I have been able to discover, the Sport used the Aisin 8 speed between 2014 and 2017 and was the only GM to do so. (Hopefully that is correct but I don't know how I can verify it.) If that means that the Sport and the V both used the E92 perhaps the config for the V's V8 could be used with the config for the Sport's TCM and work it that way. Still have the DI issue to solve but it tidies up a few things otherwise. Alternatively, if perchance the Sport began using DI in 2015 but had the Aisin 8 speed in 2014 the obvious solution becomes clear. Use the 2014 ecm. But no, it looks like RockAuto lists the same number as the 2015 so I guess that option is out.

So back to the DI. Possibly a good question at this point would be to ask if the DI injectors operate in the usual saturation mode, or if they function in the peak-and-hold mode? I recall as we went to ever larger injectors that there came a point where the only way to get enough fuel was either to fit each cylinder with dual injectors or to use the peak-and-hold- method to open the injectors more quickly, thereby increasing their flow by reducing opening delay. And then of course they began making better injectors. The ECM should have more than adequate current capacity to run the port injectors in either case I would think, although I am not aware of anybody trying to run the old injectors off a P&H driver. Because why would they, right?

And yes, most likely the parameters will be majorly whacked. But let's not lose sight of the fact that what the ECM does in a very complicated way is turn a set of injectors on and off. We used to feed a more or less steady stream of gas into the engine and that was purely mechanical. The job hasn't changed all that much, we've just made the controls a lot more complicated. As a result it can do a lot more things but it really does not have to do all of it, or do it perfectly. And when you get into it a lot of what the ECM does can simply be turned off using the switches that HPT has access to. I'm not trying in any way to imply all this would be easy, just that it should not be impossible. It seems to me that the chore with EFI is not so much to get the injector to deliver fuel so that the engine will start and run, as it is to bring all of the configuration and tuning parameters into such a state of harmony relative to each other that there is adequate range for tuning for all the different engine conditions. But at the same time here's a hypothetical. Suppose the injector flow is off a little. It's still possible to raise or lower the fuel map to compensate. That'll probably also throw off other functions like enrichment or warmup, but you see my point? Just because it isn't exactly "right" doesn't necessarily mean it won't work. There are a whole host of ways to influence fuel delivery and the ECM has no real clue what any of them are. It just sees numbers. The main thing is to not fall into a GIGO trap.

Jim

I'm not offended at all. I get a kick out of guys like you trying to come on here and sound smart. The more you say the dumber you sound.

[blindsquirrel]

Use a toggle switch on the dash to turn injectors onandoffreallyfast, forget about all this computer nonsense. I mean, if that's all the computer is doing... how hard could it be?

[Jim Blackwood]

Yep, lots of truth in all of that. But still, I'm currently running a 1967 Buick 300 engine using a 2002 Silverado ECU with a modified Camaro tune and the ONLY issues I have with it is proper tuning of the transients (it's still very driveable but could be just that little bit better) and some fine tuning of the startup. Aside from that it runs excellently with zero codes. I've used the same ecu on my '67 Buick 340 with an Eaton Blower with similar results. Not to be contradictory, it's just that it does work and I'm very happy with the way it works.

Now that Aisin is a big beefy trans with near perfect gear ratios in the entire range. I've had it in the car and operational but was limited to limp mode which is 3rd gear only. It may be that GM now has a 10 speed that could be as good or better but I'd be starting over and still have the same issues to solve I expect. I am NOT going to put an LS in the car, that solution is off the table entirely. Personal reasons I guess you'd say. The next engine is on the stand and is probably about a $20k engine with all the goodies including the roller cam, COP, etc,etc,etc. Stroker crank, Carrillo rods, Ti valves, blower, full cerokote, on and on it goes and I know you guys don't want to hear it but the point is I'm not going to abandon that engine family. Or the GM ECU. Or for that matter the automatic transmission. So it's a matter of finding a way to make it work. The stroker is scheduled to go in the car this winter.

The ECU itself is flexible enough to do it I am convinced. Timing of the injector pulses in a port injected engine is not anywhere near as critical as it is with GDI (what's the G stand for btw?) If you spray it early it just sits there on the valve until the next opening. If it's late the remainder sits there the same way. Since my injectors sit approximately 8+ inches directly over the valves there is nowhere else the gas can go. It'll cool the backside of the valve as it converts to vapor, not really a negative. Batch fire runs just fine, this can too. So there's that dealt with. Interval between cylinders will be unchanged except for the change from 6 to 8 but that's just a setting. GM uses the same hardware for both 6 and 8 cylinder engines.

Which leaves injector pulse calculation and injector drivers. I probably won't know for sure if the drivers will work until I get an ECM and try it. To do that basically I'll need to find a fairly complete list of vehicles that used the E92. Should be able to find one at the pick-n-pull along with as much harness as I can pull for around a hundred bucks so it's worth trying.

And if that all works (I'm in the planning stages of an engine/transmission mock-up/run stand but already have the engine and transmission ready to go. I'll use the blown 340 for testing.) and I can demonstrate that the engine will get fuel with the E92 and port injectors the task then becomes to get it to run well enough to put the automatic and the E92 in the car. The final stage will involve fine tuning it close enough to drive it down to the dyno and drop it off with Nick Skaatz. That guy's a wizard with EFI. Way beyond anything I'll ever be able to do. If I can get it close enough that he's willing to tune it then I've got it made.

Jim

[abc]

GDI (gasoline direct injection) good luck and have fun! Sounds like a unique project, bass ackwards, but unique.

[radrace19]

So my best off the wall thoughts on this is to ditch the E92. Use a E67 or E38, then contact the guys doing the 10 speed swaps (PowertrainSwapSolutions) to see if they can adjust the code in your T51 trans module so it won't be in limp mode and see the correct info from the E38/E67.

[blindsquirrel]

There's so much wrong with all that I wouldn't even know where to start.

[blindsquirrel]

OK, so can I just ask - Why? Why the E92? Why are you so stuck on that? And what does "I am NOT going to put an LS in the car" mean, if that is what we have been talking about this whole damn time? WHAT ENGINE IS THIS FOR, THEN?

Please try to remember that as of yesterday you did not know what an E92 was or what it was for or what type of engine it was designed to run. JFC on a stick, man.

[gtstorey]

I think he probably wants to run an alcohol burning Ford flathead. The 4 cylinder not the 8. Or maybe it’s a single cylinder 2-stroke.
And why is he on here if he has such a great tuner that can tune EFI to do anything?

[blindsquirrel]

You'd have a better chance of converting a modern diesel to gas and running it with a E92 than trying to run any kind of port injected gas engine with a E92.

[Jim Blackwood]

I love you guys. Don't ever change.
So, I know you can read but to repeat, the engines we are referring to here are in the Small Block Buick family. Anybody remember those? Buick Grand National come to mind? Supercharged V6's? Same family. Back in the '60's and 70's the small and big block Buick engines were at the cutting edge of light, compact and powerful engine development pushing new standards such as thin wall casting and high nickel alloys for the castings. Buick pioneered the aluminum block V8 engine with the 215 (3.5L) V8 which was later sold to Rover and became known as the "SBC of Europe". Still justly famous to this day and still being used in many applications such as engine conversions and "Specials". And that's what we are talking about here. Typical in many ways of the engine conversions market segment, the car is a 1971 MGB Roadster and I believe it is accurate to say that thousands of those have now been converted to V8 engines of various types. It remains an extremely popular combination and appeals strongly to the younger enthusiasts. Ranked by popularity the engine choices are the BOP/Rover aluminum V8 from 3.5 to 5.0L, (which includes as well the iron Buick 300/5L in displacements up to 5.7L), the GM 60 degree V6, the SBF, the Buick V6, a very few LS engines now beginning to make the cut (it is an expensive, involved and heavy swap even with the aluminum block), and numerous one-offs including Miata, Datsun, Honda, even a BBC of around 600 ci, and a 455 Buick. Typically very well done conversions both in appearance and function, these tend towards daily drivers if so desired but also tend to be a bit coddled.

So the particular car in question has been under development and constant improvement for 45 years in my possession. It's no one shot-and-done project, and during that time I have determined that for very many very good reasons, the iron block 300 Buick engine is the ideal complementing power plant for this particular chassis (actually body tub). Bear in mind the finished result is somewhat akin to the famed AC Cobra but very much more refined The B was always a MUCH better car to begin with. (The Cobra used the MGB front suspension unit for example) One of the key elements is that the engine can be bolted in place with no body modifications and using off the shelf parts. Of the ones that can make that claim the 300 is unique in being the least costly with the highest hp/dollar potential while being able to retain maximum handling capability. So much for the car/engine combination. There is more but it really isn't very relevant to this forum. All that is just to give you a reference point. Provided you read this far.

On to the engine then. The damper is fitted with a stock LS two row internal timing wheel and pickup. Distributor head/oil pump drive has been converted to a cam position sensor. LS knock sensors are fitted to the heads, TPS, ECT, all sensors match the 2002 Silverado/Camaro configuration. COP is fitted using the Silverado coils. Injectors are sized to the engine running stock pressure on the rail. The '411 controller has been configured for speed/density only but a new inlet including MAF sensor is in the works. Significant reprogramming of the ECU has followed, including changes to the code alerts, a new and unique VIN that more closely matches the car and engine combination, and tuning parameters. Although you guys haven't seen me around here much lately, I'm not exactly the newby you would have had to expect. OTOH, I *am* a complete amateur at this so please don't think that I disrespect your status in any way. I'm not any sort of poseur either, I fully stand behind every word and believe credit is due to anyone who has achieved your level of competence. Might I not deserve a similar level of respect? I suspect I do.

Anyway, an engine is just an air pump and the ECU doesn't know it from Adam. It knows it's sensor signals and it knows some of it's output impedances and that's about it. My present insistence on the E92 (yes I only recently learned that was it's designation but I have known this particular one exists for several years now) has everything to do with the transmission. I have the TCM that I believe matches it, that being service number 24266725. To try to set up this transmission to run with a 10 speed controller would be similar in many regards to trying to run a GPI engine using a GDI controller but likely even more difficult due to unfamiliarity with TCM programming. So the E92 strikes me as the easier of the two approaches. I've delved into that quagmire before with the developer of the MegaShift TCM and the results were ugly. It should be understandable if I have an aversion to trying it again only with a blind corporate entity.

But as always I am open to suggestions I am justly known in my own kingdom for being a down-to-earth kind of guy so any sensible recommendation is sure to be taken seriously, but I do expect sound reasoning to be behind it. In a number of ways though I suspect we have reached a standstill here. I don't believe that at this point any of you have actually stated that, Yes, HPT does support the E92 and that was my original question, Indeed it is perhaps the only important question in this entire thread.

Jim

[abc]

I don't know why you are jacking around with factory PCM's. Your project is screaming for an aftermarket ECM. I don't know why you would want to further complicate the issue with a MAFS either.
To me it sounds like you want to do it just say you did it and that's fine with me, but in no way shape or form would I want a 10 speed trans in that set up. If I did, I would just find the proper factory stuff to do it or better option is to buy the aftermarket stuff to do it.

[gtstorey]

Maybe if you had 100% control of the e92 maybe with a lot of time and effort it could run port injection. But you don’t. Good tuners can have trouble getting modified DI engines to run right on gen5 ECM’s. But you don’t have 100% control with most tuning software. Your experience with getting 411 pcm to work has little bearing on what it will take to get an e92 to work. The newer it is , the more it will freak out if it sees things just slightly different from what it expects. Even getting a Gen4 to work for this would be hard enough, although maybe doable.

[blindsquirrel]

I want to do something unique that no one has done before most likely because there are easier ways to get better results for less money using all off-the-shelf parts but I want to do it MY WAY despite all that, can anybody give me an easy step by step recipe to follow for how to do it?

[gtstorey]

I hate different for the sake of being different if the end product is not better or at least as good as doing it the same way as everyone else. Different and ending up with something not as good drives me crazy.

[blindsquirrel]

Back in the '60's and 70's the small and big block Buick engines were at the cutting edge of light, compact and powerful engine development pushing new standards such as thin wall casting and high nickel alloys for the castings. Buick pioneered the aluminum block V8 engine with the 215 (3.5L) V8 which was later sold to Rover and became known as the "SBC of Europe". Still justly famous to this day and still being used in many applications such as engine conversions and "Specials". And that's what we are talking about here.

Why not build a time machine so you can go back to when those garbage engines (by current standards) were the best you could get? Dumb. Real real dumb.

[blindsquirrel]

This is like the guys who wanna build a twin-turbo+twin-sequential (so, four total) and also a roots blower (for torque!) and a centrifugal blower (for the big end!) and don't understand why everyone doesn't agree that that combo would be the most bestest thing that ever existed.

edit: NO! I'VE GOT IT! Diesel and roots blown at low RPM, that switches over to gasoline and centrifugal blower above 3000 RPM! All in the same engine and using a single ECM! It will be the best at everything. 1500 HP and 1500 lb-ft AND 40 MPG. It is real, I put everything in a spreadsheet and this is the Best Combo. It's just math, man, can't argue with math.

[blindsquirrel]

Is the weird V6-only Aisin transmission even supported? I find it odd that all of the CTS 3.6 files I have found from the year range in question are missing the TCM.

I would be really really shocked if the V6 E92 with the V6 OS would run a V8 engine, even putting aside the fantasy delusion of using a DI ECM to control port injectors. And a V8 E92 OS is extremely unlikely to work with the weird dumb Aisin TCM OS, even if it turns out that controller is supported. Reality is not kind to dream-based backyard engineering.

[edcmat-l1]

Hardware aside even if it was physically possible you're talking about code engineering on an OEM level to make it happen. That's if it even is remotely possible. And that's not going to be something wrapped up in some aftermarket GUI with a few hundred parameters. The discussion is just ridiculous.

[Jim Blackwood]

I don't know why you keep referring to it as a V6 transmission, the Aisin 8 speed is a 200 pound beast. Toyota used it behind their V8 engines, specifically in the Land Cruisers, top end Lexus cars (ISF, 460) and a lot of other manufacturers have as well. GM used it as a stop-gap measure in a few cars because they didn't have anything as good at the time. Has a torque rating of 400 ft/lbs but Supra owners have been beating on them for years with 800-1000hp engines so I think it deserves a little more credit.

Apparently HPT DOES support the E92, (thanks for that non-answer btw) and it was used in... Yep, you got it, the Silverado! Appears to have been the go-to for those years so it looks like I'm still on track. Guess I'll need to go searching for a v-sport tune to look at, and a junkyard pull is only a spare afternoon away. Now that I know what to look for it should be easy.

You guys have been super helpful in spite of your caustic, sarcastic, insulting attitudes and I thank you for that. I've never actually spent any serious time looking at how the transmissions are controlled with the GM system, it'll be a new toy to play with over the winter. Something to look forward to.

Probably a good thing at least *somebody* around here has a creative bone or two in their body, could you imagine how badly you guys would stagnate if I weren't around to help you out? I hope it's been as much fun for you as it has for me.

Jim

[biholliday]

wow