2003-2005 2.2L ecotec Supercharger calibration

[Snowman]

you will have all kinds of trouble.....your best bet is to either stick w/ the reflash and enjoy

or

go back to stock and read up on "faking a 2 bar map"
and tune your own fuel curves and hope it works. You will also have to go back to the stock map sensor.

---------------------------------------------
Chris if someone already licensed there car before the reflash and basically are screwed? do we get reimbursed for the 2 credits we used to license it?
I know M62 ECO licensed his car before he had the reflash, and know he has to keep the reflash because he is in cali and it has to be CARB legal.
SO would he get 2 more credits? or a SOL?

[John02]

when you say go back to stock, do you mean having the dealer reflash it back to stock? How is that different than just buying another stock computer? Wouldn't buying one for like $50 be cheaper than another reflash? And then couldn't I just do the faking a 2 bar map with the new computer? Wouldn't everything else still work fine besides having to fake the map? I would make sure to get a computer from a car that was the same as mine.

[wizzer]

looks like GM's programer for the Eco didnt want the S/C reflash getting out.... at least for the J-bodies.....

Chris, has anyone sent you a Info Log from a Cobalt S/C SS yet? Could there be a way to 'copy & paste' (for the lack of a better term) their OS (same 2.5 bar map/IAT combo) to the 03-05 J-bodies?

and Guys..... at the time this was being developod for us, the J-body Eco Reflash wasnt out yet..... and GM doesnt intend on it being used for anything other then their S/C kit..... I wouldnt put it past GM to do this with the knowledge that HPT was working on tuning software for us. This is by no means HPT fault...... and they do support 97-05.....

[IanB]

Well this is disapointing, but is there any reason that the ecoSC guys couldn't fake the 2 bar and end up with as good or better (seeing as you can custom tailor to your application) a tune than the ecoSC reflash? I see the GMSC reflash as a different starting point, not a roadblock, am I wrong?

[Mr. Pute]

and they do support 97-05.....

I completely beg to differ. I'm the person who has been reading the gm reflashed car that shows the VCM OS ID of 0. As it stands, with the car having the GM supercharger reflash (s/c kit as well), the HP Tuners system does not work at all on it. All I get is a VIN/OS mismatch error when trying to read the ECU.

In the current condition the 2004 Chevrolet Cavalier is in with a GM certified and distributed reflash installed on the vehicle, the car isn't supported by HP Tuners.

I purchased the HP Tuners product with intention of using it to program the reflash. During the time of purchase, HPT claimed they supported the 97-05 j-body line of cars.

Come today, the official announcement from Chris contradicts the advertised claim.

I'm a little speechless at the moment...

Oh and Chris, I'm not returning my system. I've used all 8 of my licenses at this point, so it sounds like you won't allow me to return it because of that. Not to mention, the product is good. I'm using it and I like what it's able to do (however, the 6400 spark issue needs to be solved as well for me to be completely happy).

Regardless, those who purchased the product under the claim that it would support ALL forms of 97-2005 j-bodies should be entitled to a middle ground of some sort. What that would be is for Chris to figure out.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[97cavie24ls]

well i think the "all" never included the GM reflashed cars

only the 2.4 had been out , but i remember someone saying that the s/c reflash info was needed to know if it was going to be supported

and at that time the eco was still a wet dream

we cant be pissed at HP , GM is who we need to be pissed at , why they have used coding this way is stupid , why put the most complicated stuff on the cheap cars , lol

yeah im kinda pissed about it , since my g/f has a 02 eco with the gm s/c on it , and now i cant tune it , and gotta keep the trap speeds under 105(for some reason that is where hers stops) and it should be close to those speeds now

atleast my 2.4 s/c cav and the gtp can be done

[Snowman]

there may be hope but it may also be a pipe dream.

In helping Adam NGHK w/ the reflash for his car...there are different vci numbers unlike the 5-speed which is all the same.

so maybe the key is in the autos........i dont know just a thought!

So maybe get someone w/ the auto and get the vcm suite info off of it?

Who knows...........now you guys have your homework assignment....so get to it lol

[97cavie24ls]

adam have any luck ? i know you said he called you again

[Bill@HPTuners]

Strait from their orders page:
"Our product is designed to work for vehicles off of the show room floor. If your vehicle is a hybrid or has a physically different PCM/VCM than it originally came with your vehicle might not be supported."

once you start fudging with the computer the game changes. As far as the 6400 rpm spark limit you make it sound like its Hptuners fault gm did what it did...hptuners just puts the code out there for you guys...if gm did it one way its not hptuners fault. And for them to fix it requires modification to the code(custom operating system) which isnt an easy job nor are you talking about 1 operating system they must adjust its ALL...I've said it a ton of times but hptuners was the first to even come up with a custom operating system for LS1's after 7 years of them being on the market.

[mpprotomec]

So does that mean that he's never going to be able to support our calibrations? If so, would going back to the stock calibration be a viable alternative? How hard would it be if I bought a stock ecm from a junkyard, hooked it up and licensed it with hptuners? Or have there been so many changes from stock to the supercharger reflash that it'd be hard to get it working right without messing something up? Thanks

Chris clearly stated that he may work something custom out, so all hope is not lost.

Strait from their orders page:
"Our product is designed to work for vehicles off of the show room floor. If your vehicle is a hybrid or has a physically different PCM/VCM than it originally came with your vehicle might not be supported."

once you start fudging with the computer the game changes. As far as the 6400 rpm spark limit you make it sound like its Hptuners fault gm did what it did...hptuners just puts the code out there for you guys...if gm did it one way its not hptuners fault. And for them to fix it requires modification to the code(custom operating system) which isnt an easy job nor are you talking about 1 operating system they must adjust its ALL...I've said it a ton of times but hptuners was the first to even come up with a custom operating system for LS1's after 7 years of them being on the market.

Physically, the gm reflash PCMs are exactly the same as they were equipped from the factory, the PCM is never replaced nor is it "hybrid'ed" with another PCM.

For the 6400 limit, GM did not create a custom OS that limited the PCM to 6400. A new OS is in no way needed or required. What is needed is taking the time to find all the parameters in the code that are causing the limit. GM wrote it in in many places, not just the most common ones. This is a new addition to the product line and I'm sure it will be worked out in time. I just hope its not going to be a lot of time.

[2KZ24]

Strait from their orders page:
"Our product is designed to work for vehicles off of the show room floor. If your vehicle is a hybrid or has a physically different PCM/VCM than it originally came with your vehicle might not be supported."

once you start fudging with the computer the game changes. As far as the 6400 rpm spark limit you make it sound like its Hptuners fault gm did what it did...hptuners just puts the code out there for you guys...if gm did it one way its not hptuners fault. And for them to fix it requires modification to the code(custom operating system) which isnt an easy job nor are you talking about 1 operating system they must adjust its ALL...I've said it a ton of times but hptuners was the first to even come up with a custom operating system for LS1's after 7 years of them being on the market.

Interesting points.

1st, the very premise of the tuner is to "fudge with the computer" I don't see how this is a different game. The tuner was designed to alter the code in the PCM. Thus your saying by purchasing the product and using it, you are making the PCM an unsupported device. The PCM hasn't changed, the OS has.

2nd, this problem seems to be rather new. 1 week in the making since discovery. Yet you said 7 years for the LS1 to get a custom operating system. Am I reading this thread correctly that after 1 week, HPTuners is throwing in the towel?? I would like to think this problem like all others can be solved.

It takes time to solve the problem. And it appears that several people are trying to help in the effort. I hope in the end that this code can be cracked or rewritten.

[Bill@HPTuners]

Chris clearly stated that he may work something custom out, so all hope is not lost.


Physically, the gm reflash PCMs are exactly the same as they were equipped from the factory, the PCM is never replaced nor is it "hybrid'ed" with another PCM.

For the 6400 limit, GM did not create a custom OS that limited the PCM to 6400. A new OS is in no way needed or required. What is needed is taking the time to find all the parameters in the code that are causing the limit. GM wrote it in in many places, not just the most common ones. This is a new addition to the product line and I'm sure it will be worked out in time. I just hope its not going to be a lot of time.

let me rephrase so you don't overlook this part "Our product is designed to work for vehicles off of the show room floor" once you touch the pcm its not guaranteed to work properly. Did any of these supercharger/turbocharger reflashes come stock off of the showroom floor? I agree it will probably be worked out in time but I wouldnt be overly eager to fix GM's "aftermarket" flash issues.

[Bill@HPTuners]

2nd, this problem seems to be rather new. 1 week in the making since discovery. Yet you said 7 years for the LS1 to get a custom operating system. Am I reading this thread correctly that after 1 week, HPTuners is throwing in the towel?? I would like to think this problem like all others can be solved.

huh? who says anyone has throw in the towel?

[2KZ24]

huh? who says anyone has throw in the towel?

Guess I took it from Chris in this quote

Guys, unfortunately after looking at the code we are just unable to support these calibrations. The calibration ID's have been deleted and even worse the ROM checksums are incorrect and disabled. This means that if you have a flash ROM failure you will never know (ie. P0601 has been disabled and bypassed). I'm quite surprised at the hacky nature of these mods and that GM would endorse such a thing. The logic behind some of the code changes is certainly quite strange.

It gives me inspiration to come up with a 2bar solution of our own in the future.

Chris...

[Mr. Pute]

Strait from their orders page:
"Our product is designed to work for vehicles off of the show room floor. If your vehicle is a hybrid or has a physically different PCM/VCM than it originally came with your vehicle might not be supported." once you start fudging with the computer the game changes.

As far as I know, that clause implies that the PCM/VCM physical equipment must be identical to show room condition....which they are. The computer hasn't been "fudged" with buddy. It's still the same thing as it always was.

As far as the 6400 rpm spark limit you make it sound like its Hptuners fault gm did what it did...hptuners just puts the code out there for you guys...if gm did it one way its not hptuners fault.

Complete misstatement on your behalf. I never said that nor did I imply it. HP Tuners provides the ability to modify things within the code. They don't provide you with the code upfront. With that, I invite you to look under the Fuel Control/Fuel Cutoff, DFCO menu on a j-body HPT file. You will see the heading titled "RPM Limits" along with three limiters that can be modified. Call me crazy, but the point behind these individual functions was to eliminate "RPM Limits". The problem is, the functionality implied by the heading "RPM Limits" is non-existant. I'm not able to go above 6400rpm on my car due to a limiter still being in place.

Well, so what you say? I was voicing my opinion on the product and how I'm not completely satisified with it. Why am I not satisified? Because the function of "RPM limits" is NOT working how it should. I could honestly care less what you think Mr. Super Moderator, but when somebody advertises a function within their program by means of giving you the option of changing it, it better work.

And for them to fix it requires modification to the code(custom operating system) which isnt an easy job nor are you talking about 1 operating system they must adjust its ALL...I've said it a ton of times but hptuners was the first to even come up with a custom operating system for LS1's after 7 years of them being on the market.

Somehow I highly doubt that a custom operating system will be needed for removing rpm limits. It's just a matter of finding them and disabling them, which I'm confident that HPT will eventually find.

Again Chris and Keith, don't get me wrong. I'm not badmouthing your product at all. It's a great product. I'd just like to see that the promised functions of the product work properly.

[Bill@HPTuners]

Guess I took it from Chris in this quote

Guys, unfortunately after looking at the code we are just unable to support these calibrations. The calibration ID's have been deleted and even worse the ROM checksums are incorrect and disabled. This means that if you have a flash ROM failure you will never know (ie. P0601 has been disabled and bypassed). I'm quite surprised at the hacky nature of these mods and that GM would endorse such a thing. The logic behind some of the code changes is certainly quite strange.

It gives me inspiration to come up with a 2bar solution of our own in the future.

Chris...

what part says they threw in the towel?

[Bill@HPTuners]

Complete misstatement on your behalf. I never said that nor did I imply it. HP Tuners provides the ability to modify things within the code. They don't provide you with the code upfront. With that, I invite you to look under the Fuel Control/Fuel Cutoff, DFCO menu on a j-body HPT file. You will see the heading titled "RPM Limits" along with three limiters that can be modified. Call me crazy, but the point behind these individual functions was to eliminate "RPM Limits". The problem is, the functionality implied by the heading "RPM Limits" is non-existant. I'm not able to go above 6400rpm on my car due to a limiter still being in place.

I thought you were referring to this post http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5666 theres a similar situation to this in V6 code where the spark table runs out at 6400 rpms we're apparently on different pages. As far as your spark/rev limiter kicking in thats probably something they will fix soon as shifted mentioned his issues were fixed.

[Shifted]

Somehow I highly doubt that a custom operating system will be needed for removing rpm limits. It's just a matter of finding them and disabling them, which I'm confident that HPT will eventually find.

Actually, thats incorrect. If the OS understands that the table is 10x20, and the table is from 600 RPM to 6500 RPM, then the only way to make the table bigger is to reprogram the OS... If its a scaling issue on the table, then its easier, if its not a scaling issue, then it is a custom OS.

[2KZ24]

Actually, thats incorrect. If the OS understands that the table is 10x20, and the table is from 600 RPM to 6500 RPM, then the only way to make the table bigger is to reprogram the OS... If its a scaling issue on the table, then its easier, if its not a scaling issue, then it is a custom OS.

Unless you shift the table to 700 7000. That seems an easy enough option to solve without reprogramming the OS.

[Bill@HPTuners]

shifting, changing, altering its all the same...it means they are modifying hardcoded tables in the pcm=custom OS.