89 Iroc Z

69 Ghost,
I wouldn't say the 2240 stuff is taking off, it's still in very early stages. I don't think it will ever gain much support unless there is a easily adaptable work around the IAC problem.

Z69

Group effort- So far it's been JP and me researching and figuring this stuff out as we go.
I liked the $60. But since it was never open source, that made for 1 strike up front. No xdf or ads. Makes a lot of work up front to even use. Also, the $58 has never had a lot of online tuning help compared to 8D.

Since we're letting the cat run around a bit...

As mentioned-
Multi sensor WB aldl datalogging
VE2x patch incorporated for 1600-3200 w/200 breaks then 400 breaks & all 5KPA.
Rpm/31.25 calc w/ a bit selectable alternate PE table w/500 rpm breaks that goes to 8k rpm.
Shift light modded for up to 8k and no CARS. Thanks 91L98Z28 for the idea and pointer to the code.

Still need to dis Tim's S_AUJP to see just what he did.

Need to figure out what qual to use for the knock light and track down the code for a pin.

Find all the diffs for the MT bins to see what needs fixed in aujp. It looked like a lot of the CARS stuff was zero'd out & the temp qual was set to 255 to defeat it.

Idle SA delete-

may add an CL-> OL idle AFR table thingy

Not sure what to do on the Rev limiter due to cat and no cat users.

NV ratio- I thought about using this for a multistage shift light. But the diffs betw an AT & MT made it complicated.
Anyone thought out how to do it. Need to account for converter slip.
I was also pretty tired when I was looking into it so some of the math wasn't obvious.
Also, the guys needing a multistage are more appt to not have the VSS I'd think. ie a strip car.

Someone could make an xls sheet for calcing the NV ratios to make set up easy for people.

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

If "WE" used a check on:
$003a #$01 HIGH KNOCK FLAG
and/or
$003a #$02 NO KNOCK FLAG

as indicator if knock is detected, then turn on a digital output.
(I didn't go that far yet, just needs to be looked at an open one)

Qualify it using $003C #$20 KNOCK ERROR BIT
This check that the knock sensor is working

Then find the bit to turn on and pass it into the 3FFC location (or what ever PWM is used) and let execution do the subroutine to turn the light on if "no knock" is turned off.
Should add a timer/counter to keep the light visible for a short time so it can be seen. Problem came up when a hard wired solution was used. Looked like it worked but didn't stay on long enough to indicate properly.
Seems easy enough to do. 1 ore to add to the pile.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I believe the ANHT 8d code has a shift light code built in for the vettes.

Also for the great $8d idea list how about incorporating the vette oil temp routine that could be switched. I believe it was incorportated into the code to keep from burning the engine up when they removed external oil coolers from the system.

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

It does but is almost insane to follow (at least for me)
Still a few things that are not making it easier is the references to the SES light and TCC sol. Mostly comment errors but are not clarified easily.

Oil temp is not even disabled in AUJP, could be wired in to F12 (350R pullup) input. Channel 1 on the U6 chip.
It will display in the ALDL output as well.
The only thing it does in AUJP is turn off A/C clutch if temp is high (or throw errors if low/high range sensor)
Only thing is, the A/C is not controlled in this bin. Just enable the error codes and the SES should come on.
Or did you mean "switch" an output upon realizing the error?

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

John you and Z69 are the code masters but there is one thing you may have missed. The wiring is a bit different and they integrate it into I believe the TPS don't know what it does but I am almost positive that it is affects the readings and is not just a common ground.

BTW I was under the impression that AUJP had that portion ripped out or it was never in there. I guess it is more like one huge code for all 8d cars and only use what is necessary and comment out the code if it is not needed? If so the shift light is in there too?

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Letting the cats run around for a bit is a good idea. You need a good sense of direction before implementing anything. With that said, I have a few questions:

What disassembler, assembler, naming convention, and log file format are planned. I can change how I am commenting and labeling my $58 file now. I would rather do it sooner than later. It will make it easier to bring the code over to the $8D later.
Mainly what is the target assembler?

By the way, I was looking at the IAC section of the $58 and $8D code to see how it differed (pin swap stuff). From what I see, it does NOT differ. I am going to double check it later & ohm out a 749 and 730 and re-check the IAC pin-out.

J

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

I wouldn't go so far to call me a master.
Z' is much better at it than I am.

I'll take another look at the oil routine and see if I just skimed over something important.

The shift light control IS in AUJP, it is bypassed when using the TCC in automatic setup.
Following it is nuts!
The bits that control, the PWM addresses, and the PWM enable bit just seem to keep changing values!!!
They have implemented some kind of usage to use the outputs for a different function when the "controlled" function is not used.
Just have to keep weeding through it to get to the truth.
Yes, I know it's out there

From what I've seen there is :
a BIT that sets if the item "is being controlled" Code section is skipped if this is not set.
a WORD that sets the PWM duty cycle (and possibly amplitude) Those are the 7 spots in the memory map. Easy to find.
a BIT that "enables" the PWM output to function.
Then you'll find some digital control outputs thrown in that use the CR to turn them on.

Junkcltr, do a quick search and you find a thread that we had looked into the repinning and found that there were only a couple of "possible" problems. Most of the myths were disputed IIRC.
The IAC "may" act in reverse but a swap of the control bit addreses would fix that.
Conflicting information with hac text and usage location addressing is the biggest problem right now.
If I find it I'll put a link in here.
Edit:
Found it at the bottom of the "$58 Frequently Asked Questions"

Grumpy

The 8D mask, has more then just one version of code.

Grumpy

Like I said, there's no *group effort*. There is no *group* of people willing to *just do it*.

The 58 source code was open, and the first key element in developing source code is that assembles. Other wise your limited in just doing patches.

Handing people Source Code that assembled, while initally got a few, that were willing to work on it, shortly fell to no one wanting to work on it. It would be so much easier if there was some sort of actual organized effort like Programming 101 had.

1981TTA

Actually, I think the *group* of people willing to make changes to the code is getting along pretty well. The part that I think will be the biggest hurdle (and what I *think* Z69 refers to) is getting people to actually put these changes in their cars, test them and live with them for a while all the time reporting what works and what doesn't. It's going to take person(s) willing to spend some time emulating/chip burning, datalogging and driving around with this stuff to make it go further. I can appreciate there are people just starting or staying out of the details due to lack of interest who can barely wrap their minds around injector constants and INT/BLM behavior. But, we're going to need some people who have a knowledge of how to tune, how an engine behaves and how a particular software change should affect the car. If everyone who tests this code gives up testing these changes and goes back to a "stock bin" because the first time they tried using the software they got an SES light, we're done...... In my experience, this is a large part of the downfall of the $60 and $59 software sets on this board. (In retrospect, this might have been mitigated if we were discussing this on a Sy/Ty or more boost-oriented board rather than an F-body board I can also understand the frustration of someone who just went through the effort and cost of boosting their F-body who is hesitant to play around with "new and improved" software sets that could delay driving their baby.) Changing code in an attempt to add functionality is relatively easy. Getting the code "right" so the functionality achieved equals the functionality desired is the difficult part. Unfortunately, you seldom know you're there until a fair amount of testing has taken place......

Grumpy

And in the last say 6 years, what has been the total accomplisement?. A WB patch, and idle patch, a large VE table patch?.

T/C, S/C, N/A, the 58 covered them all. It was alot more universal then the 8D. It was also about 1/2 the size of the 8D and would have been alot less time consuming to comment.

It's in large part, people not wanting to think beyond themselves. Rather then work as a team, they go it alone. A team means for the good of all involved. If the all involved, are just driving X CID, with X tranny, then those willing to work on the program will always be a min amount.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I am willing to test, burn, build an XDF, etc. I am not a code writer, hacker, etc. I will spend the time and effort to try to impliment worthwhile efforts and contribute when and where I can. That reason alone was why I wrote Super_8dm to give back before I even knew how to burn a chip. Yes people are right when they are gunshy about using their cars as test beds. This is a hobby and my car is the result. I am always looking for ways to improve it on the cheap -not by not spending money but by getting the best product for the least amount of money. To me the aftermarket leaves a lot to be desired. Like Grumpy said the aftermarket stuff is still catching up on what GM did years ago. I found a webpage that about a ex GM engineer that showed some converted HEI dists to Opti's. The opti-spark is not a bad unit and much more accurate than a HEI. I think they have a bad rap. In fact if they are out from under the water pump I think you would find reliability to be very good. Next there is the 97-98 plastic timing covers with a crank position sensor. Don't know anything about that one again. I will try to find links and do more research on this.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

OK here goes some links on a Opti in a HEI. Speartech is the place that has done it if we can get a group effort here we may have something:

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...1_HEI_02_w.jpg

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-...1_HEI_01_w.jpg


and the link where where it came from:

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/archiv.../t-258251.html

here is speartechs page:

http://www.speartech.com/

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

Wasn't the whole think brought to screaming halt by someone claiming to own the source hac or the ecu?
Before my time but saw that stupid message for months up top.
Enlighten me please if you would (PM if needed).

The whole idea of group effort can get fractured in a hurry if there are no set goals. Setting a goal too high will kill it for sure.
When I started this, just getting the ideas on what is "desired" was the starting point. Even if there are only a few able to implement the actual changes it get things rolling in the right direction. As testers try stuff out and feedback begins, more new people will begin to see the benifits of added functionality and possibly persue learning to take what is there even farther.
The source will be out there for everyone to tinker in and explore the goings on in there.
Hopefully that will excite more enhancements/clarification of functions.

So to make the list, What would the goal consist of?

1981TTA

These are the items that are mature enough to release in the near future. Additions include changes like you've posted about 3-bar MAP support code that can be added. I've worked on variations of WB closed loop algorithms. There are patches to enable ECM outputs based on calibrated thresholds. (I.e. in $58, turn on WG when MAP > cal.)

I think we should also look at the progress that's been made on .ecu and .xdf fronts during this time, too. There's definitely been some group involvement/cooperation that's moved those forward. This is a recent demonstration of people working as a team even if the effort originally started as multiple individuals doing this only for themselves. (Kind of like the above software changes.)

I agree. The twist is that it's much easier to get started working on the most common (although not universal) application(s). I expect changes can (and will) be propagated to other masks as these changes are considered proven and valuable. The WB patch is an example of how I think this can be performed. It's now (soon) present in an $8D version *and* a $58 version.

Brother, you are preaching to the choir there! I've travelled *way* down the $58 path. But, I can appreciate the roadblock of requiring some sort of calibration translation from $8D to $58/$60. I imagine the cost/benefit would be more than worth it going from N/A to boosted. But, I can appreciate how hard it would have been for someone to go through that effort to get to the ultimate goal of getting what they already had (minus potential code changes). Ideally, moving calibrations from a "stock-ish" $8D to an "enhanced" $8D will be a very quick procedure....... (Famous last words......) Hence, more people testing. Hence, more feedback on what's desired......

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

I am working with a fresh 1618BBZB of the $58 code. I disassembled it and have assembled it. I add about 100 lines of comments and then re-assemble to make sure I didn't make any errors when throwing comments in. So yeah, some are assembling from "source".

It doesn't really matter to me if it a group thing or not. I want to know how the boost code works and it would be nice to integrate it into the $8D - AUJP. It sounds like there is interest so I think it *may* be a group thing. Great if it is.......if it ain't then do big deal.

What is everyone else using for an assembler? If no one has strong wish for compiler xxx, then I am going to stick with the Alan Baldwin AS6811 version that I compiled from C source with a large memory model on WinXP.

As for the $58 vs. $8D IAC thing. I have my IAC pinned as listed in the $58 freq. asked questions thread. I did it because that allowed the IAC to respond correctly. I am now after the ?why? Looking at the AUJP and comparing to the BBZB I found that the code for controlling the IAC is exactly the same. I need to find what else is causing the reverse IAC operation. I am going to re-wire the IAC back to AUJP stock on Friday and double check the IAC operation.

Again, what is the assembler of choice?

J

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

IIRC the IAC code was the same but the address outputs were wired to different physical points. If you could confirm that it would clear it up.

I've been using AS6811. I think its the same one you are.
The install directory is "AS6811N" as the default but cmd line is without the "N".

Z69

I don't know what 1981TTA is using but JP & I are using the Dewtronics package which has the AS6811 in it.

There is also an add on for inserting comments. I haven't checked yet.

1981TTA

I have been using the TechEdge disassembler "ASHC11" for my $58 work. There was nothing special about this choice. Years ago when I started working on this, it was the first thing I found that fit my needs (i.e. worked!).

Z69

Once more than one person is working on the same thing.
The tendency to keep it to yourself is greatly deminished.
Since it's not yours....
When I started looking at the $60, there were few people here looking at it or the $58. The 58 needed lots of commenting and the 60 was closed source. So neither was very attractive to me to start with. Neither of these have changed. The few that were looking into it were advanced users and were going boosted so had no interest in N/A use & $58 based code. And getting others to test modded 58 would be difficult on an Fbody board. This makes 8D the most attractive to work on. Plenty of info already available.
Source has been out for close to a year. Relocatable will be out very shortly. Lots of people using the mask on daily drivers. Lots of interest.....
This is a constant little hitch in things.
It's very difficult to do this for others due to the lack of feedback. Some are wary of criticism from the others etc.
I've gotten little of either.
I just look at what I want and then see how much difference there is to what most would use.
Not much more work involved to satisfy both criteria usually.
JP and I made a list of what we each wanted when we started. Made things easy. Both using the same code.
It's hooked to the same thing.... We'd both about given up on getting any help with the code.


I did a quick compare on the $58 and AUJP base dis files I have. Only about 1000 lines difference in length.

Z69

There isn't a huge difference in the syntax between the two.
Biggest diff is in how you enter numbers.
I had to convert a few of my patches when I started working in source.
I've yet to successfully enter decimal numbers into the AS6811. Pitb to swap a 17x17 table into hex. At least the TP4.0 seemed to need less massaging of the format when I did a cut and paste.

You also have to watch for the *(label) stuff.
I think this is only used when ref addresses <100h.
oops... need to go look at that WB code again....

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Yes, same assembler. I like it because it can do condition code insertion (the .if, .end directives). It seems to work well. It sounds like I can stick with it and we are all pretty much compatible.
Page mode addresses ( 0x00 - 0xFF) get the *label. The MCU can do the access with less instructions. A LDA 0xAA is less time than LDA 0x1000.
One thing I am thinking of doing is breaking the source into two files. One with the cal (data) and one with the instructions (code) and compiling each separately and linking them both together to get the resulting bin. Having the data hanging around taking up space in the code seems odd when working the code file. This would also make it easier to drop in the cal data and do a quick build for trying out different cal setups. Might be easier for the end user. Or you could do a "patch" that takes the end user cal and drops it into the latest code to make the bin.

J

Z69

I like that too.
Just haven't had time to figure out how to make it work.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

I might have some time to split the file and make a script for compiling the two files separately and then link them.

The current task for me was to figure out the $8D-AUJP vs $58-BBZB code IAC problem when both are run on a 730 ECM.
The result are at:
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...50#post2634050

What I found was the there in no need to make a code change. If installing the $58-BBZB in a 730 that has a wiring harness that is 1990-1992 Camaro V8 TPI wiring diagram, then there is NO reason to move any IAC wires at the ECM connector. BUT, if using a LT1 type IAC then there *may* be a need to move the wires. Details are listed in the link above.

I did all the testing on a bench setup with two IAC housings off of a TB so I could watch the operation. I also made a BBZB bin change to reverse the IAC operation which seemed to work fine but is not necessary. I just wanted to try it so see how many lines of code it would take. Only about 5 or so instructions.
Overall, doing a code change would NOT be a good thing to do. Only *some* of the V6 guys might want it........and this would cause a lot of confusion added to the already confusing GM IAC connector pin-out wire color and screw-in vs. bolt-on IACs.
So the result is no code change for this.........or a flag could be added to select "reverse IAC operation" under the constant table.

What do you guys like better? no code change or flag/option for reverse operation? It would require a .ecu, .tdf file modification. Even still it may not work with a few V6s from reading the GM schematics (if they are correct).

piano wire works great for popping out the pins of the GM metric pack connectors (bolt-in IAC). Same stuff used for pulling windshields.

J

vernw

iTrader: (2)

I don't want to break up the obviously great communication going on between the coding masters, but just wanted to say I'm still available for code testing in a running car if needed. Tested some of Scott's WB integration into the data stream (AXYC bin - manual tranny) before he released it.

As for ideas -

The dual WB data logging capability sounds great (I'm running one in each bank but can only data log one of them)

WB control of fuel tables/pulse width calcs sounds like it should be better than the NB as well.

Shift light control, although available somewhat in TunerCat's beta release that I have, would be great if it was really "tuneable". The TC version's changes still lets the light come on in 5th gear on my T-5. And I have no idea what N/V is or how it is used so I can't suggest how to fix that problem.

Tuneable RPM level OL idle sounds nice as well.


Bottom Line - I'm still available for testing the project in a manual tranny running car if needed.

1981TTA

Your offer brings up a good point..... My impression is that only the AUJP BCC .bin has been structured for source code changes? Are there code differences between AXYC and AUJP? Or, are the calibration values the only difference? (Can you tell I don't have much experience with $8D? ) Are you (and/or any anyone else) able to use AUJP?

I can't speak for the rest of the people making sw changes. Since I don't currently have a vehicle to test with, I don't really have a personal agenda relative to the order of making said changes. I'm more than happy to start with the items suggested by anyone willing to do the testing!

Maybe we should start a list of other individuals willing to try things out....?

vernw

iTrader: (2)

I believe AUJP has had the most done on it up to this point because the auto BIN files apply to more cars than manuals. The AUJP was the last BIN for our 3rd Gens.

AXYC (my base code) is NOT the same as AUJP. AXYC was the last manual tranny BIN, but there are some code differences as I understand it. I'm not an assembly language coder either, hence my offer to be a tester.

Z69

I haven't had time to do a complete diff examination on aujp, axyc, and a couple of vette bins.
Did a quick cal compare and the IAC settings were the only thing that stood out. If there are addition routines in the MT bins it shouldn't be too hard to include them & make them bit selectable too. Just one more thing on the list to do....
Once I get that done I can make something up for you to test Vern.

vernw

iTrader: (2)

No problem, Scott, and Thanks! I was just wanting to say I was still interested in testing if it was still needed on a manual car.

Have a Great Day, Y'all!

scuzz

I can honestly say that you guys rock!
I have learned how to edit out VATS, EGR, all the other crap, change fan temps, and I am now learning to tune my fuel tables, and will soon go on to timing tunes.
I could not have even dreamed of doing any of this a few months ago without you guys help. This forum got me going and 69ghost took the time to really point me when I was lost.
I have a running bin in my car now that I am working over myself because of you guys.
The chip in my car was bought from a commercial business and I found out it was for a 350 and I have a 305 because I read the tutorial you guys put out to the public.
I know nothing of coding, assembly, and all that, but I know I can test stuff for you.
I'm putting together a fun car 58 vette with a 350 vortec, tpis miniram, 700r4, and 1.6 rockers, and headers that I would be glad to test anything you guys come up with.
I have a laptop and aldl and engine skills to know what is going on in my engine, but I can't do code.

1981TTA

OK, now I'm getting a real itch to put some .bin's together for $8D. As I've harped on in previous posts, testing is going to be the thing that moves this forward or kills the effort where it now stands. I'd like to compile the list of people willing to do some testing. A quick review shows the following volunteers :

69Ghost (Engine?/Trans?/BCC?)
vernw (Manual/ AXYC)
scuzz (L98/Auto/AUJP?)

Anyone else stepping forward? If so, please reply with the above information and a list of desired functionality.

I've been looking into supporting boost in $8D. I did *NOT* realise how many different "MAP" variables are running around that software!!! I'd very much like to move forward with this. But, it's going to require someone with a boosted engine dedicated to testing above and beyond the normal call. To date, I've compiled a list of MAP variable addresses in both $8D and $58 and their use in each software set. Code changes and bench testing will begin shortly if there's someone who will test on a real car. If nobody is interested, this can wait in favor of doing the changes people are interested in testing.

Vernw, I can't find an AXYC bin laying around the net (tried Moates and diy-efi). If you send me (or point me to) a copy of this bin, I'll get started.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

I will be testing and coding. The boosted Camaro is off of the road for the winter. I have been splitting time commenting a $58 bin and making turbo parts for the winter driver....305ci TPI pick-up truck. It has an auto 700r4 trans. in it. It doesn't need boost, but I need a test rig. The turbos should be on it by the end of December. It will be the test rig. I was thinking of throwing in some 30 #/hr injectors and would like to possibly do it bank fire using a 730 ECM. All due to the problems at idle some experience with the cheaper injectors.
So add bank fire to the list of "would like to have".

J

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

Does "Q2" actually exist?
If it can be installed or made to work there is a theory in my brain that you could use the "PWM" off U2 (3FD2) to run that in Sync mode for the opposite bank????
The "Out 3 & 4" need to be found out as well to enable the input to the second driver.

Reasearching the I/O is a real learning experience so far

89 Iroc Z

If you are talking about the second injector driver on the 7730 there is an unpopulated space on the PCB for it. The 7749 PCB is pretty much identical to the 730 and has two injector drivers but I believe it has one less Quad driver.

vernw

iTrader: (2)

You have a PM......

Z69

So does anyone have ideas on how to institute a soft touch rev limiter? Not looking for code ideas, just what to have the code do.
I've been given a hint but would like to get more ideas. This might leave the catco users out of the loop.

And don't trust Vern's email. Best to send a PM I found.....


Anyone know what F3 & F5 are used for in none Fbody apps.
There's ref to CARS and one of those pins. I forget which pin at the moment. But F1 is clearly the shift light.
And this is all based on ANHT originally.

vernw

iTrader: (2)

My suggestion would be to look for an unused pin to go to ground, and then activate the soft touch rev limit specified in the ECU/XDF/BIN until the ground goes away. Sound reasonable?

RBob

iTrader: (1)

For a soft touch I have it pulling timing first, then a fuel cut if the RPM's continue to rise. Given a moderate amount of timing cut it is easily felt by the driver. First gear usually has it doing a fuel cut too. . .

CARS: computer aided ratio selection, AKA, skip shift

F3 is A13 on a '727 which is the A/C clutch control

F5 is C13 on a '727 which is the 1-4 upshift light (CARS indicator).

{edit: note that the CARS soleniod is on '727 B7 which is F6 on the '730. This is shared with the TCC soleniod.}

RBob.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

I have the vette factory wiring diagrams and can check anything for the waterproof ECM pin settings. Just mail me.

RednGold86Z

iTrader: (1)

Sorta soft touch -
How about just an EST Bypass Bypass. Let the timing go back to the module, and it'll have about all the retard it can get.

Won't send fuel to the cat either. Just don't spend all day up there, or you could overheat the hard parts.

Z69

Yes, but it costs money. And the ecm can do the same thing.
I'm just not smart enough to figure out how.
That's some thing I'd have to test on my own motor first anyway. I'd like a random cyl drop for the non cat users.
And it take's up limited I/O resources.

Thanks E, Rbob killed two birds with his post.
F6 was driving JP nuts trying to follow it through code that doesn't use it.
Thanks Rbob, you justed saved JP's hair count.

One of those I should have thought of that idea's
Thanks red

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

Well the hair is hopefully staying put
The SL on the other hand is still cornfusing me and I need to get some more info on the "sharing" of the output.

In ANHT and AUJP ($8D) the TCC is operating from "OUT3" which is "U10" expansion to pin "F6". Called by the chip select "GLU" at 4002 #27. the transfer of the data to "U10" should turn that on.

The code on the shift light clearly shows that the output is a PWM from 3FD8 on "U2" pin 3 of the processor. This is routed to QDM "U19" (into pin 10, out of pin 11) then to the ECM pin "F1".
Still haven't found the exact bit to do the enable on the PWM output but "think" it is $002F, b4.

There looks to be no hardware reason why these two can not co-exist. Is there a connection on the 727 that disallows this that you know of??
Jp

JP86SS

iTrader: (1)

Sequencing rev limiter that drops sparks (looked up or static retard value) to some "odd" numbered cylinder but doesn't repeat the drop to the same cylinder would be cool.
Just can't think the math at the moment to figure the sequence.
Implementing the reduction would be the easy part I think, just have to watch the time used to do it.

69 Ghost

iTrader: (1)

John - There is an old ECU definition I believe it is one the DIY site that has the shift light in the definition. I may still have it but need to look.

vernw

iTrader: (2)

OOOoooooo..... I'd like to see that as well!

vernw

iTrader: (2)

Has this thread died, or is everyone just busy writing code, or are we taking a break for the holiday (not a bad idea, actually). I'm still available for any manual tranny testing that you'd like to see done.....

Z69

I was going to get the MT stuff done this weekend.
Ended up working on two programs for work for 3 days straight. Then sat back and let them work (or not) for the 4th.
Spent the spare time looking at realestate online. -Moving in April-

vernw

iTrader: (2)

No hurry - I was just checking in since I hadn't seen anything posted. If you don't get to the MT stuff until after the first, that's fine too. Have a Great Holiday!

Z69

Since I have to work the holidays this year.
It would get done on one of those days for sure.....