BIN parameter compatibility

I suppose the best way to find out is to actually do it, but I thought I'd ask here first. My engine setup is as follows;

3.4l with Edelbrock intake, 4.3 throttle body and 4.3l injectors, Edelbrock long tube headers.

I initially started out using a 1228062 ecm, but then by suggestion, changed to a 1227747 ecm. From there, it just seemed that I could not get the engine to run as well as I have with the 1228062.

But the 7747 has a lot moreadjustability, and I want to go back to it.

I suspect that a lot of the problems I was encountering were related to several issues. The first being the spark latency table which accounts for the distributor size. If I recall correctly, the 4.3 distributor is larger than the 2.8 distributor. Other issues that may have affected the overall performance, I believe, are those that reference "delays" so to speak in regards to readings based on physical build of the engine/exhaust. Finally, I believe that the TPS values between the 2.8 throttle body and the 4.3l were another cause of issues. I've been focusing on these values mainly do to the fact that these alone seemed to have had the biggest affect on my tuning as I've found that using the values for the TPS positions from the 1227747 in place of the 2.8 TPS values in the 8062 ECM. These values also have affect on controlling the torgue converter lock/unlock, power enrichment, and a few others that I can not remember at the moment.

Now, there are lot more parameters in the 7747 versus the 8062, and as such, my question comes down to whether I can substitute 2.8 values where needed in the 7747 BIN where physical measurements are compensated for in the BIN. I.E. spark latency table, INT vs Air Flow is another of a few.

Like I previously stated, I could simply swap in the 7747 ECM and go using the emulator and answer my own questions, but I thought I'd ask here for more opinions. If I do this, I'll be using the ASDU bin which is a V8 bin, or more than likely, ATKX which is a 4.3 BIN.

OH!!!!!

With the 8062 BIN, "Initial Advance is 9.84 with "Spark Table Bias" set to 0. In the 7747 BIN, "Initial Advance is 0 with "Spark Table Bias set to 9.84"

I am thinking that I wont have to physically change the initial timing if I copy the initial/bias values from the 8062.

Thoughts?

Latency has nothing to do with dizzy cap size, which are the same diameter between the 2.8 and the 4.3 BTW, but the latency is a value of how long it takes the ICM to have an output to teh coil from when the signal is input to it. In otherwords, the delay between incoming and outgoing signals. This is module dependent, and can have some effect if the wrong values are used, but probably not as much as you are thinking.

The TPS readings between both the 2.8 and 4.3 throttle bodies are the same, at the very least they are both linear 0 to 5 volt signals, What can change however is HOW MUCH the throttle is opened for the same airflow between each throttle body, since one is larger than the other. This sometimes means that some throttle position values that enable or disable functions might need to be changed, such as when certain tables are used or when idle parameters are entered and exited.

I'm not a fan of using values from other masks, some masks will have different calculations for the same values, and blindly substituting values may cause more problems than it solves. Obviously displacement, cylinder size, injector size etc can all be substuted because these are based on physical attributes of the engine itself. Going back to the spark latency table I would probably copy that one over, since you will be using the 2.8 ICM, though the values may be close to start with anyway.

Set the initial spark advance to what the actual initial spark advance is. I have used the bias table in the past to get the actual timing to be closer (or exactly) what is seen in the SA table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Six_Shooter

Latency has nothing to do with dizzy cap size, which are the same diameter between the 2.8 and the 4.3 BTW, but the latency is a value of how long it takes the ICM to have an output to teh coil from when the signal is input to it. In otherwords, the delay between incoming and outgoing signals. This is module dependent, and can have some effect if the wrong values are used, but probably not as much as you are thinking.

---

When I wrote that, I was thinking of cap size between the 2.8 and v8 BIN values. Although, if I recall correctly, the ignition modules between the 2.8 and 4.3 is different, so my bad on that confusion.

It was enough of an effect that I know it ran better going back to the original ECM and modified BIN.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Six_Shooter

The TPS readings between both the 2.8 and 4.3 throttle bodies are the same, at the very least they are both linear 0 to 5 volt signals, What can change however is HOW MUCH the throttle is opened for the same airflow between each throttle body, since one is larger than the other. This sometimes means that some throttle position values that enable or disable functions might need to be changed, such as when certain tables are used or when idle parameters are entered and exited.

I'm not a fan of using values from other masks, some masks will have different calculations for the same values, and blindly substituting values may cause more problems than it solves. Obviously displacement, cylinder size, injector size etc can all be substuted because these are based on physical attributes of the engine itself. Going back to the spark latency table I would probably copy that one over, since you will be using the 2.8 ICM, though the values may be close to start with anyway.

Set the initial spark advance to what the actual initial spark advance is. I have used the bias table in the past to get the actual timing to be closer (or exactly) what is seen in the SA table.

---

I'd have to look at which BIN it was for the 7747, but there was a significant difference in value.