New LT1 for 2014 6.2l alum block
10-25-2012, 01:29 AM
#61
If it's truely untune-able, the prices on C6's would go through the roof. C6's will be like the late 60's and early 70's vettes, and the C7 will be like the 75-82 vettes=
I understand that moving forward with new technology is always important, but damn! That's a major hinderance.
I understand that moving forward with new technology is always important, but damn! That's a major hinderance.
10-25-2012, 03:12 AM
#62
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rapid City, SD
Posts: 3,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://blogs.popularhotrodding.com/6...v-small-block/
Well I haven't seen anyone here mention yet,if it has forgive me!!! I'm just excited that GM came back to this power plant.They really did a lot of homework to make this power plant unique and powerful with over 11:1cr. I no what my new power plant will be in a few years for my new project lol
Well I haven't seen anyone here mention yet,if it has forgive me!!! I'm just excited that GM came back to this power plant.They really did a lot of homework to make this power plant unique and powerful with over 11:1cr. I no what my new power plant will be in a few years for my new project lol
10-25-2012, 06:41 AM
#64
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brew City
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but at the end of the day you can say you're running an LT1 lol.Also in time there will be much more aftermarket support for this engine than we ever had!! I'm running a LT1 with an single plane and carb just to stay with this name! Trust me I could've made more power for the same money by switching but I didn't want to.Its funny because so many on here complain about GM not making more of the big bore blocks and so on,now they dedicate a whole new advanced power plant a few yrs later and people are already complaining?? When this motor is released the power numbers will be higher with an LT4 version to follow!!!
10-25-2012, 06:49 AM
#66
Saying it "cant be hacked" and "tamper proof" to keep people safe from blowing themselves up with high pressure gasoline is like those child locks on cabinets marketed as "child proof", some 2 year old will hack it and still eat the dog treats...
People have used things as simple as a resistor to trick the ECM that the intake air temp was higher or lower than actual to get hte ECM to dump more or less fuel. Whats stopping someone with coming out with a little device that plugs in between the ECM and all of it's sensors that is completely tunable and gives false readings back to the ECM to trick it into changing its own fuel tables? If the ECM truely cannot be hacked to change the tables directly, someone will just trick the ECM to doing it for them.
When the common rail diesel high pressure fuel systems came out they said the same thing, and that was proved wrong quickly. The late vipers had ECMs that were very difficult to hack and because there is such a small aftermarket for viper mods, it was never pursued heavily. The small block chevy aftermarket is HUGE, the biggest in the world, and the push and $$ payout for someone to figure out how to mod it will surely overcome GM's attempt at making it "tamper proof".
Look at the "war on drugs", the government comes out with 1 thing and says "HA, lets see them get by THAT one!" Yet we still have drugs...
10-25-2012, 08:02 AM
#68
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning to all,
A stand alone or piggy back system will not work simply because you would need access to the fuel tables. Diesels and Gasoline aren't the same and I can explain the major differences electrical and software wise. Putting a resistor in place will not work. The ECM monitors volts and amps real time to the HIGH PRESSURE SOLENOID. So a change in either results in a no start. Electricity has an independent and unique signature at a given volt and also at a given amp will it equate to cycles "opening and off" duties. If either is change in valve it will result in a no start.
Everyone is hopeful that the aftermarket will reverse engineer the ECM system to gain performance is overly hopeful and misplaced. Let have a look at the facts.
The beloved "Opti spark" given for factory performance it was one of the best ignition systems to enter mass production. There are many bad & sad stories surrounding the device, however there isn't a more accurate timing event system for a gasoline engine afterwards. Getting to the point.... Everyone knew the opti spark was the bee's knee's in the 93-97 LT1 gear heads and aftermarkets as well.
The aftermarket put out upgrades for the opti sparks with mods such (better quality encoders for the 360 degree wheel and bearings for the spline drive) better rotor caps & terminals. Sounded good but, anyone that that upgraded soon figured out aftermarket opti spark units aren't anymore reliable than OEM units. LT1 gear heads are more prone to use OEM units than pay for aftermarket today.
Sure the 93-97 LT1 was tunable in the aftermarket. But the aftermarket never redesign the Ignition System of the LT1 eliminating the Opti Spark all together. So of you might say well a few company's have done and succeeded. No they have not.... they still use OEM coils, crank position,cam position sensors and run either a LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition System for the LT1. Then add a convert box for timing ability of multi sparks and such.
Why is that? Well it's all dealing with volts,ohms, amps events of the Ignition Control Module, the Encoder itself, Fuel Pressure Regulator within the PCM of LT1 yesterday. Electrical Signaling is everything the frequency in which these senors operate are known by many but understood by very few.
Thus the 20 year old LT1 today is still around with no solution other than drill the intake apply an after market cam drive distributor, or LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition system with a Converter box for conversion of the frequency of electrical sensor components in a fashion that allows the spark to sync with the fuel injectors.
Most any aftermarket developers know that it is more cost effective to work with OEM electronics and sensors than pay for reserve engineering and regression testing. Millions of dollars other wise. The technology existed and still exist to eliminate the opti spark. No one will foot the development cost the market isn't that large. Cost out weights profits margins = NO GO.
The technology within this ECM and understanding the engine system makes it truly not tunable. Converting the engine to a LS3 isn't a cost effective option.
Running the direct injection system would become a burden vs performance gains.
Bigg Gunz
A stand alone or piggy back system will not work simply because you would need access to the fuel tables. Diesels and Gasoline aren't the same and I can explain the major differences electrical and software wise. Putting a resistor in place will not work. The ECM monitors volts and amps real time to the HIGH PRESSURE SOLENOID. So a change in either results in a no start. Electricity has an independent and unique signature at a given volt and also at a given amp will it equate to cycles "opening and off" duties. If either is change in valve it will result in a no start.
Everyone is hopeful that the aftermarket will reverse engineer the ECM system to gain performance is overly hopeful and misplaced. Let have a look at the facts.
The beloved "Opti spark" given for factory performance it was one of the best ignition systems to enter mass production. There are many bad & sad stories surrounding the device, however there isn't a more accurate timing event system for a gasoline engine afterwards. Getting to the point.... Everyone knew the opti spark was the bee's knee's in the 93-97 LT1 gear heads and aftermarkets as well.
The aftermarket put out upgrades for the opti sparks with mods such (better quality encoders for the 360 degree wheel and bearings for the spline drive) better rotor caps & terminals. Sounded good but, anyone that that upgraded soon figured out aftermarket opti spark units aren't anymore reliable than OEM units. LT1 gear heads are more prone to use OEM units than pay for aftermarket today.
Sure the 93-97 LT1 was tunable in the aftermarket. But the aftermarket never redesign the Ignition System of the LT1 eliminating the Opti Spark all together. So of you might say well a few company's have done and succeeded. No they have not.... they still use OEM coils, crank position,cam position sensors and run either a LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition System for the LT1. Then add a convert box for timing ability of multi sparks and such.
Why is that? Well it's all dealing with volts,ohms, amps events of the Ignition Control Module, the Encoder itself, Fuel Pressure Regulator within the PCM of LT1 yesterday. Electrical Signaling is everything the frequency in which these senors operate are known by many but understood by very few.
Thus the 20 year old LT1 today is still around with no solution other than drill the intake apply an after market cam drive distributor, or LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition system with a Converter box for conversion of the frequency of electrical sensor components in a fashion that allows the spark to sync with the fuel injectors.
Most any aftermarket developers know that it is more cost effective to work with OEM electronics and sensors than pay for reserve engineering and regression testing. Millions of dollars other wise. The technology existed and still exist to eliminate the opti spark. No one will foot the development cost the market isn't that large. Cost out weights profits margins = NO GO.
The technology within this ECM and understanding the engine system makes it truly not tunable. Converting the engine to a LS3 isn't a cost effective option.
Running the direct injection system would become a burden vs performance gains.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 08:25 AM
#69
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning to all,
The beloved "Opti spark" given for factory performance it was one of the best ignition systems to enter mass production. There are many bad & sad stories surrounding the device, however there isn't a more accurate timing event system for a gasoline engine afterwards. Getting to the point.... Everyone knew the opti spark was the bee's knee's in the 93-97 LT1 gear heads and aftermarkets as well.
The aftermarket put out upgrades for the opti sparks with mods such (better quality encoders for the 360 degree wheel and bearings for the spline drive) better rotor caps & terminals. Sounded good but, anyone that that upgraded soon figured out aftermarket opti spark units aren't anymore reliable than OEM units. LT1 gear heads are more prone to use OEM units than pay for aftermarket today.
Sure the 93-97 LT1 was tunable in the aftermarket. But the aftermarket never redesign the Ignition System of the LT1 eliminating the Opti Spark all together. So of you might say well a few company's have done and succeeded. No they have not.... they still use OEM coils, crank position,cam position sensors and run either a LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition System for the LT1. Then add a convert box for timing ability of multi sparks and such.
Why is that? Well it's all dealing with volts,ohms, amps events of the Ignition Control Module, the Encoder itself, Fuel Pressure Regulator within the PCM of LT1 yesterday. Electrical Signaling is everything the frequency in which these senors operate are known by many but understood by very few.
Thus the 20 year old LT1 today is still around with no solution other than drill the intake apply an after market cam drive distributor, or LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition system with a Converter box for conversion of the frequency of electrical sensor components in a fashion that allows the spark to sync with the fuel injectors.
Most any aftermarket developers know that it is more cost effective to work with OEM electronics and sensors than pay for reserve engineering and regression testing. Millions of dollars other wise. The technology existed and still exist to eliminate the opti spark. No one will foot the development cost the market isn't that large. Cost out weights profits margins = NO GO.
The technology within this ECM and understanding the engine system makes it truly not tunable. Converting the engine to a LS3 isn't a cost effective option.
Running the direct injection system would become a burden vs performance gains.
Bigg Gunz
The beloved "Opti spark" given for factory performance it was one of the best ignition systems to enter mass production. There are many bad & sad stories surrounding the device, however there isn't a more accurate timing event system for a gasoline engine afterwards. Getting to the point.... Everyone knew the opti spark was the bee's knee's in the 93-97 LT1 gear heads and aftermarkets as well.
The aftermarket put out upgrades for the opti sparks with mods such (better quality encoders for the 360 degree wheel and bearings for the spline drive) better rotor caps & terminals. Sounded good but, anyone that that upgraded soon figured out aftermarket opti spark units aren't anymore reliable than OEM units. LT1 gear heads are more prone to use OEM units than pay for aftermarket today.
Sure the 93-97 LT1 was tunable in the aftermarket. But the aftermarket never redesign the Ignition System of the LT1 eliminating the Opti Spark all together. So of you might say well a few company's have done and succeeded. No they have not.... they still use OEM coils, crank position,cam position sensors and run either a LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition System for the LT1. Then add a convert box for timing ability of multi sparks and such.
Why is that? Well it's all dealing with volts,ohms, amps events of the Ignition Control Module, the Encoder itself, Fuel Pressure Regulator within the PCM of LT1 yesterday. Electrical Signaling is everything the frequency in which these senors operate are known by many but understood by very few.
Thus the 20 year old LT1 today is still around with no solution other than drill the intake apply an after market cam drive distributor, or LS1 PCM or NorthStar Ignition system with a Converter box for conversion of the frequency of electrical sensor components in a fashion that allows the spark to sync with the fuel injectors.
Most any aftermarket developers know that it is more cost effective to work with OEM electronics and sensors than pay for reserve engineering and regression testing. Millions of dollars other wise. The technology existed and still exist to eliminate the opti spark. No one will foot the development cost the market isn't that large. Cost out weights profits margins = NO GO.
The technology within this ECM and understanding the engine system makes it truly not tunable. Converting the engine to a LS3 isn't a cost effective option.
Running the direct injection system would become a burden vs performance gains.
Bigg Gunz
Have fun convincing yourself the computer won't be hacked. It is like telling a kid he or she can't have ice cream.
10-25-2012, 08:28 AM
#70
They didn't foot the cost to replace it because they could tune it. For an engine with this potential the market for a tunable solution would be ENORMOUS if it's truly as locked down as you say it is.
And the safety issue isn't adding up. If the fail safes you point out exist, there would be no way to harm the engine or yourself by modifying the fueling tables. You can't tell me a system that advanced wouldn't account for safety issues of 2000+psi fuel system, regardless of what the fuel tables say. Mechanical, electrical, and software failures happen. Even the older PCMs monitor and account for engine/management failures with "limp home" mode.
For a guy who just joined with no mentioned credentials you definitely smell like a troll. Anyone with access to google can throw out jargon similar to this.
And the safety issue isn't adding up. If the fail safes you point out exist, there would be no way to harm the engine or yourself by modifying the fueling tables. You can't tell me a system that advanced wouldn't account for safety issues of 2000+psi fuel system, regardless of what the fuel tables say. Mechanical, electrical, and software failures happen. Even the older PCMs monitor and account for engine/management failures with "limp home" mode.
For a guy who just joined with no mentioned credentials you definitely smell like a troll. Anyone with access to google can throw out jargon similar to this.
10-25-2012, 08:42 AM
#72
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must read a lot and repeat it back on the car forums. To most of the owners with opti's that actually work on their own cars, they are not that bad. Hell, you will see many spinning them here to 7000. Sure the LT1 computer is limited, but with the 24x conversion, we can use the ls based pcm with coils, crank sensor, etc.
Have fun convincing yourself the computer won't be hacked. It is like telling a kid he or she can't have ice cream.
Have fun convincing yourself the computer won't be hacked. It is like telling a kid he or she can't have ice cream.
"slingshot"
I don't have to read car forums to understand this particular ECM or the development behind the software system sir. No repeating information was done no additional comments will be addressed concerning that.
Not once did I state or is allowed to say the Opti spark is bad. Clarity is provided if you have the ability to go back and give it another go.
Saying the LT1 PCM is limited is simply implying I don't understand why its limited. Once again... you curve to adjustment of 24x conversion which is using GM developed component & system, Using the PCM is GM development. It is not aftermarket which is the point that eludes you.
Competence plays a key in understanding variables.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 09:04 AM
#73
If GM has such safety concerns why can we tune direct injection Cobalts, Soltice, Redlines etc. Other car companies also have direct injection such as the Mazda 3 speed and Ford's EcoBoost. I don't see those cars exploding or causing any problems.
Also there are many stand alone companies that make ECU's plenty powerful enough to run real time monitoring, so I don't think it will be that big of a problem. If it is that big of a problem GM is going to give themselves a head shot and mind as well file for Bankruptcy now.
It doesn't matter if they offer a more powerful engine, chances are it will be in the 80K+ z06 or the 110K+ ZR1 so the average joe buying a 35K camaro can't afford it.
Gen 4/5 cars and C5/6s will be all anyone wants. LoL
Instead if putting so much time in the ECU GM should have re-designed the Silverado that has been the same from 2007-2013.
Also there are many stand alone companies that make ECU's plenty powerful enough to run real time monitoring, so I don't think it will be that big of a problem. If it is that big of a problem GM is going to give themselves a head shot and mind as well file for Bankruptcy now.
It doesn't matter if they offer a more powerful engine, chances are it will be in the 80K+ z06 or the 110K+ ZR1 so the average joe buying a 35K camaro can't afford it.
Gen 4/5 cars and C5/6s will be all anyone wants. LoL
Instead if putting so much time in the ECU GM should have re-designed the Silverado that has been the same from 2007-2013.
10-25-2012, 09:17 AM
#74
All of this doesn't make the least amount of sense.
First off, the LT market is less than 1% as powerful or profitable as the LS market is, this is why nobody even gives us an aftermarket block, and why nobody has wasted their time improving the LT computer. A direct injection LS engine already has hotrodders drooling over the potential, there is no way that every company is going to say "it's too hard to crack, looks like 450hp will have to do" and miss out on the massive potential aftermarket.
Like was said earlier, 14 year old kids are cracking into the department of defense using an X box.
You have not stated your credentials, whether you are a GM engineer who helped design the ECU, or someone who worked with someone who did, or someone who read an article. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, that you personally designed this "hack free" ECU and WORK FOR GM, and these safety issues are really the on the forefront of GM's mind (lawsuit happy Amerca), GM will defend their "hack proof" computer to the end of the world, that way when someone DOES hack it, they can say "hey we ******* tried". But in reality, GM would never cast away this market, you can't rely 100% on old men in midlife crisis' who just buy a corvette to stick in the garage and go for sunday cruises. Over 50% of people who buy a small block equipped GM product do some sort of horsepower mods (intake catback), and probably 25% go to the point that they need a tune.
First off, the LT market is less than 1% as powerful or profitable as the LS market is, this is why nobody even gives us an aftermarket block, and why nobody has wasted their time improving the LT computer. A direct injection LS engine already has hotrodders drooling over the potential, there is no way that every company is going to say "it's too hard to crack, looks like 450hp will have to do" and miss out on the massive potential aftermarket.
Like was said earlier, 14 year old kids are cracking into the department of defense using an X box.
You have not stated your credentials, whether you are a GM engineer who helped design the ECU, or someone who worked with someone who did, or someone who read an article. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, that you personally designed this "hack free" ECU and WORK FOR GM, and these safety issues are really the on the forefront of GM's mind (lawsuit happy Amerca), GM will defend their "hack proof" computer to the end of the world, that way when someone DOES hack it, they can say "hey we ******* tried". But in reality, GM would never cast away this market, you can't rely 100% on old men in midlife crisis' who just buy a corvette to stick in the garage and go for sunday cruises. Over 50% of people who buy a small block equipped GM product do some sort of horsepower mods (intake catback), and probably 25% go to the point that they need a tune.
Last edited by bufmatmuslepants; 10-25-2012 at 09:25 AM.
10-25-2012, 09:53 AM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is Bigg Gunz?
What I am allowed to say is this the following and strictly will not comment additional. I will have to speak in Generality so the questions are to be asked in the same fashion.
Ask your question in a fashion in which I can reply in general.
Bigg Gunz
What I am allowed to say is this the following and strictly will not comment additional. I will have to speak in Generality so the questions are to be asked in the same fashion.
Ask your question in a fashion in which I can reply in general.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 10:03 AM
#78
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10-25-2012, 10:22 AM
#79
Who do you work for? What role, if any, did you play in the development of this system? There are/were a few people directly from gm (robin something?) who used to post on here. It's hard to take you seriously and differentiate you from any other 16 year old who posts stuff on here if you won't reveal your sources.
10-25-2012, 10:30 AM
#80
Late to the party but anyway I cant believe they are calling this engine a LT1 again wtf? I mean dont get me wrong I love me some LT1's but this is just rediculous! Also LOL @ the big gunz...dude needs to crawl out from under that rock and get some fresh air!!