New LT1 for 2014 6.2l alum block
10-25-2012, 04:50 PM
#101
TECH Fanatic
Well you can measure my **** when your girl takes out of her ***... You brought it up moron, not sure where the I'm better than everyone else comparison comes from oh well.
DELCO And Duh dipshit.
Thanks for proving my point about age. Your momma must sure be proud, you **** holster.
DELCO And Duh dipshit.
Thanks for proving my point about age. Your momma must sure be proud, you **** holster.
10-25-2012, 04:52 PM
#102
Allow me to explain why it will be tough to crack the ECM. The ECM uses a "public key encryption"/ Stateful connection to prevent tampering from gear heads. To better understand why it will be nearly impossible to crack. The ECM uses (TLS) transport layer protocol allows the ECM and fuel table applications to communicate across a data network via the internet back to GM in a way designed to prevent listening and tampering. This is for your protection and safety. The public key encryption on this ECM requires 2 keys. One to access the servers here at GM and once the integrity is validate then a second key encryption is provide to the ECM within the vehicle to allow diagnostics & restore of the fuel tables & fuel event system. Many of you will have questions about (YOUR PROTECTION). I will get in front of the ball and explain.
The ECM controls the exact point in time the fuel control solenoids closes. What this means you need a very fast computer to control the High Pressure Fuel solenoid cycles which is contained on the high pressure cam driven pump itself. (This ECM is basically a small PC with applications)
The ECM needs the crankshaft and cam position, fuel pressure sensor value to be
able to actuate/control the high pressure pump solenoid. This is dealing with the volume of fuel and all pressure at the same time. If the solenoid would remain closed at all time it would supply 2,175 psi all the time, which would cause all kinds of risk with the injection event. Resulting in total loss of the engine/vehicle.
The fuel system consist of low pressure side (pump in fuel tank) and High Pressure Fuel Pump (camshaft driven by lobe). The High Pressure Solenoid on the pump has zero errors. The ECM monitors the High Pressure Solenoid On/Off signaling duty cycles in real time as an added measure of security (VOLTS & AMPS). Thus this is the learning curve, reason for this is to actuate the fuel pressure control solenoid at a specific camshaft degree value of rotation learned. Self contained ECM system the system will lock if tampered the solenoid will remain open, fuel is then returned back to the fuel inlet and no pressure or volume will be seen. For your safety the engine will not start.
with regards,
Bigg_Gunz
The ECM controls the exact point in time the fuel control solenoids closes. What this means you need a very fast computer to control the High Pressure Fuel solenoid cycles which is contained on the high pressure cam driven pump itself. (This ECM is basically a small PC with applications)
The ECM needs the crankshaft and cam position, fuel pressure sensor value to be
able to actuate/control the high pressure pump solenoid. This is dealing with the volume of fuel and all pressure at the same time. If the solenoid would remain closed at all time it would supply 2,175 psi all the time, which would cause all kinds of risk with the injection event. Resulting in total loss of the engine/vehicle.
The fuel system consist of low pressure side (pump in fuel tank) and High Pressure Fuel Pump (camshaft driven by lobe). The High Pressure Solenoid on the pump has zero errors. The ECM monitors the High Pressure Solenoid On/Off signaling duty cycles in real time as an added measure of security (VOLTS & AMPS). Thus this is the learning curve, reason for this is to actuate the fuel pressure control solenoid at a specific camshaft degree value of rotation learned. Self contained ECM system the system will lock if tampered the solenoid will remain open, fuel is then returned back to the fuel inlet and no pressure or volume will be seen. For your safety the engine will not start.
with regards,
Bigg_Gunz
10-25-2012, 05:07 PM
#104
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(SAFETY) first and foremost always (SAFETY). Limiting the number of ECUs on the vehicle is something everyone auto producer was thinking about at the time of production of the DI V6. what you’ve seen is ECU consolidation already around body control. These architectures were proven & drive in computer science, off the vehicle, and then were applied these to the vehicle AUTOSAR. Finally virtual clients due to the processor power is able to come up with electrical architectures that reduce complexity by integrating more ECUs into one. Thus the ECM of today.
In short the ECU of the DI v6 wasn't capable of running the needed parameters os and hypervisor. However the ECM of today is more than up to the task.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 05:50 PM
#106
(SAFETY) first and foremost always (SAFETY). Limiting the number of ECUs on the vehicle is something everyone auto producer was thinking about at the time of production of the DI V6. what you’ve seen is ECU consolidation already around body control. These architectures were proven & drive in computer science, off the vehicle, and then were applied these to the vehicle AUTOSAR. Finally virtual clients due to the processor power is able to come up with electrical architectures that reduce complexity by integrating more ECUs into one. Thus the ECM of today.
In short the ECU of the DI v6 wasn't capable of running the needed parameters os and hypervisor. However the ECM of today is more than up to the task.
Bigg Gunz
In short the ECU of the DI v6 wasn't capable of running the needed parameters os and hypervisor. However the ECM of today is more than up to the task.
Bigg Gunz
Last edited by meissenation; 10-25-2012 at 05:56 PM.
10-25-2012, 06:10 PM
#107
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would it be using to interface with GM? There's only one source I know of for it to get internet connectivity at all times... What happens if the ECM loses its connection with home base - no worky? Just seems like it's a mess waiting to happen. As someone who works at GM World HQ, the stories I've heard about engineers trying to implement IT functionality in vehicles is a nightmare... don't get me started on the infotainment group.
The ECM within the vehicle does not need concurrent connective to the servers to be functional and the ECM itself is contained. That would require some type of GSM/CDMA/ Data link service. This system does NOT need concurrent connections to the servers.
The vehicle will operate as expected without any problems. The connective TLM/TLS only factors into play during maintenance /diagnostics or attempted tampering/adjusting/tuning of the ECM. Which is for the safety of the consumer.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 06:14 PM
#108
Here is what im gathering.
The server is in the same ECM as the virtual client I think, it's not trying to uplink to gm directly, it holds the fuel tables and "database" of what it should be, and the virtual client monitors and controls the equipment. It's using IP to talk to eachother, and the client expects to see a certain Mac address for the server, which is why he says you can't force the client to look at another server, similar to when an IT guy locks a switch to only look at one Mac address of a computer, device or server. Your only ways around it are to either reset the switch or device between the client and server so the switch will be unlocked to a new Mac, or to set the new servers Mac to what the stock Mac was. You can do this in networking with real servers and it sounds like this is their plan in the cars.
As far as the uplink with gm, I don't believe it is real time, it's probably just when you take it in for service, gm can see if you have been dicking with it and can void your warranty, like on the new diesels if they see your ECM has been flashed a certain number of times. There is no way it could be a constant uplink because if you went in a "no service area" or that satellite got damaged all cars would stop dead.
The server is in the same ECM as the virtual client I think, it's not trying to uplink to gm directly, it holds the fuel tables and "database" of what it should be, and the virtual client monitors and controls the equipment. It's using IP to talk to eachother, and the client expects to see a certain Mac address for the server, which is why he says you can't force the client to look at another server, similar to when an IT guy locks a switch to only look at one Mac address of a computer, device or server. Your only ways around it are to either reset the switch or device between the client and server so the switch will be unlocked to a new Mac, or to set the new servers Mac to what the stock Mac was. You can do this in networking with real servers and it sounds like this is their plan in the cars.
As far as the uplink with gm, I don't believe it is real time, it's probably just when you take it in for service, gm can see if you have been dicking with it and can void your warranty, like on the new diesels if they see your ECM has been flashed a certain number of times. There is no way it could be a constant uplink because if you went in a "no service area" or that satellite got damaged all cars would stop dead.
10-25-2012, 06:24 PM
#109
You mean "safety" or "liability"? My guess is some dumb ******* hurt himself tinkering with the v6 tuning and sued GM and they are just trying to cover their asses now. 2100 psi is nothing, I thought you meant bar, or 29000 psi which is pushing the limit of hard lines, injectors and rails, which is what diesels run, and you were thinking safety in that manor.
10-25-2012, 06:40 PM
#110
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is what im gathering.
The server is in the same ECM as the virtual client I think, it's not trying to uplink to gm directly, it holds the fuel tables and "database" of what it should be, and the virtual client monitors and controls the equipment. It's using IP to talk to eachother, and the client expects to see a certain Mac address for the server, which is why he says you can't force the client to look at another server, similar to when an IT guy locks a switch to only look at one Mac address of a computer, device or server. Your only ways around it are to either reset the switch or device between the client and server so the switch will be unlocked to a new Mac, or to set the new servers Mac to what the stock Mac was. You can do this in networking with real servers and it sounds like this is their plan in the cars.
As far as the uplink with gm, I don't believe it is real time, it's probably just when you take it in for service, gm can see if you have been dicking with it and can void your warranty, like on the new diesels if they see your ECM has been flashed a certain number of times. There is no way it could be a constant uplink because if you went in a "no service area" or that satellite got damaged all cars would stop dead.
The server is in the same ECM as the virtual client I think, it's not trying to uplink to gm directly, it holds the fuel tables and "database" of what it should be, and the virtual client monitors and controls the equipment. It's using IP to talk to eachother, and the client expects to see a certain Mac address for the server, which is why he says you can't force the client to look at another server, similar to when an IT guy locks a switch to only look at one Mac address of a computer, device or server. Your only ways around it are to either reset the switch or device between the client and server so the switch will be unlocked to a new Mac, or to set the new servers Mac to what the stock Mac was. You can do this in networking with real servers and it sounds like this is their plan in the cars.
As far as the uplink with gm, I don't believe it is real time, it's probably just when you take it in for service, gm can see if you have been dicking with it and can void your warranty, like on the new diesels if they see your ECM has been flashed a certain number of times. There is no way it could be a constant uplink because if you went in a "no service area" or that satellite got damaged all cars would stop dead.
Everything in red is correct
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 06:56 PM
#111
Village Troll 
iTrader: (2)
No it's not. GM cannot void any warranty as a whole regardless if a breakdown is from a modification or not. GM would have to prove the breakdown was the cause of any modification. Of course this may mean at the very least getting a lawyer, but nonetheless, GM does not have the power to void an entire warranty.
10-25-2012, 07:13 PM
#112
Seriously though, all that sounds very impressive. But I'm willing to bet a lot of money that shortly after the cars are available. HP tuners or somebody else will be tuning these ecms.
Theye not trying to hide wmd launch codes. However, if I'm wrong, I will gladly post my apologies in this thread.
10-25-2012, 07:17 PM
#113
As for the "next big thing", most of us on this forum dont care. None of us can afford it. This crowed is looking for a $20,000 3100lb, live rear axle, 500 horsepower engine with a 6 speed stick that is easily modded. The overweight gen 5 camaro is widely hated anyways by guys who are really looking for performance. Between the new 5.0 and the 5th gen camaro, many of us would abandon our GM loyalty to get the 5.0. You cant even fit a helmet through the window opening of the 5th gen.
Just my opinion, ill take a fifth gen anyday over one of those.
Nice car btw, I have a 97 m6 same color.
10-25-2012, 08:00 PM
#114
I just dealt with this 2 days ago. I replaced a server with a new one for a customer after IT had left for the day. I couldn't get the client in the other building to see the new server because the server was getting a different ip assigned to it than the one the client was used to seeing. I couldn't call IT to reset the port to recognize the new Mac address and thus the server was recieving a funky ip. I was able to assign the new servers Mac to the old servers and then it picked up the correct ip and the client was happy.
We also use virtual aem's in one of our controllers, and the aem is the channel to the server recieving and transmitting data, just like you are using. It's all hackable. Something as simple as using hyperterminal, you can change the ip address and make it look for a different device.
We also use virtual aem's in one of our controllers, and the aem is the channel to the server recieving and transmitting data, just like you are using. It's all hackable. Something as simple as using hyperterminal, you can change the ip address and make it look for a different device.
10-25-2012, 08:21 PM
#115
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: inactive
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's not. GM cannot void any warranty as a whole regardless if a breakdown is from a modification or not. GM would have to prove the breakdown was the cause of any modification. Of course this may mean at the very least getting a lawyer, but nonetheless, GM does not have the power to void an entire warranty.
If the servers detector tampering within the ECM the server will send a void notice to the dealership where the impaired vehicle is being diagnose. Ask any REGIONAL SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE working for GM.
GM is unquestionably subject matter experts on their vehicle. A Lawyer or Lawyers will be hard pressed to prove their case against recorded data on the ECM/vehicle in question and expert engine management engineers.
The judge will understand that the owner illegally violated state and Federal EPA/Smog Laws. Which states the ENGINE CONTROL UNIT cannot be modified by anyone but GM as tested by the EPA. The problem only compounds from possible jail time and $20,000 + fines.
Bigg Gunz
10-25-2012, 08:43 PM
#116
12 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Old Bridge, NJ/Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 1,215
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyone who believes some random *** person (or robot) named Bigg Gunz who just joined this forum this month is a ****** moron. Nothing he says makes any sense. GM already makes a V6 with DI that is plenty tunable. From what you are saying, adding 2 more cylinders means were all gonna blow ourselves up when we tune our car. Seems legit. GM would never do that (though Dodge did something similar with the 392 challenger, locking the computer and saying any company that cracks it will get sued). Look at the ZL1 when it first came out. Who are the first people that received these cars? Lingenfelter, Hennessey, Redline, Livernois, and LMR. All tuning companies. They did this so that there would be aftermarket parts available for it when the majority of the public buyers got their hands on their car. GM isnt stupid and would never lock out a computer from being tuned...
10-25-2012, 09:38 PM
#117
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South TX
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with everyone on here on most points. SIDI has tons of potential. Look at the LNF, stock fuel system able to support over 500whp from a 2.0L. Everyone was so worried about not being able to do crap to it. All software is hackable. The first company that figures out a way to make an "un-hackable" pc system will be rich beyond belief. With that said, I am very disappointed in the naming and suggested power numbers. They should have called it LS5 for the base engine and LSX for the top dog engine. 450bhp from 6.2L is a waste IMO. Ford makes as much with a smaller engine using real advanced technology. Pushrods are great for cheap and simple but every single high output per displacement engine uses advanced cam timing technology with dohc heads. Honda, Ford, BMW, Audi, Lamborghini, Toyota, Ferrari, Porsche just to name a few. GM used to have this tech in the old LT5 engine but was dumb by not investing in the more advanced tech. I don't care what anyone says, a 5.2L V8 making more than 550whp is truly remarkable from oem production parts. I just don't understand why GM fights tooth and nail keeping with antiquated technology. Like the 3.5L and 3.9L engines, so advanced and yet, so lame compared to most of the competition. A 3.5L pushrod v6 with only 200bhp is pathetic. My wife's Sonata with a smaller 3.3L makes 50hp more. Even worse is the 3.9L only making a measly 230bhp. Pathetic is all I can say. They have all the resources available to make a truly world class engine but instead keep using the same old. DI and oil squirters do not impress me one bit unless it's making 500bhp out of the box.
10-25-2012, 10:15 PM
#118
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South TX
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean for comparison purposes, the Coyote makes 87hp/L in stock trim. That same specific output would make a GM 6.2L over 500bhp and the 7.0L 600bhp. Now THAT is something to get excited about. One of the most awesome benefits of a dohc system like Fords TiVCT is having the ability to open or close the LSA on the fly as well as advancing/retarding the cams independently. I will admit having owned a VVT GM engine that it was leaps and bounds better than the old torqueless wonder the old one was like.
10-25-2012, 10:24 PM
#119
I agree with everyone on here on most points. SIDI has tons of potential. Look at the LNF, stock fuel system able to support over 500whp from a 2.0L. Everyone was so worried about not being able to do crap to it. All software is hackable. The first company that figures out a way to make an "un-hackable" pc system will be rich beyond belief. With that said, I am very disappointed in the naming and suggested power numbers. They should have called it LS5 for the base engine and LSX for the top dog engine. 450bhp from 6.2L is a waste IMO. Ford makes as much with a smaller engine using real advanced technology. Pushrods are great for cheap and simple but every single high output per displacement engine uses advanced cam timing technology with dohc heads. Honda, Ford, BMW, Audi, Lamborghini, Toyota, Ferrari, Porsche just to name a few. GM used to have this tech in the old LT5 engine but was dumb by not investing in the more advanced tech. I don't care what anyone says, a 5.2L V8 making more than 550whp is truly remarkable from oem production parts. I just don't understand why GM fights tooth and nail keeping with antiquated technology. Like the 3.5L and 3.9L engines, so advanced and yet, so lame compared to most of the competition. A 3.5L pushrod v6 with only 200bhp is pathetic. My wife's Sonata with a smaller 3.3L makes 50hp more. Even worse is the 3.9L only making a measly 230bhp. Pathetic is all I can say. They have all the resources available to make a truly world class engine but instead keep using the same old. DI and oil squirters do not impress me one bit unless it's making 500bhp out of the box.
Sorry, but 450 lb ft is better in my book. As is, a broader curve, that's what moves the car.
You don't think gm is gonna spill all the beans on the first day are you. I guarantee this motor is gonna make closer to 500, they'll probably rate it around 470hp, 460lb ft.
I'm guessing the auto version, that we've been seeing in all the pics with afm, may have a lower rating. The manual will have higher output definately. And who cares what they name it, are yu really not gonna buy it because you don't like an rpo?
The 60 degree v6s were fine for their time, but they're no longer in production so it doesn't matter. You know what was lame, the 2v 4.6s. 260 hp, come on really, they sure did make a great case for ohc tech didn't they. Don't like the LT1? Wait for the 7.0 model, or the supercharged model.
Apples to apples? Ford 6.2. Makes 411hp and 424 lb ft.
10-25-2012, 10:57 PM
#120
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South TX
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what if it only makes 380ft lbs? It's something called gearing. That plus a lighter car makes a faster car. And Fords 6.2L makes very similar power to GM's 6.2L truck engine. 2V sohc vs 2v ohv. It's so funny how lots of GM diehards and Vette owners say the Coyote is tapped out from the get go. Weird how a bolt-on Coyote makes the same/more power as a cammed/bolt-on Camaro LS3. Boss 302 intake, tune, cai and full exhaust is 460-480whp. Cams/slightly cleaned up heads push it to 500+whp. If Ford ever applies the same tech to the 6.2L, then everyone will have to look out. It's like any hot small displacement SBC. Loads of rpm, big hp and not much tq. Hence they were in lightweight cars with TH350 and 4.11+ gears.