New Concept
09-29-2011, 01:59 AM
#1
TECH Apprentice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Concept Howdy fellas If any one is interested I have a new concept to replace the opti. to actually rework the opti to work like the Vortec dizzy works, I.E. no intake mod. but you will still have to go 411 ECU. If it works right you will be able to use either the dizzy cap and rotor of the Opti or go CNP. how cool is that???
09-29-2011, 10:10 AM
#2
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have mentioned this previously in another thread. No?
1x Cam Signal Concerns
You will have to disassemble the optispark, remove the reluctor/shutter wheel inside and replace with a new one that generates the proper 1x cam signal. Then you will have to do what is necessary to make the optical sensor signal compatible with the 0411 PCM. This is now a custom part that is still prone to failure due to the same corrosion issues within the optispark.
4x Crank Signal
Not a good cam-driven solution from within the optispark. Early LT1 engines will require the 96-97 timing cover, 4x crank reluctor, and hall effect crank sensor.
24x Crank Signal
Required for coil per cylinder. Not a good cam-driven solution from within the optispark. One of the important benefits of LS coil per cylinder ignition is the improved accuracy of spark/fuel delivery based on a signal from the crank.
I think a modified optispark for 0411 PCM control is a cool idea. Probably best suited for those who are willing to take it on as a DIY project. And there is nothing wrong with that.
1x Cam Signal Concerns
You will have to disassemble the optispark, remove the reluctor/shutter wheel inside and replace with a new one that generates the proper 1x cam signal. Then you will have to do what is necessary to make the optical sensor signal compatible with the 0411 PCM. This is now a custom part that is still prone to failure due to the same corrosion issues within the optispark.
4x Crank Signal
Not a good cam-driven solution from within the optispark. Early LT1 engines will require the 96-97 timing cover, 4x crank reluctor, and hall effect crank sensor.
24x Crank Signal
Required for coil per cylinder. Not a good cam-driven solution from within the optispark. One of the important benefits of LS coil per cylinder ignition is the improved accuracy of spark/fuel delivery based on a signal from the crank.
I think a modified optispark for 0411 PCM control is a cool idea. Probably best suited for those who are willing to take it on as a DIY project. And there is nothing wrong with that.
09-29-2011, 01:41 PM
#3
The guy that developed the Delteq (Northstar ignition waste-spark solution) also had plans to use a regular optispark with a custom interface (such as the one for the Delteq system) to allow for such custom solutions, but it never went that far.
09-29-2011, 01:42 PM
#4
But, again, if you are just getting rid of the LT1 PCM, what is the point?
There is no more power to be made with the 411 or other LS-series PCMs over the sequential-fire 94-97 PCMs... You just need to be able to tune them.
There is no more power to be made with the 411 or other LS-series PCMs over the sequential-fire 94-97 PCMs... You just need to be able to tune them.
09-29-2011, 03:14 PM
#5
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have spoken with several tuners who have had the opportunity to do a before/after comparison and the results consistently yield more power and torque. Nothing earth-shattering, but definitely an improvement. The most recent results can be found in the November issue of Car Craft magazine.
09-29-2011, 03:55 PM
#6
I really don't have to provide anything. It is a simple matter of fact, a sequential EFI system is a sequential EFI system. It supplies fuel, commands spark, reads O2s...
Tuning via a wideband with a working knock system and you can get exactly the same HP out of one system vs another. It all comes down to the capabilities of the person doing the tuning. And I would not doubt that there are quite a few unqualified people tuning LT1s (hell I have fixed hundreds of bad tunes in the past 14 years, some by well known "good tuners")... Key is a lot of people don't care to work with the LT1 computer. People are mostly motivated by money and when you have a lot more cars running LS-series PCMs and you get HPTuners/EFILive/etc down pat (especially some of the auto-tune stuff where you only have to worry about WOT), then you are only motivated to use that...
Get someone with a real clue as to the LT1 PCMs and how to tune them and they will get the same HP out of a motor...
Ask Ed Wright, I believe he has chimed in on this fact. And he agrees, you can get the exact same HP out of a motor with just about any late-model sequential EFI system, including the LT1s.
Tuning via a wideband with a working knock system and you can get exactly the same HP out of one system vs another. It all comes down to the capabilities of the person doing the tuning. And I would not doubt that there are quite a few unqualified people tuning LT1s (hell I have fixed hundreds of bad tunes in the past 14 years, some by well known "good tuners")... Key is a lot of people don't care to work with the LT1 computer. People are mostly motivated by money and when you have a lot more cars running LS-series PCMs and you get HPTuners/EFILive/etc down pat (especially some of the auto-tune stuff where you only have to worry about WOT), then you are only motivated to use that...
Get someone with a real clue as to the LT1 PCMs and how to tune them and they will get the same HP out of a motor...
Ask Ed Wright, I believe he has chimed in on this fact. And he agrees, you can get the exact same HP out of a motor with just about any late-model sequential EFI system, including the LT1s.
09-29-2011, 04:22 PM
#7
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you do if you want to provide credibility because otherwise it is only your opinion. Ed Wright has posted to voice his opinion, too. Actual results tell a different story. I discount your remarks that any reported gains are due to the tuner(s) not knowing how to tune properly with the LT1 PCM. That's another unfounded opinion.
The LS1 fuel management system uses an engine position signal from the crank to control injectors and coils. The LT1 fuel management system uses an engine position signal from the camshaft. The improved accuracy of the LS1 system yields more power, through ignition accuracy, than the LT1 system.
The LS1 fuel management system uses an engine position signal from the crank to control injectors and coils. The LT1 fuel management system uses an engine position signal from the camshaft. The improved accuracy of the LS1 system yields more power, through ignition accuracy, than the LT1 system.
Last edited by S10Wildside; 09-29-2011 at 04:27 PM.
Trending Topics
09-29-2011, 06:32 PM
#8
S10Wildside, again you prove you are an idiot...
The LT1 is directly tied to the CAMSHAFT via the optispark, and it's accuracy is per-degree of camshaft rotation. That is just as good as reading from the crank as it is directly in-line with valve events. Ie, any differential in regards to degree-varience of the camshaft position vs the crankshaft position can be dealt with via adjustments in the tune. so reading off the crank vs the cam is a moot point. GM just got rid of any external reluctor wheel device since they don't need a distributor on the LS-series and put it directly on the crankshaft (which is exactly what they did with the Northstar motors as well long before the LS-series came out).
Again, the system does not matter, the same power can be made with both systems. Yes the LS-series is more advanced in regards to PCM speed (only really needed in regards to electronic transmission control, as there is no question the later PCMs deals with the transmissions better due to torque management) and ignition options (ie, one coil per cylinder), but neither will produce any more power. Power is purely a function of timing and fuel based upon the air-needs of the motor. A LT1 PCM can most certainly control both timing and fuel just as well as a LS-series PCM.
Also, there are many ways around the ignition advantages of the LS-series vs the cap/rotor of the LT1 optispark, such as the Delteq (northstar waste-spark) and the LTCC (LS-series coils). But, even at that, a properly working LT-series cap/rotor with a sufficiently powerful enough coil and ignition box will do just fine for power production as well.
Again, it is just hyperbole that one system controlling hardware in the same way as another can control the exact same hardware will produce more or less power. Power is a function of the hardware of the motor, not the software of the PCM, unless the LT1 PCM had some serious error in it's programming that cannot be gotten around, but it has proven it does not have such a flaw.
About the ONLY time a LS-series (including the 411 ECU) would be justifiable is if you need a boost-enabled speed density setup that is 2-bar or more. For supercharged applications the LT1 PCM operates just fine in any number of ways to accomplish the same goals.
The point is, outside of the above situations (which would really only be on big turbo or heavily supercharged setups), there is no reason to go with another PCM outside of the stock one. Power production is not dependant on the PCM utilized. Ignition issues are not enough of a justification to go with another PCM system either.
If you want to run a different PCM setup, go for it, but don't try to sell anyone on any advantages out of what it natively offers and that is a better ignition system stock. That is the ONLY reason you can give that the later are better, but again, there is many ways to deal with a weak stock LT1 ignition, and you can do it for a lot cheaper than a complete conversion.
The LT1 is directly tied to the CAMSHAFT via the optispark, and it's accuracy is per-degree of camshaft rotation. That is just as good as reading from the crank as it is directly in-line with valve events. Ie, any differential in regards to degree-varience of the camshaft position vs the crankshaft position can be dealt with via adjustments in the tune. so reading off the crank vs the cam is a moot point. GM just got rid of any external reluctor wheel device since they don't need a distributor on the LS-series and put it directly on the crankshaft (which is exactly what they did with the Northstar motors as well long before the LS-series came out).
Again, the system does not matter, the same power can be made with both systems. Yes the LS-series is more advanced in regards to PCM speed (only really needed in regards to electronic transmission control, as there is no question the later PCMs deals with the transmissions better due to torque management) and ignition options (ie, one coil per cylinder), but neither will produce any more power. Power is purely a function of timing and fuel based upon the air-needs of the motor. A LT1 PCM can most certainly control both timing and fuel just as well as a LS-series PCM.
Also, there are many ways around the ignition advantages of the LS-series vs the cap/rotor of the LT1 optispark, such as the Delteq (northstar waste-spark) and the LTCC (LS-series coils). But, even at that, a properly working LT-series cap/rotor with a sufficiently powerful enough coil and ignition box will do just fine for power production as well.
Again, it is just hyperbole that one system controlling hardware in the same way as another can control the exact same hardware will produce more or less power. Power is a function of the hardware of the motor, not the software of the PCM, unless the LT1 PCM had some serious error in it's programming that cannot be gotten around, but it has proven it does not have such a flaw.
About the ONLY time a LS-series (including the 411 ECU) would be justifiable is if you need a boost-enabled speed density setup that is 2-bar or more. For supercharged applications the LT1 PCM operates just fine in any number of ways to accomplish the same goals.
The point is, outside of the above situations (which would really only be on big turbo or heavily supercharged setups), there is no reason to go with another PCM outside of the stock one. Power production is not dependant on the PCM utilized. Ignition issues are not enough of a justification to go with another PCM system either.
If you want to run a different PCM setup, go for it, but don't try to sell anyone on any advantages out of what it natively offers and that is a better ignition system stock. That is the ONLY reason you can give that the later are better, but again, there is many ways to deal with a weak stock LT1 ignition, and you can do it for a lot cheaper than a complete conversion.
09-29-2011, 07:01 PM
#9
I really don't have to provide anything. It is a simple matter of fact, a sequential EFI system is a sequential EFI system. It supplies fuel, commands spark, reads O2s...
Tuning via a wideband with a working knock system and you can get exactly the same HP out of one system vs another. It all comes down to the capabilities of the person doing the tuning. And I would not doubt that there are quite a few unqualified people tuning LT1s (hell I have fixed hundreds of bad tunes in the past 14 years, some by well known "good tuners")... Key is a lot of people don't care to work with the LT1 computer. People are mostly motivated by money and when you have a lot more cars running LS-series PCMs and you get HPTuners/EFILive/etc down pat (especially some of the auto-tune stuff where you only have to worry about WOT), then you are only motivated to use that...
Get someone with a real clue as to the LT1 PCMs and how to tune them and they will get the same HP out of a motor...
Ask Ed Wright, I believe he has chimed in on this fact. And he agrees, you can get the exact same HP out of a motor with just about any late-model sequential EFI system, including the LT1s.
Tuning via a wideband with a working knock system and you can get exactly the same HP out of one system vs another. It all comes down to the capabilities of the person doing the tuning. And I would not doubt that there are quite a few unqualified people tuning LT1s (hell I have fixed hundreds of bad tunes in the past 14 years, some by well known "good tuners")... Key is a lot of people don't care to work with the LT1 computer. People are mostly motivated by money and when you have a lot more cars running LS-series PCMs and you get HPTuners/EFILive/etc down pat (especially some of the auto-tune stuff where you only have to worry about WOT), then you are only motivated to use that...
Get someone with a real clue as to the LT1 PCMs and how to tune them and they will get the same HP out of a motor...
Ask Ed Wright, I believe he has chimed in on this fact. And he agrees, you can get the exact same HP out of a motor with just about any late-model sequential EFI system, including the LT1s.
Think of it this way - do you think the actual crank degrees and timing commanded by your LT1 computer at 6500+ rpms is dead on what the engine is actually seeing? Just the physical opti itself adds inescapable mechanical variations compared to a computer controlled coil on plug setup. Add in a slow PCM and all those small tolerances add up to real world differences.
Power is'nt just about spark and fuel, its about WHEN and HOW MUCH spark and fuel to use...and as the RPMs go up, the ability to accurately control these events becomes much more difficult.
09-29-2011, 07:14 PM
#10
Puck, and you obviously have no clue how fast microcontrollers operate. The speed of the LT1 PCM is not a hinderence in the least in regards to controlling any of the devices on a motor. That much is fact.
A PCM speed issue does not exist. The later ones are faster, but as I stated that only applies in regards to torque management for the transmission being a better way to control it. It has nothing to do with power made from the motor itself.
The "purists" that also like to complain that the LT1 PCM doesn't do exactly as commanded obviously do not understand the LT1 programming. It does EXACTLY as EXPECTED based on the program. There are modifiers for spark timing variations as well as fueling variations and everything else all based on various temperatures, readings, etc... People bitch and moan when they are too lazy to understand how the computer operates vs what they are trying to accomplish with thier limited understanding of it.
Key is, that the speed of the PCM is not a hinderence in the ability to make power. The only ones that state that are those that have a monetary interest in using another system. That applies the same to those that only want to use a newer PCM because they don't care to take the time to understand an older system like the LT1s. ie, time is money in that case.
Again, you will not make any more power with a later-model computer than you will with the stock LT1 computer. We already discussed the ignition system as being the major advantage, but there are ways to correct that as well which is much cheaper than a full PCM conversion.
A PCM speed issue does not exist. The later ones are faster, but as I stated that only applies in regards to torque management for the transmission being a better way to control it. It has nothing to do with power made from the motor itself.
The "purists" that also like to complain that the LT1 PCM doesn't do exactly as commanded obviously do not understand the LT1 programming. It does EXACTLY as EXPECTED based on the program. There are modifiers for spark timing variations as well as fueling variations and everything else all based on various temperatures, readings, etc... People bitch and moan when they are too lazy to understand how the computer operates vs what they are trying to accomplish with thier limited understanding of it.
Key is, that the speed of the PCM is not a hinderence in the ability to make power. The only ones that state that are those that have a monetary interest in using another system. That applies the same to those that only want to use a newer PCM because they don't care to take the time to understand an older system like the LT1s. ie, time is money in that case.
Again, you will not make any more power with a later-model computer than you will with the stock LT1 computer. We already discussed the ignition system as being the major advantage, but there are ways to correct that as well which is much cheaper than a full PCM conversion.
09-29-2011, 08:29 PM
#14
Agreed. If you need to run outside of the limitations of a given PCM, then so be it. My point is, by far the largest majority of people are keeping things at or below 7000rpm and that is where the LT1 PCM was designed to operate.
The majority of the 24x conversions are NOT running above 7000rpm and they are NOT needed to run custom OSes either (ie, forced induction).
If you have a *NEED* to run something other than the LT1 PCM that is fine. But do not say you make more power with a conversion vs the stock PCM, as it is a false statement.
And I do believe the LT1 PCM will run above 7000rpm, but it just carries the 7000rpm settings forward, ie, no ability to tune for RPMS above that.
The majority of the 24x conversions are NOT running above 7000rpm and they are NOT needed to run custom OSes either (ie, forced induction).
If you have a *NEED* to run something other than the LT1 PCM that is fine. But do not say you make more power with a conversion vs the stock PCM, as it is a false statement.
And I do believe the LT1 PCM will run above 7000rpm, but it just carries the 7000rpm settings forward, ie, no ability to tune for RPMS above that.
09-29-2011, 09:58 PM
#15
On The Tree
Oh boy....... here we go...... again...... So Mr. 95 TA.... Da beast.... do you post on these forums just to intentionally **** in peoples Wheaties???
What Tinbender59 posted originally had NOTHING to do with what PCM made more power......NOTHING. He was simply stating that he had an idea and wanted to know what other people out here in internetland thought of his idea. S10Wildside gave his opinion and you just went right to town, basically running this thread right off it's tracks and off into never never land, probably never to recover!!!
This topic has been discussed here before multiple times. Does one have to switch to a 24X computer system to get the max power out of their LT1, probably not. Is a person going to have better luck getting his car tuned for max power and driveability with a 411 PCM over a LT1 PCM, hell yes for sure. So in essence, someone is going to be able to make more power/better driveability with a 411 PCM than a LT1 PCM because there are simply more tuners that are able to tune a 411 PCM correctly than the stone age LT1 PCM.
The old saying goes 'Different strokes for different folks' and this applies here also, some people want nothing to do with the LT1 PCM (myself included) and some people love them (why I am not sure), so why bash a guy who wants to come up with a way to use the 411 PCM on his LT1??????
So beast.... kick in the brain to typing finger filters every once in a while and answer the posters original question and refrain from going off on some wild tangents please!!!
Mike
P.S..... Beastie, I think you incorrectly stated that S10Wildside is an idiot a few posts back.... I think you should apply your screen name where you inputted S10Wildside's name and you should have it all correct then!!!
What Tinbender59 posted originally had NOTHING to do with what PCM made more power......NOTHING. He was simply stating that he had an idea and wanted to know what other people out here in internetland thought of his idea. S10Wildside gave his opinion and you just went right to town, basically running this thread right off it's tracks and off into never never land, probably never to recover!!!
This topic has been discussed here before multiple times. Does one have to switch to a 24X computer system to get the max power out of their LT1, probably not. Is a person going to have better luck getting his car tuned for max power and driveability with a 411 PCM over a LT1 PCM, hell yes for sure. So in essence, someone is going to be able to make more power/better driveability with a 411 PCM than a LT1 PCM because there are simply more tuners that are able to tune a 411 PCM correctly than the stone age LT1 PCM.
The old saying goes 'Different strokes for different folks' and this applies here also, some people want nothing to do with the LT1 PCM (myself included) and some people love them (why I am not sure), so why bash a guy who wants to come up with a way to use the 411 PCM on his LT1??????
So beast.... kick in the brain to typing finger filters every once in a while and answer the posters original question and refrain from going off on some wild tangents please!!!
Mike
P.S..... Beastie, I think you incorrectly stated that S10Wildside is an idiot a few posts back.... I think you should apply your screen name where you inputted S10Wildside's name and you should have it all correct then!!!
09-29-2011, 10:21 PM
#16
schwoch1, of course you are the S10Wildside nutswinger as usual...
I clarified an inaccurate statement from S10Wildside because of his obvious interest in personal gain from selling 24x systems. That is all.
And the rest of your drivel isn't even worth talking about...
Fact of the matter is, the statement made was false. You CAN get max HP out of a setup with a LT1 PCM, you DO NOT NEED a conversion to do that. Point made.
I clarified an inaccurate statement from S10Wildside because of his obvious interest in personal gain from selling 24x systems. That is all.
And the rest of your drivel isn't even worth talking about...
Fact of the matter is, the statement made was false. You CAN get max HP out of a setup with a LT1 PCM, you DO NOT NEED a conversion to do that. Point made.
09-29-2011, 10:41 PM
#18
On The Tree
I clarified an inaccurate statement from S10Wildside because of his obvious interest in personal gain from selling 24x systems. That is all.
And the rest of your drivel isn't even worth talking about...
Fact of the matter is, the statement made was false. You CAN get max HP out of a setup with a LT1 PCM, you DO NOT NEED a conversion to do that. Point made.
Have a nice day.....
Mike
Last edited by schwoch1; 09-29-2011 at 10:52 PM. Reason: fixed small grammer error
09-29-2011, 11:54 PM
#19
Puck, and you obviously have no clue how fast microcontrollers operate. The speed of the LT1 PCM is not a hinderence in the least in regards to controlling any of the devices on a motor. That much is fact.
A PCM speed issue does not exist. The later ones are faster, but as I stated that only applies in regards to torque management for the transmission being a better way to control it. It has nothing to do with power made from the motor itself.
The "purists" that also like to complain that the LT1 PCM doesn't do exactly as commanded obviously do not understand the LT1 programming. It does EXACTLY as EXPECTED based on the program. There are modifiers for spark timing variations as well as fueling variations and everything else all based on various temperatures, readings, etc... People bitch and moan when they are too lazy to understand how the computer operates vs what they are trying to accomplish with thier limited understanding of it.
Key is, that the speed of the PCM is not a hinderence in the ability to make power. The only ones that state that are those that have a monetary interest in using another system. That applies the same to those that only want to use a newer PCM because they don't care to take the time to understand an older system like the LT1s. ie, time is money in that case.
Again, you will not make any more power with a later-model computer than you will with the stock LT1 computer. We already discussed the ignition system as being the major advantage, but there are ways to correct that as well which is much cheaper than a full PCM conversion.
A PCM speed issue does not exist. The later ones are faster, but as I stated that only applies in regards to torque management for the transmission being a better way to control it. It has nothing to do with power made from the motor itself.
The "purists" that also like to complain that the LT1 PCM doesn't do exactly as commanded obviously do not understand the LT1 programming. It does EXACTLY as EXPECTED based on the program. There are modifiers for spark timing variations as well as fueling variations and everything else all based on various temperatures, readings, etc... People bitch and moan when they are too lazy to understand how the computer operates vs what they are trying to accomplish with thier limited understanding of it.
Key is, that the speed of the PCM is not a hinderence in the ability to make power. The only ones that state that are those that have a monetary interest in using another system. That applies the same to those that only want to use a newer PCM because they don't care to take the time to understand an older system like the LT1s. ie, time is money in that case.
Again, you will not make any more power with a later-model computer than you will with the stock LT1 computer. We already discussed the ignition system as being the major advantage, but there are ways to correct that as well which is much cheaper than a full PCM conversion.
You never answered my question...do you really think that your fuel delivery and spark timing are really right where the computer thinks they are, especially at high RPMs? Is your spark at exactly the degrees of crank rotation that the PCM thinks it is? That piston is moving pretty damn fast with that crank turning hundreds of times per second...in fact, 1* of rotation takes only 20 microseconds at 6,000rpms. How much do you trust that ancient processor to accurately keep up?
I know for a fact that actual timing can be a few degrees off from commanded by the computer. Do you not agree that the coil-on-plug system, without all its mechanical complications and margin of error, not only is much faster and better at controlling spark, but is more accurate - which in turn means more power and a better running engine?
Every swap I have seen that wasn't a botched install has picked up power and smoothness by swapping from the LT1 computer system, regardless of whether they are using the extra RPM capacity or not. You can argue about it until you are red in the face, but the computer IS a valid upgrade path on these engines...and the more aggressive your combo is, the bigger a setback it will be.
Besides all that - do you even know how fast(slow) the LT1 computer actually is in comparison? Knowing that they started in 92, we can guess a ballpark, right? Pentium I's wont ship for another year, and 486's were the kings, with desktop processors running 33-66mhz with the "Turbo" button turned on
. The LT1 computers weren't half of that, not even a measly 50mhz. Not 40, 30, 20, or even 10mhz. Nope, its actually a pair of Motorola 6800 series chips...technology from, get this, the mid 70's. They run at a blistering 2mhz. Yep, your car has a computer processor one third as fast as a TI-83 Calculator.Does it get the job done? Yes. That doesn't mean that there aren't better options out there.
That is assuming OBDII...OBDI is out of steam at 6955.
09-30-2011, 11:12 PM
#20
A little insight from a (former) GM Engineer ...do you even know how fast(slow) the LT1 computer actually is in comparison? Knowing that they started in 92, we can guess a ballpark, right? Pentium I's wont ship for another year, and 486's were the kings, with desktop processors running 33-66mhz with the "Turbo" button turned on . The LT1 computers weren't half of that, not even a measly 50mhz. Not 40, 30, 20, or even 10mhz. Nope, its actually a pair of Motorola 6800 series chips...technology from, get this, the mid 70's. They run at a blistering 2mhz. Yep, your car has a computer processor one third as fast as a TI-83 Calculator.
Does it get the job done? Yes. That doesn't mean that there aren't better options out there.
. The LT1 computers weren't half of that, not even a measly 50mhz. Not 40, 30, 20, or even 10mhz. Nope, its actually a pair of Motorola 6800 series chips...technology from, get this, the mid 70's. They run at a blistering 2mhz. Yep, your car has a computer processor one third as fast as a TI-83 Calculator.Does it get the job done? Yes. That doesn't mean that there aren't better options out there.
In the Y-car OBD II / PCM software engineering development meetings (circa late 1993 / early 1994), we were running into 'issues' because our (i.e. - "GM's") best processor couldn't do everything we needed it to do in the allotted time frame between consecutive cylinder firings. So, 'compromises' were made as it related to functionallity and features in order to comply with the future OBD II requirements.
I left GM right as the first OBD II vehicles were produced (1996), so I can't speak to what happened with newer PCMs, but I do know that those first generation OBD II PCMs were not adequate to the task at hand; so it just stands to reason that the newer PCMs would indeed do more and perform better.
As for the secondary debate on Cam position vs. Crank position - any Automotive Technician can tell you that timing chain stretch is always a consideration in highly stressed motors.
Think about it - Why are there double-roller timing chains? To reduce the load-per-chainlink by 50% and thereby reduce/remove the onset of chain stretch; so to argue about that fact is just silly.
You can't change the laws of physics. If the rotational position of the camshaft is dependant on a series of mechancial devices which wear and stretch over their usable life, then logically speaking, as these parts wear, the position of the cam realitive to the crank will change over time, and this variance will negatively impact power production.
I realize that by trying to add a little common sense into this discussion, I too will be labeled as "idiot" (and I have indeed had my moments of idiocy - ask me about my use [or lack thereof] of head bolt thread sealant
) but, in this particular case I must side with the majority, who have their facts straight - an updated / newer PCM is indeed better.(Let the cries and howls begin anew!)