JAS

Dean, the point is, the "perceived" performance that JR is getting is FALSE so why would you be happy with it?

I do appologize about my rant in your thread, but even your logs show that with 2 parameters logged, Atap achieved 20 datapoints in 1 second where you EASE recorded only 16 datapoints in a second. Even of those 16 datapoints, there are repeats and not new updates.

I DO hope that Team-ZR1 has a solution for your EASE's lack of performance after constantly ripping into other manufactures scanners and you shelling out the $$$...

Best of luck.

<small>[ October 14, 2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

EFILive

iTrader: (2)

There has been some misleading information posted in this thread, I hope I can help clear up the confusion...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1You have no clue to the OBD-II protocol which means when a request is made, a response has to be received before another request can be made, thus the timestamps and frame counts would show if the scanner was reporting the same frame of data multi times or not</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't assume that ALL VPW communications are request/response - the PCM can and does support asynchronous data logging.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1BUT the PCM has NOT gotten new values from the functions that SUPPLY the values in that timeframe</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1the scanner is ONLY reporting what the PCM put into those frames and thus if data for a function is the same that MEANS the PCM has NOT received new values between scanner requests</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So what you're saying is that the PCM only has it's input data updated every 50ms or so, according to the scan you posted. If that were truly the case then the PCM could not possibly calculate spark and fuel accurately.
Using EFILiveV5 you can see that is not the case - the PCM has access to ALL the data it needs and that data is updated very quickly.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1So I suggest you start learning OBD-II, find out why there is not only is a interframe spacing delay, SOH, EOH, SOD, EOD, and a 100 mSec delay between OBD-II frames and then add header, mode, and CRC bytes, and compute bit time on a 10.4K serial link</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For a non-self-proclaimed expert, JAS has explained very accurately the scan rates shown in the sample logs above.

John, you suggest that many of us "should start learning OBD-II", well here is GM-LS1 J1850-VPW lesson 101:
I am going to describe IN DETAIL the way EFILiveV5 is able to sample data quickly, coherently and still be J1850-VPW compliant and not interfere with the correct workings of the on board systems.

1. There is no such thing as EOH in J1850-VPW.

2. The 100ms is NOT required between OBD-II frames - it is ONLY required between scan tool requests (NOT responses) - and only as a courtesy to other more important functions on the bus. If a 100ms delay was required between ALL VPW frames then a MAXIMUM of only 10 messages could be sent per second AND the bus would sit idle for 90% of the time - you can't be serious. The PCM (and other nodes) are free to (and often do) send multiple responses to scan tool requests at normally between 10-40ms intervals. The EOF symbol (280 micro seconds or 0.28ms - way less than 100ms) is the ONLY symbol that VPW compliant nodes must allow to elapse after any bus activity before they may transmit on the bus.

3. The GM-LS1 PCM has been designed to provide a single snapshot of coherent data at either 5 or 10 snapshots per second. This feature has NOTHING to do with which scan tool is being used. Any scan tool is free to use that scan mode. It appears that EFILiveV5 is the only publicly available scan tool that does so. The frames are sent by the PCM at alternating 20ms and 30ms intervals so there is ample time for other messages from other nodes to be interleaved with these diagnostic messages. At no time will any of these messages be transmitted without at least 10ms between the end of one message and the start of the next.

Like this...
Scan tool makes two requests to start the PCM sending 40 VPW frames per second = 10 EFILiveV5 frames per second:
PCM starts sending data EXACTLY like this:
00:00:00.000 start of frame1 (12 bytes total, 6 bytes of data)
00:00:00.010 <empty>
00:00:00.020 start of frame2 (12 bytes total, 6 bytes of data)
00:00:00.030 <empty>
00:00:00.040 <empty>
00:00:00.050 start of frame3 (12 bytes total, 6 bytes of data)
00:00:00.060 <empty>
00:00:00.070 start of frame4 (12 bytes total, 6 bytes of data)
00:00:00.080 <empty>
00:00:00.090 <empty>
Four VPW frames makes up one EFILiveV5 frame - so this is the 24 bytes of Frame 1 (100ms)
00:00:00.100 start of frame1
00:00:00.110 <empty>
00:00:00.120 start of frame2
00:00:00.130 <empty>
00:00:00.140 <empty>
00:00:00.150 start of frame3
00:00:00.160 <empty>
00:00:00.170 start of frame4
00:00:00.180 <empty>
00:00:00.190 <empty>
Four VPW frames makes up one EFILiveV5 frame - so this is the 24 bytes of Frame 2 (200ms)
00:00:00.200 start of frame1
00:00:00.210 <empty>
00:00:00.220 start of frame2
00:00:00.230 <empty>
00:00:00.240 <empty>
00:00:00.250 start of frame3
00:00:00.260 <empty>
00:00:00.270 start of frame4
00:00:00.280 <empty>
00:00:00.290 <empty>
Four VPW frames makes up one EFILiveV5 frame - so this is the 24 bytes of Frame 3 (300ms)

This cycle repeats until scanning is stopped.

4. An overloaded VPW bus may be an issue for scan tools that rely on the request/response communications paradigm, but the way EFILiveV5 scans data is to request the PCM to send data. The PCM ONLY sends the data when it is free to do so. At no time does the scan tool "pester" the PCM to send data - the scan tool is passively waiting for the PCM to send data when it is good and ready to send the data.

EFILiveV5 sends two messages (and ONLY two messages) to the PCM to start the PCM sending data - after that it ONLY sends one "keep alive" message every 4.5 seconds. The PCM is not required to, nor does it respond to the "keep alive" message. If the keep alive message is not sent the PCM stops transmitting the high speed data.

The PCM and VPW bus can easily handle up to 40 messages per second - the guys who wrote the PCM software coded it that way deliberately. In fact the VPW bus will only become saturated after 100 full frame messages per second.

Here's the math:

Each J1850-VPW message consists of a SOF (Start of Frame) symbol, up to 12 data bytes (made up of 6 header/mode/crc bytes and up to 6 data bytes), an EOD (End of Data) symbol, and and EOF (End of Frame) symbol. Because J1850-VPW does not use IFR (In Frame Response) the EOD will always transition into an EOF symbol which means the EOD overlaps the EOF symbol. ie they do not appear sequentially in the data stream.

The SOF symbol is 200us, the EOF symbol is 280us each bit is either 64us or 128us (Variable Pulse Width) so nominal (i.e. average) pulse width per bit is 96us.
That gives 200+(96x8x12)+280 = 9,696us per message - call it 10ms.
The PCM is sending 40 messages per second, remember the scan tool is not requesting each frame individually, the scan tool has only made two requests right at the beginning of the run.
There are 6 data bytes and 6 header bytes per message = 6 data bytes x 40 frames per second = 240 bytes of usefull info per second. Which is why EFILive can scan 24 channels at 10 fps.
In 1 second the PCM will use 40x10ms = 400ms to transmit the scan tool data which is ONLY 40% of the available J1850-VPW bus time. Levaing 60% of FREE bus time for other functions.

Hope that clears up any confusion about VPW bus usage.

Regards
Paul

98blackSS

I'm sorry, but everytime I read one of these pissing contests concerning scanner abilities, Paul always seems to come out on top with his clear explanations and viewpoints. Seems like there's alot of misinformation in what TeamZR1 posts. Not saying he's wrong, but I always get the feeling that all the facts aren't coming out.

Just from Paul's explanations on various threads, I would be more inclined to purchase his product. Period.. It's obvious he's quite knowledged in scanner design.

Predator

I hear ya man. Fan those flames! <img border="0" alt="[jester]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_jest.gif" />

ace 58

I am new to all of this, and the "debate" was great reading. I thought the post from Paul was very informative.

Team ZR-1

What a vendor says can be informative esp when they are smooth talking salesman.
Intersting how the users will tend to believe a salesman and the other dude being a shop that makes money by selling pro tuning via a dyno and is not happy that I have shown the PCM can do a far better job of allowing people to do custom PCM tuning and NOT need a dyno. I am sure he would love if scanner could not report Delivered torque but Ease does and assume he is happy that in 2 years that PID is still incorrect with autotap.

It is also interesting that neither who claim to know it all about OBD-II compliant scanners have either owned or even used a Ease scanner but make all types of claims as to what the Ease scanner models does or does not do.
On the other hand I paid for the Ease and autotap and have tested multi models of Ease, not for a day, week or month but over 1 1/2 years, 7 days a week. I BETA tested efilive for months and gave them a bunch of my time FREE of charge, including the gas that was used and the miles put on the car to be fair about what their scanner did Versus what I know was a good product of Ease's.

Also you can notice any time there is a Ease related thread both of them play the ping bong of making claims of a scanner that they have ZERO experience in.

Paul likes to make claims as to what FM scanner is to do yet the Ease scanner is the only one that is designed with direct insight from GM engineering.
Also funny Ease is on the SAE board for OBD-II but Paul is 7,000 miles away, not on the board and is always telling us what GM or Ease should be doing.

What gets to them that I am just a car owner who bought and used all these scanners and has a techie viewpoint after spending 2 years and close to 2,000 PCM recording on all these scanners.

The problem with all their views is most people will not know if it is right or wrong where I off balance all their marketing hype with raw test results and could care less what scanner people buy or not but at least will give the view all these vendors will not tell you and at least you can then weight different views before plucking your money down or worse.

The notion as suggested that Ease was simply lying and showing multi frames with same values, goes down the tubers, mainly since test is my business did they really think I only go by what the scanner says ?

Not hardly for in good testing you back up test tools with other tools in your testbed.
Thus instead of a scanner plugging directly into the cars PCM, I built a RS232 network. In that network is the RS232 side or the scanner laptop, the RS232 side of the scanners interface, and a desktop PC with 2 serial ports.
This allows the PC to spy on both the scanner and the PCM side of the interface and caprture ALL the requests, responses, timestamps and OBD-II content.

This first test results file clearly shows for each time the Ease scanner did a request, the PCM responded, following the protocol rules.
This clearlt shows that ALL the data the Ease reported did in fact come from the PCM and not the un experienced remark by the dyno shop dude.

Ease Test Results Here

Now I can make this long and show each vendor but for Autotap V2, within the testing I got what we all are used to seeing :

Copyrighted image

So no sense for me going any further for if the scanner cannot even stay connected, I am not using or recommending to the visitors of my websites, forums, e-mail system or live internet chat sevice to use this scanner until it is stable and reports valid values.

We then come to Paul's scanner with all his knowledge and run the same exact test ( all scanners were tested on the same Corvette, within 30 minutes of each other) and get these results when spying and collecting the rs232 nework.

efilive Test Results Here

Now you can see, what is being done and as I have explained in the past. The scanner violates EPA requirements and his so called other GM mode is simply going from the 10.4K mode to the 44K block data mode and flooding the data bus so that his scanner looks great but at the expense of ALL other modules in the car being shut out of the data bus peventing them from doing their tasks.

Of course since it also used the autotap interface it did not take long for this to happen :

copyrighted image

As I have explained in the past being selfish and preventing important functions from getting a fair chance to exchange their values has caused on my Corvette for the PCM to trigger "reduced engine power" due to functions being shut out, PCM assumes some failure like drive by wire or traction control and shuts down to limp mode.
The 20 Corvettes at a dyno 2 weeks ago I tested with all 3 scanners and same results and pushed those car owners from buying autotap or efilive.

What other effects, well if it takes longer for the PCM to get new values from sensors then while this scanner is slamming the bus the engine cannot function at its best and then too bad but this happened to a Z06 owner just today :
--------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: mike millner
To: jr@teamzr1.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 09:39 PM
Subject: EfiLive Pro crashed my PCM

JR I should have listened to what you told me. I got the EfiLive pro this week and went to the drags tonight to race my 02 ZO6. I had the scanner hooked up to record during the runs. Since I race every week I know how my Z06 performs at the drags. My first run and the engine was running funny at the topend and the ET was .3 tenths slower.
I made a second run and got the same results WTF !
Between runs I then decided to use the fuel and spark tables EfiLive pro version has. I went to do changes and engine then will barely run. I turned engine off and now car will not start !!
It looks like when the fuel table changes were sent to PCM it screwed the PCM up ? and I had to get the car towed home !!
Man I am pissed !
How do I fix this mess ?

Thanks for any help and next time what you say goes. Mike
--
__________________________________________________ ________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
---------------------------------------------

It is beyond me that caution is not used when poking values into the PCM and the danger that can happen if something in the PCM flash gets corrupted.
I am not surprised at this sad outcome for Mike since I saw weird things when I tested efi's bi directional when I spent months BETA testing it.
It does **** me off in hearing Mike got wacked when I warned Paul months ago that his view of scanner functions were causing engine functions to puke when his scanner flooded the bus and guess I should have been more stern in my views to other car owners so maybe this will help people rethink what a scanner should do and if it should comply with how EPA, SAE, GM and other's designed the specs for a scanner for a good dang reason and 1 guy 7,000 miles away in a void is not smarter then all of them.

I am surprised that a vendor uses a public forum and continues what he does for he cannot predict how the customers reading this steer away from his products whereas I am just a car owner and can really care less if people side with me or not.
I also cannot understand why a vendor goes onto other forums and uses several user names, like Paul, efilve, blacky and LS1tools on of all places a forum called OBD-II Hackers, where some want to hack PCM programmer products.

Several months ago he sent out a program he wrote to hack locked PCMs to get to calibration tables of Ed Wright, Steve Cole and others.

Being he sent it to me hoping I would test it, maybe others would like to use it but I could not test it since I do not have a locked PCM.

LINK DELETED

Maybe he will tell you how it works.

As for JAS, Ease does not tell me anything, they do listen to their customers and do react to make the customer happy.

As to your content as to Ease V2, that also is not correct for I said that V2 Pro was coming out first and then V2 personal.
Exactly where it is at and I and others have been using the V2 Pro version for 2 months now and a some BETA users have V2 Personal and should be out soon.

In the end it is quite interesting with a ton of people having complaints with autotap even the newest version that was to cure all the ills, that when ever anyone else has a view about a scanner they found to work correctly, vendors flame them and make it personal.

<small>[ October 21, 2002, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Karasek ]</small>

EFILive

iTrader: (2)

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: What a vendor says can be informative esp when they are smooth talking salesman. Intersting how the users will tend to believe a salesman</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Salesman? No - I am the designer of EFILiveV5 - what I have posted is no-nonsense technical information and related facts. The only salesman I see in this thread is the Ease reseller.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: ...but make all types of claims as to what the Ease scanner models does or does not do.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have made no false claims about Ease - none whatsoever - it's called professionalism. I have explained the information you posted - if that information is wrong then you only have yourself to blame.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: Paul likes to make claims as to what FM scanner is to do yet the Ease scanner is the only one that is designed with direct insight from GM engineering</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, no John. There are other scan tools (heard of a TechII?). GM also develop PC based scan tools for it's own internal/development work. Do you really think GM (and all it's world-wide partners rely on Ease for scan tools?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: I built a RS232 network. In that network is the RS232 side or the scanner laptop, the RS232 side of the scanners interface, and a desktop PC with 2 serial ports.
This allows the PC to spy on both the scanner and the PCM side of the interface and caprture ALL the requests, responses, timestamps and OBD-II content.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the data you posted confirms EXACTLY what I explained earlier. So thank you for doing that and confirming my earlier explanation.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: This clearlt shows that ALL the data the Ease reported did in fact come from the PCM and not the un experienced remark by the dyno shop dude</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">John, the Ease data you posted confirms that it only updates about 3 times per second. The "detective" work you have done with the RS-232 monitor is very good. It confirms what I have been saying all along. You should take a closer look at the timestamps on the Ease Log file.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: Now you can see, what is being done and as I have explained in the past. The scanner violates EPA requirements and his so called other GM mode is simply going from the 10.4K mode to the 44K block data mode and flooding the data bus so that his scanner looks great but at the expense of ALL other modules in the car being shut out of the data bus peventing them from doing their tasks</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">John, to make that comment: either you understand what is in the EFILiveV5 RS232 trace and you are lying or you do not understand the trace. You are making assumptions based on your RS-232 sniffer program.
My previous post explained how EFILive obtains it's data. It does not use 4x mode - it does not use block transfers. It uses the EPA recommended J2190 Mode $2A - just look in the log files that you posted - if you can read/understand them.
Point out where it enters 4x mode - show where it makes a block transfer request. You won't be able to because it doesn't.

Interesting that you say "...as I have explained in the past...". The only other post I have ever seen that claims EFILiveV5 uses 4x mode was on the OBDII-Hackers forum under the anonymous handle of FastZ06.
Anyway - here is the link, I suggest anyone interested in how VPW works should take a read (look out for the post by FastZ06 and see if you can see any similarities between Team ZR-1 and FastZ06): http://obd2.dxsoftware.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gmvpwcomm;action=display;nu m=1032513769

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: As I have explained in the past being selfish and preventing important functions from getting a fair chance to exchange their values has caused on my Corvette for the PCM to trigger "reduced engine power" due to functions being shut out, PCM assumes some failure like drive by wire or traction control and shuts down to limp mode</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, that is misleading. Yes your PCM entered reduced power mode - it is designed to do that when a particular command (SAE J1979 Mode $10 - initiate diagnostic operation) is sent to the PCM. After you reported the problem (thank-you) and we had confirmed the same on a C5 here, we removed the mode $10 command. So please stop dragging up this problem like it is still current - we fixed it 6 months ago.The misleading part is that the problem has nothing to do with your claims of "flooding" the PCM bus. P.S. Being a beta tester is all about finding these problems - not pretending they still exist after they have been fixed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: It is beyond me that caution is not used when poking values into the PCM and the danger that can happen if something in the PCM flash gets corrupted.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">EFILiveV5 never "pokes" values into the PCM. EFILiveV5 never updates the flash memory. I will look for Mike Millner's support request to us and I will handle it personally. In your crusade to prevent people from buying EFILiveV5 you may want to show them the disclaimer about using bi-directional controls.
The control panel allows you to override the normal operating parameters of your vehicle's powertrain. Serious and permanent damage may occur to yourself or your vehicle if you attempt to set those operating parameters outside of acceptable limits.
Do not drive your vehicle on public roads while the control panel is active. Most of the features of the control panel are designed for use while your engine is off or idling.
If you must use the control panel while driving your vehicle use a dynamometer.
and
The Spark and fuel maps are designed for altering only one or two parameters under the controlled conditions of a dynamometer - not for a 10 second blast down the 1/4 mile.
While it could be done, we don't recommend it nor do we believe it would be effective

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: I am not surprised at this sad outcome for Mike since I saw weird things when I tested efi's bi directional when I spent months BETA testing it</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">John, you only ever tested it with the AutoTap AT1 V1 interface, which is why bi-directional controls are not offered with the V1 interface. That interface was not designed to support bi-directional controls. Again this is what beta testers are for. If you want to complain about software not working then you should not have asked to become a beta tester.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: I also cannot understand why a vendor goes onto other forums and uses several user names, like Paul, efilve, blacky and LS1tools on of all places a forum called OBD-II Hackers, where some want to hack PCM programmer products.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You don't need to understand but - it's easier to keep track of where spam comes from if you use different handles and emails for different forums.
I know this is off topic but Hack means to reverse engineer a computer product to understand how it works. Crack means to break into a computer product usually for illegal purposes.
There are people on ls1tech and ls1 forums (where you are also a member) that wish to hack PCM programmer products, what are you trying to say John?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: Several months ago he sent out a program he wrote to hack locked PCMs to get to calibration tables of Ed Wright, Steve Cole and others.
Being he sent it to me hoping I would test it, maybe others would like to use it but I could not test it since I do not have a locked PCM</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Several months ago we were planning on releasing that software. After confidential talks with aftermarket chip tuners and performance shops we decided not to release the product. We have continued to develop it in-house (it is called ls1tools) but it is not for public use. John, you were deliberately asked not to post that software publicly until it was released to the public - it has not been released to the public and your posting of that software is now under investigation.

Regards
Paul

<small>[ October 17, 2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: EFIliveV5 ]</small>

NoGo

iTrader: (2)

This is the best thread....

Just found it, going to go get the popcorn.

JAS

Welp, until I have more time to reply to John, I formally retract my statement about John being semi-intelligent.

<small>[ October 18, 2002, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: JAS ]</small>

ktm520

sunset01 - to answer your question, i just recently purchase EASE. it appears that i'm getting about the same performance as you are.

i was recording 23 parameters at the time. i don't know if fastpackets was on or off. i haven't yet learned how were to change that setting.

time rpm maf lb/min timing
701.79 3488 19.83 23.5
701.96 3488 19.83 23.5
701.98 3488 19.83 23.5
702.13 3488 19.83 23.5
702.16 4102 19.83 20.5
702.18 4102 25.87 20.5
702.21 4102 25.87 20.5
702.38 4102 25.87 20.5
702.4 4102 25.87 20.5
702.6 4102 25.87 20.5
702.63 4721 25.87 18.5
702.65 4721 29.76 18.5
702.68 4721 29.76 18.5
702.85 4721 29.76 18.5
702.88 4721 29.76 18.5
703.02 4721 29.76 18.5
703.05 5166 29.76 20
703.08 5166 32.77 20
703.1 5166 32.77 20
703.27 5166 32.77 20
703.3 5166 32.77 20
703.45 5166 32.77 20
703.47 5305 32.77 25.5
703.5 5305 4.18 25.5

after reading this thread, it appears that ease IS NOT as fast as autotap when it comes to data logging. but i like the software, and i still find that the speed is sufficient.

Sunset01

ktm520,

What you posted there was stripped from your 23 param log?
Thanks for the compare. Your params are updating about every 0.5sec with 23 params--that's not bad & comparable to JR's.. Are you on version 2 software? I bet if you log only two params, you'll see them updating every .1 sec or so, which I'm not getting even close to. If you get a sec, please try that say rpm &maf.

Thanks,

Dean

Predator

I wish someone would deliver a knockout blow to this sorry *** thread.

What should I get: EFLive or EASE <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" /> .

SJH

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intersting how the users will tend to believe a salesman and the other dude being a shop that makes money by selling pro tuning via a dyno and is not happy that I have shown the PCM can do a far better job of allowing people to do custom PCM tuning and NOT need a dyno</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you are a little offbase there.

Paul as I understand created EFILIVE5, and Jas who I Know very well has nothing to do with any shop doing dyno tuning. It almost sounded like you have him confused with BV Performance from some of your references to chicago shops?

Anyhow, the calculated torque values are pretty accurate IMO, ONLY if the MAF has not been messed with. I don't know what ATAP did recently to goof up the calc torque values, but the dos version was right on.
EFILIVE5 calc torque is reading low on the version I have seen.

I will say I hated, I mean HATED the old windows atap versions.
but the newest version seems to work much better and I have not had any disconnect issues.
I have not had any issues with efilive5 either and IMO just completely smokes atap for windows.

I have NO experience with EASE and so can not comment on it.
This is a very good thread IMO.
Try and keep it technical and not personal.

Steve

<small>[ October 19, 2002, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: SJH ]</small>

Team ZR-1

Efilve, as the norm skates the issues and takes what shows a negative, they will put the spin on it and make it look like a postive.

I have given efilive recordings to friends I have within GM, SAE and other scanner vendors and my statement stands.

It's clear efilive fears their own flood of the class B bus and reason they dictate a maximun PID count of no more then 24.

There is ZERO content on HS3000 or any other SAE document stating a scanner MUST prevent users from selecting more then efilive's max PID count.

The claim their scanner is special to LS1 engines, when most of the PIDs you select are labeled SAE, thus plain old generic OBD-II.

Their own data stream caught on the wire shows they violate the frame size and interframe spacing specs.
This is the reason on a Corvette so many users have failures using this scanner for its much easier on a Holden car since it has far less modules in the CAN network.

Here is another user having ill effects using efilive that was written on another forum:

Senior Member

397 posts [100%]
Tennessee

Re: Ease vs Autotap/EFILive (H82BFST) 2:58 PM 10/15/2002

I sure miss changing carb jets and reading plugs sometimes.

To be fair I have had some problems with EFILive pro in my C5. There is something bad happening sometimes and it just stops recording, also bi-directional control had put me in reduced power more then once.. Never a problem with a F-body though.

==============================================

I then have to laugh when first they say you have to use a V2 autotap interface, go spend more money for V1 interface will not be good enough and then plays with the words as what poking is and where they are poking and when real users get wacked then vendor crys " well we warned you in a disclaimer"

Bunk, when a customer is paying big bucks for bi directional that IS changing values in the PCM, then it dang well BETTER function correctly !

Cyberspace is loaded with autotap customers with issues such as this one :

Cruise-In II Veteran

7282 posts [100%]
Old Bridge Township Raceway Park NJ

Autotap connectivity issues 10:46 AM 10/19/2002

I just got a brand new autotap.
I previously used a friends autotap, couple years old, and had no issues.

New software and cable I start computer, connect cable, key to on and hit connect, first time connects okay. I then hit the disconnect button on software and turn off car like in the staging lanes. Then I put key to on again and hit connect and the computer says that the cable is not present.

It does this on every second attempt and the only cure is a complete reboot of the computer (over two minutes).

I did not have this issue with the autotap that I borrowed.

Any ideas?

----------------------------------------------

Now you can play with the words all you want but countless complaints by the end users says these scanners are flawed and in the case of autotap connect issues have been around for years and still have not been corrected.
Now many can just read and ignore this but I cannot, I see no reason for new users to not hear from someone in cyberspace to argue the faults and bring them to light just as these people do to flood these forums on how great their scanner is and buy those and be dam'd if anyone else will speak against those scanner brands, else they will be flamed and belittled such as JAS is so good to do, but has zero content to proof his decision of a scanner is any better then mine.

I have been told my insiders that if a Corvette crashes and its found a scanner like efilive was connected at the time that prevented functions like traction control, ABS or other safety features to have free access to the CAN bus, there will be some legal issues that will be costly for some one.
So lets again look at efilive config screen for logging where they say it is GM slow, mid, or FAST and see what GM has to say if in fact they gave permission to haul *** at a rate they did not spec for OBD-II traffic, for it is clear they would want drive by wire to have free run of bus and not a scanner that is spec'd to respond for diag purposes and not performance tuning to hack on contents of the PCM tables.

Its clear this thread started by a question about an Ease scanner yet Paul nor JAS who do not own or have even used Ease, on purpose as done in the past attempt to play a personal game of tag when in the end efilive loses for in just this week several people reading this contacted me for Ease info for they are smart enough to see I publish the data and not marketing smooth content.

As for Dean, a 2 PID case is not common but I have been working on a specal path to resolve ( working with Susan) that but other then what Paul says the 8 to 10 replies from PCM are correct, not 3 as Paul makes it look like and in talking to GM they totally agreed that with CSMA CAN, they use the 104.K baud and not 44K for they want to be assured functions dependent on bus can exhange functional data, and OBD-II is not at the top of the pile as to what should have 1st access to the bus.

Efilive is flooding the bus and in the case of a Corvette is causing performance decrease, esp if used like during a run down the drags because it hinders the PCM in getting updated info to make it decisions since efilive is stealing the bus bandwidth, protocal access and PCM buffers.

Tis interesting efilive's own website has a user reporting a delivered torque bug when JAS claims that PID is useless :

DelTq incorrect values

The DOS version of Autotap does have a fault with that same PID, if you were not excceding the 350 ft/lbs for torque management then you would not think there is a problem since the bug does not understand the computer math when torque management kicks in, thus seeing high postive or negative values is due to the bug and not a PCM fault.

In the end both JAS and efilive play the personal attack path to argue their points, I have attempted to do it solely on the scanners own actions and as a long term owner of these scanners.

As to what GM does or does not do Paul is a useless point of your's for you do it as to EPA rules, GM's way, or no way.

Its interesting with Ease I can do bi directional with ANY of their interfaces, and never ONCE has it caused engine to go into reduced engine mode, but in using Efilive even without bi directional I myself have seen the DIC flash of death of "REDUCED ENGINE POWER" on a regular basis.

I just tested newest efilive 434th build !
today and it still ceases to function over time or trips false DTCs.

Maybe JAS or Paul can tell us why with their scanner brands you cannot just scan, you have to start logging / recording when you simply want to scan.

As for F-body owners, since your car has less body/chassie modules on the CAN and bus then of course you would not see the problems we see on a Corvette and that is where I am focused on.

EFILive

iTrader: (2)

I'll keep this brief - most of what you say is just a rehash of previous FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt).

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: It's clear efilive fears their own flood of the class B bus and reason they dictate a maximun PID count of no more then 24</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong, the 24 limit is dictated by the PCM for the 10 fps scan mode - that was explained in detail in a previous post in this thread. I'm not going through it again.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: There is ZERO content on HS3000 or any other SAE document stating a scanner MUST prevent users from selecting more then efilive's max PID count</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absolutely correct - you can select up to 256 PIDs using OBD-II generic scan mode.
It's real slow and pretty much useless for any performance logging but it can be used if required. It was just a configuration change to the software that we introduced in a previous release.
You can also select up to 48 PIDs in "GM slow" and 36 PIDs in GM - medium and 24 PIDs in GM - fast. Those limits are arbitrary and reflect what we believe to be the maximum number of PIDs that can be scanned with enough speed to be useful.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: Their own data stream caught on the wire shows they violate the frame size and interframe spacing specs</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wrong - the EFILiveV5 data you posted clearly shows correctly formed J2190 frames. Maybe you don't really know how to read that data properly. Those frames are accurately spaced because they are timed and generated by the PCM not by the scan tool.

Here's the first few reply frames from the PCM, broken out into their J2190 frames:
01 6C F1 10 6A FD 31 F3 70 5B 0F 0B 3C 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FC 09 01 01 4B 14 0B 82 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FB 7F 80 A1 00 16 0B 00 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FE 16 9E 2B 03 F2 0B 7F 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FD 32 41 70 58 0E 0B D8 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FC 09 01 01 4B 14 0B 82 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FB 7F 75 A2 00 16 0B 00 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FE 16 9A 2B 03 F1 0B 7D 00 04
01 6C F1 10 6A FD 32 41 70 59 0E 0B C4 00 04
...
And so on

Ok for all you budding OBD-II software writers, here's what it means:
1 Reserved
2 6C J2190 1st byte of 3 byte header
3 F1 J2190 2nd byte of 3 byte header (address of scan tool)
4 10 J2190 1st byte of 3 byte header (address of PCM)
5 6A Request mode + $40 (Request mode was $2A)
6 FE..FC - Dynamic packet ID (Ease calls these "fast packets")
7 1st byte of data
8 2nd byte of data
9 3rd byte of data
10 4th byte of data
11 5th byte of data
12 Reserved
13 6th byte of data
14 Reserved
15 Reserved

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: talking to GM they totally agreed that with CSMA CAN, they use the 104.K baud and not 44K</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Correct again - EFILiveV5 NEVER uses 44K. Never uses block transfers and only uses properly formed J1979 and J2190 messages at 10.4K (I'm assuming 104.K is your typing mistake).
John, you need to come to grips with the fact that EFILiveV5 does not use 44K mode nor does it use block transfers, nor does it use frame lengths outside of the J1979 or J2190 specifications. While you continue to make those claims you are showing your lack of understanding of the data that you have posted in this thread. It is ironic that you repeatedly demand that others "learn about OBD-II" - pot/kettle?
If you used a decent sniffer program that puts accurate millsecond timestamps on the RS-232 data that you are sniffing, you will see that all the frames and messages are accurate. Although, I guess it's easier to not see those timings and "assume" incorrect results that support your false claims.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Team ZR-1 said: I just tested newest efilive 434th build </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We have not released build 434 - we haven't even built 434 yet so I'm not sure what you are testing John.

Regards
Paul

Predator

And the winner IS, [drumroll], [crinkling envelope sounds],. . . wait a minute, there's no winner, the envelope is empty. . . .Damn!

98blackSS

Lot's of good info in this thread.. I am curious about John's claims concerning C5 bus traffic vs. F-body. Are there really more devices on the bus which might make the claims valid or does that even matter here?

C_Williams

I'm curious on the best way to use Ease. Period.

It makes me wonder if anyone knows anything about this stuff or are we now in some future world that is ruled by tangental thinkers (read no focus) <img border="0" alt="[Banging Head]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_banghead.gif" />

Come on, who can help us Ease users shorten the learning curve and help tune? <img border="0" alt="[hail]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_hail.gif" />

Thanks

JAS

1) John (TeamZR1), are you a Politician?

2) In all your dancing and AVOIDING the PROOF YOU SUPPLIED did you even HELP the poor soul who started the thread?

Hint #1: At your age it's best not to assume who people are, what they know, WHO they know and try to pull the wool over them. Your tactics must be doing wonders for EASE's marketing and they must be PROUD of you. Keep up the excellent work! BRAVO
(It's only sad that you smear the name of an American icon in the process (Corvette) )

Hint #2: If you are constantly going to regurge the same spew time and time again, at least have the decency to remember you own lie's and inaccuracies so that the story doesn't change everytime.

Although, I admit the entertainment value is high watching a user (Team-ZR1) trying to tell a DEVELOPER it's not possible when it's already FACT, this soap opera won't win you any awards John.

Best of luck to you and EASE and I hope you two have a peaceful marriage.

Ryan K

iTrader: (11)

I am sorry, this post is WAY off the intended target. Here is the deal, If I see another post like this, I'll prevent ANY product sales by non-sponsors.

Thanks,
Ryan K.