I thought Saab used an Ecotec f40 That was one of the things that put the Ecotec above the High Feature was I mistaken or did Saab used a F40 with both patterns?
I thought Saab used an Ecotec f40 That was one of the things that put the Ecotec above the High Feature was I mistaken or did Saab used a F40 with both patterns?
The 2.8t is a High Feature 2.8 liter engine. It came with the F40 six speed. The F40 also came in the Pontiac G6 with the metric bell pattern (same as stock Fiero engines), and in multiple cars with Ecotec engines.
That's three different bell patterns that were used with the F40.
The mention of VVT had me off and learning. I know folks say that they fix the cam positions, essentially putting the cam in one position as if it were ground to that fixed type. But I did some searching, and came up with a great VVT 101.. VVT 101 The only issue that I see is mention in the writeup that the VVT allows for the elimination of the EGR, which is there to reduce peak combustion temperatures. If you fix the cam, you may be back in the high peak combustion temperature arena. If the VVT is a relationship between RPM and cam phase, then a relatively simple device could be made that controls the VVT to match cam phase given a lookup value for that RPM. If my hunch is right, and this device did it's job, then the ECM can be programmed to preform correctly throughout the RPM ranges without having to control or even be aware of the VVT control. I remember troubleshooting the VVT on the wife's Lexus ES300. There was a solenoid in the head for each bank that was driven by PWM (varying the current through the solenoid) which varied the oil pressure leading to the cam phaser. This type of solenoid has a variable pressure output, not just on/off (proportional). One of the two solenoids had an intermittent problem.. warm up a little, the coil would open, drop that one cam to the end, and the engine would run REALLY bad. Replaced the solenoid and it was fine. Plus, if one did not fix the cam, but controlled it, you would get all of that power band back, not just peaking at one area.
The mention of VVT had me off and learning. I know folks say that they fix the cam positions, essentially putting the cam in one position as if it were ground to that fixed type. But I did some searching, and came up with a great VVT 101.. VVT 101 The only issue that I see is mention in the writeup that the VVT allows for the elimination of the EGR, which is there to reduce peak combustion temperatures. If you fix the cam, you may be back in the high peak combustion temperature arena. If the VVT is a relationship between RPM and cam phase, then a relatively simple device could be made that controls the VVT to match cam phase given a lookup value for that RPM. If my hunch is right, and this device did it's job, then the ECM can be programmed to preform correctly throughout the RPM ranges without having to control or even be aware of the VVT control.
Wow, that article really oversimplifies some things, and gets some things just wrong. BMW's Valvetronic system in its current generation is much more complex than the article suggests, and doesn't exactly "eliminate the throttle" as stated. GM has been using VVT in single cam engines for a long time now. The Gen V LT1 in the 2014 Corvette is certainly not the first such engine with it. Several versions of the Gen IV LS engines had it, and the 60 degree V6 was the first engine to get it, over a decade ago in 2006 model year cars.
As for a separate module to control VVT independently of the ECM, why bother? The ECMs for engines which can be equipped with VVT already handle it just fine, and aftermarket controller options like the AEM Infinity or Haltech Elite also handle it very well. Programming VVT is a pretty well understood thing at this point, and not something I'd suggest making a separate custom controller module for.
I thought that the issue is that if one used the OEM ECM's, you have all of that VATS, ABS, VIN compare, et cetera to deal with.. the reason that the 3.9 is a rare conversion? So if you deal with the VVT independently, you could drop back to a more familiar ECM that is easier to setup and does not have baggage. And the aftermarket ECM's are pricey? If folks are fixing the VVT, it must not be that easy.. as rare as 3.9 conversions are, it sounds like all examples are of fixed VVT. But consider these questions, I could be way off on it.
The easiest and cheapest way to put a modern drivetrain in a fiero is to get everything out of the donor car that made it run in the donor car .You need the entire wiring harness with ecm and bcm and fuel pump assembly .Get the ignition module with the key in it .When you install everything it becomes wiring that just shares the same battery as the wiring in your fiero .Most , but not all GM cars can get VATS tuned out by HP tuners .Run your stereo off the fiero harness , the new car harness does not care if there isn't a radio connected , only if the wrong one is connected .If the airbags , ABS and traction control sensors are not connected , the engine will still run fine , it just sends a warning light to the guage cluster .A sharp knife takes care of the warning light diodes , the clusters are easy to take apart . I ran my swap without the guage cluster connected and it still ran fine .I was just looking at the AEM and other stand alone systems and the cheapest was around 1000.00 without a harness or any programing .The only GM stuff that has a completed harness and pre programmed is for LS V8 motors , nothing for ecotec or V6 engines .
I thought that the issue is that if one used the OEM ECM's, you have all of that VATS, ABS, VIN compare, et cetera to deal with.. the reason that the 3.9 is a rare conversion? So if you deal with the VVT independently, you could drop back to a more familiar ECM that is easier to setup and does not have baggage. And the aftermarket ECM's are pricey? If folks are fixing the VVT, it must not be that easy.. as rare as 3.9 conversions are, it sounds like all examples are of fixed VVT. But consider these questions, I could be way off on it.
Well, yes, if you use the OEM ECM, certain things need to be dealt with. However, we're not talking about the 3.9 in this thread. We're talking about the 3.6 DOHC engines, the particularly interesting versions of which are SIDI. The 3500/3900 engines are a completely different thing to the 2.8/3.0/3.2/3.6 DOHC engines.
Most people who lock the cam(s) on VVT engines are doing it out of ignorance, not because the programming of VVT itself is hard. If you really want to run VVT, and are worried about VATS/ABS/etc… in an OEM ECM, then it would be much better to use an aftermarket ECM, rather than an older OEM ECM which just doesn't support VVT and then trying to make some separate custom module to only control the VVT.
Originally posted by dobey: Most people who lock the cam(s) on VVT engines are doing it out of ignorance, not because the programming of VVT itself is hard.
I disagree, those who locked cams on VVT engines did so for several reasons, none of which was ignorance in the true meaning of that term. It was an alternative to the exceptional amount of expense required to set a VVT engine transplant up as designed during a time when the technology was still very new in the aftermarket, at least in GM production cars and the likelihood of being at the mercy of someone else with the necessary equipment to edit programming which could be expensive and time consuming and I refuse to do that.
The difficulty level and time requirement involved in incorporating the sophisticated electronics (as well as the drivetrain) to properly run a VVT motor into a 30 year old car properly is the hanging point, as some of us just want to run the motor in our cars without the madness. The 3.6L has been around for about the same number of years as the 3.9 but it has yet to find its way to complete install in a Fiero. It's a lot of work which few can accomplish on their own to even get to the practicality point expense wise, given the value of the Fiero, and if it breaks down who's going to fix it if you can't?
Locking a VVT cam upright is a work around and my memory vaguely tells me it was you I believe that brought to light that some owners were converting their OE VVT LS motors to the non VVT OE version because they made more power, during a discussion here on this very topic. I could be wrong but I believe it was you as you're pretty knowledgeable on the topic.
There's nothing wrong with "making it work", that's why we have so many different transplanted motors in the Fiero now. A 3.6L in a Fiero with locked cams is still a 3.6L and would still perform quite well. My 3.6 build when I get the time for it will be in the 2008up Cadillac it came in, because I just don't care to put that kind of work in a Fiero, but highly encourage anyone that does to do so, I'd like to see it.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: I disagree, those who locked cams on VVT engines did so for several reasons, none of which was ignorance in the true meaning of that term. It was an alternative to the exceptional amount of expense required to set a VVT engine transplant up as designed during a time when the technology was still very new in the aftermarket, at least in GM production cars and the likelihood of being at the mercy of someone else with the necessary equipment to edit programming which could be expensive and time consuming and I refuse to do that.
I said most people, not all. When people started grabbing truck motors out of the yard and deleting VVT, there was a lot of ignorance about how VVT was worse for performance engines (and really, there still is a lot of that ignorance floating around). This has been by far the most prevalent "reason" I've seen used. While it's true that many people are doing swaps using DIY ECMs that may not necessarily support VVT, it is not the excuse used for deleting VVT in most cases. In fact, so many people have done VVT deletions on LSx engines, that they actually made it more difficult to find accurate information on the technology for a while. There is still a lot of misinformation out there, but now that there's plenty of aftermarket VVT cams on the market, it's at least a little less difficult to find such accurate information.
However, I still come across so many threads and videos claiming that VVT is worse for performance engines. This is just demonstrably false. VVT is better for performance, better for emissions, and better for fuel economy.
And regardless, i don't think VVT is the main reason people aren't swapping 3500/3900 engines in the Fiero, and not the topic of this thread.
quote
Locking a VVT cam upright is a work around and my memory vaguely tells me it was you I believe that brought to light that some owners were converting their OE VVT LS motors to the non VVT OE version because they made more power, during a discussion here on this very topic. I could be wrong but I believe it was you as you're pretty knowledgeable on the topic.
If I did state this, I'm pretty sure I would have qualified that as "they are doing it because they believe it will make more power" rather than because it's an absolute fact that it does. Non-VVT camshafts can only be used to make power in a certain range. As most people installing camshafts in LSx motors tend to install big cams with wider LSAs, they might see a decently large enough peak number in the high end, but are sacrificing the low end to get it. Because of the wide LSAs and large durations these cams have, VVT would be somewhat problematic for many of these very large cams. However, these tend to also introduce other expenses such as needing clutches or torque converters which also sacrifice driveability. If they would cut back on the LSA and duration a bit, an LSx could easily make near the same peak numbers, but have a much wider powerband, and remain driveable on the street, as well as getting better MPG with lower emissions.
In my build, I'm doing exactly the opposite of what most of these people do with VVT. I'm retrofitting it into an engine which didn't come with it. I found a decent cam, but it was only in non-VVT form, so I took the numbers and had a custom grind made on a VVT core. My goal is to get at least 400 HP/400 lbs-ft at the crank, and 40 MPG highway, as well as being able to meet CA's SULEV standard.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 09-17-2016).]
If I did state this, I'm pretty sure I would have qualified that as "they are doing it because they believe it will make more power" rather than because it's an absolute fact that it does. Non-VVT camshafts can only be used to make power in a certain range. As most people installing camshafts in LSx motors tend to install big cams with wider LSAs, they might see a decently large enough peak number in the high end, but are sacrificing the low end to get it. Because of the wide LSAs and large durations these cams have, VVT would be somewhat problematic for many of these very large cams. However, these tend to also introduce other expenses such as needing clutches or torque converters which also sacrifice driveability. If they would cut back on the LSA and duration a bit, an LSx could easily make near the same peak numbers, but have a much wider powerband, and remain driveable on the street, as well as getting better MPG with lower emissions.
In my build, I'm doing exactly the opposite of what most of these people do with VVT. I'm retrofitting it into an engine which didn't come with it. I found a decent cam, but it was only in non-VVT form, so I took the numbers and had a custom grind made on a VVT core. My goal is to get at least 400 HP/400 lbs-ft at the crank, and 40 MPG highway, as well as being able to meet CA's SULEV standard.
Thanks for the clarification. I was only focusing on the Fiero Forum and 60 degree exploits. The VVT delete conversation I'm referencing was also toggling dyno test results and the conversation was more along the lines of anti VVT as it was suggesting that VVT was more a means to eliminate EGR valves which is probably the case in cam in block engines. DOHC motors on the other hand stand to gain a lot more versatility with the ability to independently change intake and exhaust timing and I'd certainly prefer it to get the most in performance and fuel efficiency.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: Thanks for the clarification. I was only focusing on the Fiero Forum and 60 degree exploits. The VVT delete conversation I'm referencing was also toggling dyno test results and the conversation was more along the lines of anti VVT as it was suggesting that VVT was more a means to eliminate EGR valves which is probably the case in cam in block engines. DOHC motors on the other hand stand to gain a lot more versatility with the ability to independently change intake and exhaust timing and I'd certainly prefer it to get the most in performance and fuel efficiency.
Really, VVT is not a means to eliminate EGR in cam-in-block engines. It's much more useful for that in DOHC engines (or in Hemis with the cam-in-cam design), where intake and exhaust are independently controlled. The GM cam-in-block engines have a static overlap value, so EGR is much harder to control from a VVT perspective in that sense. In the Hemi cam-in-cam or in DOHC engines, the overlap can be changed, to a much larger degree in the DOHC engines, which allows for meaningful EGR control at cruising speeds. With the introduction of the Gen IV LS engines in 2005, EGR was completely eliminated, but the Gen IV didn't get VVT until 2008. There were still some other engine families with EGR valves and/or A.I.R. of course, including the 3.5/3.9, I'm only talking about the LS for sake of simplicity. However, with VVT, at cruise speeds, the cam can be placed into the fully retarded position under light load cruise conditions, which reduces power output to increase efficiency, which greatly reduces the need for an EGR valve to meet emissions requirements, and thus lowers production costs.
For an all out race car that won't be driven on the street, and will spend almost all of its time at 5000+ RPM, deleting VVT and going totally wild on the cam will probably be a better option. But for a street driven car, even that may see part time track duty, I think a milder cam with VVT will almost always be a better option, giving more total output even if peak numbers are slightly lower. I would do whatever I can to use VVT in any engine swap I was doing, if possible. I totally understand your reasoning for wanting to lock the cam in your swap, but maybe now that tuning options are easier to come by (I presume you tune your car with HP Tuners, which can handle VVT in the GM ECMs), you might want to look into possibly unlocking the cam and tuning the VVT to give you a smoother power band and better fuel economy.
Originally posted by dobey: (I presume you tune your car with HP Tuners, which can handle VVT in the GM ECMs), you might want to look into possibly unlocking the cam and tuning the VVT to give you a smoother power band and better fuel economy.
It's all give and take, GM is holding back on the compression ratio. It's high by old standards but not by new combustion chamber design and fuel delivery tech. I believe they're inching along to avoid giving too much too soon and having greater difficulty in the future meeting increasing EPA demands. My fuel economy is great at 27-28 mpg hwy and exceeded 30+ on the first build with higher compression. If I'm not mistaken the latest 3.6L in some applications is still rated for 87 octane with as high as 11.X compression so I know they can go much higher than that on pump gas even if it requires premium fuel. The performance increase would be far greater than a mere 10% naturally aspirated if they took greater advantage of the compression ratio which I would do and is why I'm so interested in this engine.
I understand the crank pins are 2.2" so I'd be looking to stroke the motor in addition to the compression bump the same as I did with the 3.9L.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-17-2016).]
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: It's all give and take, GM is holding back on the compression ratio. It's high by old standards but not by new combustion chamber design and fuel delivery tech. I believe they're inching along to avoid giving too much too soon and having greater difficulty in the future meeting increasing EPA demands. My fuel economy is great at 27-28 mpg hwy and exceeded 30+ on the first build with higher compression. If I'm not mistaken the latest 3.6L in some applications is still rated for 87 octane with as high as 11.X compression so I know they can go much higher than that on pump gas even if it requires premium fuel. The performance increase would be far greater than a mere 10% naturally aspirated if they took greater advantage of the compression ratio which I would do and is why I'm so interested in this engine.
I understand the crank pins are 2.2" so I'd be looking to stroke the motor in addition to the compression bump the same as I did with the 3.9L.
Yeah, the CR is getting up there. It's 11.5:1 on the Gen V LT1 and L86 too. The LT4 is dropped down to 10.0:1 for the boost though. I'm building my LS4 to be around 11:1. I think they're "slowly" working it up to the point where they switch over to HCCI instead of spark ignition. They've been working on it for a while now, but I guess they haven't quite got it to where it needs to be for reliability and driveability in production cars yet. I'm expecting the Zora mid-engine Vette to be a hybrid car too. No idea what the engine will be exactly, other than I expect it to be based on the Gen V V8. I think there are a couple of Ecotec (or similar) engines used in some Opels that had up to 12.0:1 compression.
Heck, Honda had some cars with 11.1:1 in the 90s/00s. The B16A3 in my del Sol is 10.4:1. It requires premium, because it is PFI and engine management back then wasn't anywhere near what it is today, but it gets 28 MPG around town and mid-high 30s on the highway.
So how high does compression get before an engine stops being spark ignition? Or is the practical limit on compression from some element now? What I want is a street friendly 500 hp fiero with a power tain about the same weight as stock and decent milage for commute driving. I'm thinking this will require leveraging and pushing all the technology available to it's practical limit. Or just a pipe dream.
Originally posted by Crytes: What I want is a street friendly 500 hp fiero with a power tain about the same weight as stock and decent milage for commute driving. I'm thinking this will require leveraging and pushing all the technology available to it's practical limit. Or just a pipe dream.
Not sure if you are talking rwhp or fwhp, by my LS4/F40 88 Fiero has 382 whp (about 430 fwhp), weighs a little over 2800 lbs, and averaged 23 mpg on the 2800 mile HRPT (lots of stop/go, AC on, some 110mph sprints on toll roads). Some tanks I see at high at 29 mpg depending on type of driving. I have put 34K miles on it in 3 years as I daily drive it most days except for winter or when there is salt on the road. I could add a small shot of nos and easily get to your targets without compromising the other criteria.
One issue with the stock ecu was the vehicle speed sensor. There is not a sensor in the transmission on the Saab F40. It uses the ABS module to send the VSS signal on the can bus line. I wasn't about to add that in. The AEM wants to know the VSS also, but I spoke with Speedhut (the manufacturer of my gauges) and they do offer a VSS output from their GPS speedometer on some models. I'll have to update my build thread one of these days....There is quite a bit to update. Dave
[This message has been edited by bmwguru (edited 09-18-2016).]
FieroGuru I din't realize transmission losses were so great. 383 Wheel to 430 Flywheel is a 11% lose. Either way I'd be happy with flywheel numbers close enough to call 500hp I like the idea of say my car has 5 time the power of stock. I figured a turbo would be needed to get into the power I want and a dual spool looks good for drivability. Currently I'm looking at the F40 but don't like the idea of adapting it to a different engine too many wear parts for my taste. The LS4 does look nice tho might have to look at your page again and see if I can live with the compromises to make it fit. Until I start buying parts my current idea is to see is the new Ecotec 2.5 will accept the top end off the new 2.0 turbo my guess is that combo should be close if it can be tuned in.
So how high does compression get before an engine stops being spark ignition? Or is the practical limit on compression from some element now? What I want is a street friendly 500 hp fiero with a power tain about the same weight as stock and decent milage for commute driving. I'm thinking this will require leveraging and pushing all the technology available to it's practical limit. Or just a pipe dream.
Compression ration is unrelated to whether an engine is spark ignition or not. An engine not being spark ignition means it doesn't have spark plugs applying spark to the compressed mixture for ignition.
As far as getting 500 HP in a Fiero with decent MPG, well, like fieroguru said, are you talking BHP or WHP? What is "decent" MPG for you? Being able to make a 500 HP number on a dyno at peak, and getting decent MPG are two very different things. It's possible to do both, but it requires an engine built to do that, and a decent understanding of how to get it. The easiest way to get both optimal HP and optimal MPG, is to go with as small an engine as you can, which can handle as much boost as possible, with a turbo. With the right combination and boost control, you can totally disable boost at cruise speeds to get maximum MPG, or turn it all the way up when on the dyno, to get maximum HP. Anything over about 250-300 HP, you will never actually put to the ground during a normal commute in a car that weighs as little as the Fiero does.
One issue with the stock ecu was the vehicle speed sensor. There is not a sensor in the transmission on the Saab F40. It uses the ABS module to send the VSS signal on the can bus line. I wasn't about to add that in. The AEM wants to know the VSS also, but I spoke with Speedhut (the manufacturer of my gauges) and they do offer a VSS output from their GPS speedometer on some models. I'll have to update my build thread one of these days....There is quite a bit to update. Dave
Really? I thought it had a magnetic sensor above the ring gear? The F40 MT2 trans in the G6 certainly does have a VSS.
There are many ways around a VSS. GPS devices are simple to install but have accuracy issues. You could make your own as well. If I remember right you are just looking for pulse at a rate of about 2000 per mile depending on your setup you could arrange one or hall effect sensors on your drive shaft these can be designed to give a direct signal or to be modulated to calibrate for different size tries. And with a sensor one each side of a drive shaft you can measure flex which after calculations can be used to give you real time torque/hp measurements.
But it looks like their half shaft and sensor bracket could be used, to add the missing VSS. It might be cheaper to just get a G6 trans, split the case, and use the High Feature bell housing with the G6 guts half, than buy that ZZP kit, though.
I wonder if it would be possible to put the vss from a g6 f40 in the saab f40?
It appears not. It's possible the case could be machined to accept one in the same location though, but not sure if anyone's ever done it, what the cost would be, or if the ring gear in the Saab/Ecotec versions of the trans will work with the VSS.
Edit: Found some much better pictures of an Ecotec version of the trans, and it looks like the rear half casting is a fair bit different, and it cannot be machined to fit the G6 VSS at all.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 09-18-2016).]
The different F40s look to be totally different castings so my guess is while generally anything can be made to fit I doubt it will be plug and play on a transmission for an application that didn't need it.
People seem to forget the Jag HE engines with up to 12.5:1 compression: "A high-efficiency 5.3 HE version debuted in 1981. This used the special high-swirl design "May" cylinder heads, and had an unusually high compression ratio (10.5:1 – 12.5:1, depending on market and year). In any given market, power levels remained similar to the previous model, but fuel economy was improved by nearly 50%. The HE V12 engines had a fuel injection system from Lucas (dubbed Lucas Digital P) which was based on the Bosch D-Jetronic system.[7]"
For VSS, one can use a wheel speed sensor directly; that might be easier than retrofitting an F40 trans. Hopefully I will have time soon to finish the F23 to HF brackets and get my 3.6 swap going, pretty sure the F23 has a VSS.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 09-19-2016).]
For VSS, one can use a wheel speed sensor directly; that might be easier than retrofitting an F40 trans. Hopefully I will have time soon to finish the F23 to HF brackets and get my 3.6 swap going, pretty sure the F23 has a VSS.
it does, or at least the metric bellhousing version does.
It is the name ascribed by GM. Other engine families also have similar naming:
Cadillac 4.1/4.5/4.9 - High Technology engine 3500/3900 V6 - High Value engine
I presume the "High Feature" name was given as the design allowed for a greater (high) number of features to be implemented in the platform over the years, without significant changes to the overall design of the engine itself.
so this is an old tread, but i want to bring back the discussion of the high feature 3.6 in a Fiero. I have a chance to grab one w/ 6 speed AT for a daily driver. Has anyone figured out the tuning?
so this is an old tread, but i want to bring back the discussion of the high feature 3.6 in a Fiero. I have a chance to grab one w/ 6 speed AT for a daily driver. Has anyone figured out the tuning?
Rob
I have since acquired that 2008 Cadillac CTS SIDI I mentioned above some time ago. I love the car, but, the associated electronics is no joke. Unless you are able to source a stand alone PCM modification, and or have unlimited time to graft such a complex system into a Fiero, my advice to you is don't even think about it. My statement of building a 3.6L for its intended platform was wisdom in ways I was not aware of.
The High feature V6 also equals high maintenance potential, especially the SIDI version. If you remove the fuel injectors from he SIDI motor that's an automatic ~$200 in non reusable parts that must be replaced; pressure sensor, all injector seals one of which requires a special tool to install and two fuel pipes as a result of the danger the high rail pressure poses in the event of a high pressure leak. Idle pressure is around 500 psi and it goes up from there.
If you find you must install the BCM, that's another monster who's size depends on the application in regards to on board features as it will put the system in limp mode if it doesn't see certain modules functioning properly and HPtuners may not be able to access/address the necessary parameters to get around it. In addition to that, the programming in the Bosch PCM used from ~07 to 2012 where GM switched to a Delphi PCM and system, is a headache to tune and some reported even dangerous as the programming is complicated with interlinking tables where a seemingly harmless entry in moderation through HP Tuners can lead to an exaggerated response, like not releasing the throttle when you take your foot off the accelerator (remember Toyota and their problem similar to this). That's from someone who was experimenting with tuning so the 2012 and up PCM is the way to go as it is said by experienced tuners to be fairly straight forward unlike the earlier Bosch system. Otherwise, baby, baby-steps with the Bosch.
As for the VVT, It's often not said if ever, but I'm pretty sure it plays a part in the ability to run regular unleaded with a compression ratio greater than 11:1 in addition to EGR effects at least in the DOHC motors. For starters, the intake valve does not open until 14 degrees after top dead center which effectively lowers cylinder filling efficiency potential vs. if it opened at 4 deg before TDC. That effectively counters a high compression ratio. At cold start the engine runs about 1600 rpm and the intake camshafts are commanded to about 15 deg advance. Once warm up is complete both intake and exhaust cams settle down to 0 deg. You can actually hear the change in exhaust tone outside the car as it happens. Intake cams are only capable of advancing and exhaust retarding from their parked positions.
I suspect the programming uses a combination of camshaft position and spark timing to control spark knock for dynamic performance as either can be advanced in small increments gradually to achieve the maximum potential that a given fuel octane can sustain. In other words, premium fuel = premium power.
One thing I would turn off in the car if I could is traction control which seems overly sensitive. I dropped the rear tire off the curb cutting it a bit sharp leaving the fuel station and immediately power was cut briefly. I hit a small bump in the road during a turn at about 25 mph and again power was cut briefly, it didn't take much, just the little thump felt in the car was enough. There are sensors all over the place and I believe the above incidents were in conjunction with the steering column sensor which probably increased sensitivity because the car was in the middle of a turn where there would be an increased possibility of spinning out although that wasn't the case.
Plug and play is over. Now it's plug and plug and plug, keep plugging, etc... The most basic optioned donor system will likely offer the least amount of trouble if that term can even be used here. If someone sponsored me to complete such a swap in a Fiero for myself I wouldn't do it.
Good luck to anyone willing to try. Do your homework before you spend a penny as these motors are very sensitive to some changes and some stock parts although they will fit across different 3.6L applications, they may not result in satisfactory performance when paired with a PCM that was not programmed to use them, camshafts, high pressure pumps and injectors for example not to mention the different intake and cylinder head designs.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 11-16-2017).]
As Joseph said, use the E39 based engine (LFX) and stay away from the Bosch. I think the six speed auto only came with the LFX so you might be good but check anyway.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 11-16-2017).]
Rob, I contacted Overkill about LFX programming. Said that if I went with a manual tranny, he would program an E39 ecm as a stand alone unit with a 2012 Camaro tune. He discouraged going with an automatic. He said it would require the ECM, BCM, and transmission module to all be programmed and used, but he was unsure if he could make it all work. Daryl M
Rob, Pick up an LFX with the ECM and gas pedal for half price, then find a Saab Aero F40. If you drive an automatic, the muscles in your left leg will atrafee.
As Joseph said, use the E39 based engine (LFX) and stay away from the Bosch. I think the six speed auto only came with the LFX so you might be good but check anyway.
The LFX also came in the Camaro, with a manual. I was going to try to copy the VDF file from a friend of mine (has a 2012 LFX / manual) but it was "tuned and locked." I would have been perfectly fine with a stock VDF.
[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 11-28-2017).]
