LS4 V8 DoD 4T65-E TAPShift swap underway (pics inside)
Topic started by: Darth Fiero, Date: 09-12-2007 09:05 PM
Original thread: http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum3/HTML/000087.html


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #1, 09-12-2007 09:05 PM
     





Donor motor, transmission, and related parts came out of a 2005 Grand Prix GXP courtesy of Ed Morad Parts Co. http://www.moradpartscompany.com http://stores.ebay.com/MORAD-PARTS-COMPANY

All of this will be going into a 1987 Fiero GT. The features that are planned to be included in the swap are:

-The transmission TAPShift function (steering wheel mounted shift paddles)
-DoD (displacement on demand) function in the engine
-And factory remote start / keyless entry / driver info center.

THE PLAN:

Phase 1 has been completed which was to port the cylinder heads in order to increase power output of the engine without sacrificing drivability or fuel economy. An aftermarket cam was considered as on option but no suitable affordable unit was available. Also the transmission has been gone thru (by TripleEdgePerformance: http://www.tripleedgeperformance.com ) in order to install a shift improver kit and various fixes for known bugs.

Phase 2 is the mechanical and electrical aspects of the engine/transmission swap. The plan is to complete this phase and get the engine running before I move on to Phase 3.

Phase 3 is to install the BCM, DIC, and other modules we got from the Grand Prix in to the Fiero to see how much of it I can get working without too much trouble. There is currently no programming software available that can reprogram the BCM to remove certain functions so I imagine I will have a lot of work to do in order to "fool" certain inputs and outputs in order to prevent warning messages from being displayed on the DIC.





A couple of things I have noticed about this engine is it shares a lot of the standard architecture with the LS1 series of engines, except for the bellhousing bolt pattern, starter mounting location, shorter crank, and more compact assy/belt drive setup. The transmission is actually going to create some issues because GM didn't cast in extra support in the area of the left rear mount -- probably because it wasn't used in the Grand Prix. I already have an idea of how to work around this issue so I can use my 4-corner mount system that doesn't require a dog-bone. Stock this powertrain only used 3 lower mounts (two on the pass side and one on the driver's side), which would require the use of a dog bone on the driver's side -- where no such provisions exist on the Fiero chassis. One of the goals I have for this swap is to modify the Fiero chassis as little as possible (if at all).

The front cover / water pump housing used on this engine is quite ingenious. All coolant connections are located in this cover as well as the fill point for the entire cooling system (the grand prix's radiator did not have a fill point on it). Below is a picture of the T-stat housing and all heater hose and radiator hose connections, which are located just behind and below the water pump.





On this engine the starter is mounted to the transmission which is unique. The transmission case has a special casting to accomodate this.



More pictures to follow. Other pictures and information on the LS4/4T65-E can be found on a page I dedicated to this powertrain on my website here:

http://www.gmtuners.com/LS4/index.htm

-ryan



MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #2, 09-12-2007 10:03 PM
      Will be keeping an eye on this Thread, being I am slowy working on a 06 LS4/65E swap myself into my 88 GT. I havent gotten very far on the swap being I have had the motor/trans for 5 months and it is only half way mounted on the cradle. Looks like I am going almost the same route with my install but not including the DIC, remote start, ect. I have done alot of reading on the motor/trans and the wiring/PCM side of the swap and looks to be somewhat difficult but nothing that cant be done. I talked to several companies about the wiring/PCM part of the swap and looks like several can do it for a decent price but its not a full complete harness. Plus the same company can reprogram the PCM and from what they say the swap can be done without the BCM/Ignition key from donor and they program out the Passkey. This is only going off what I have talked with a few companies about so we will see. Then one company can make me a complete harness and do the PCM work for a decent price and it will be plug and play. Look forward to seeing progress on the swap.

CTFieroGT87 (ct5585@yahoo.com) MSG #3, 09-12-2007 11:02 PM
      Wow thats gonna be awesome if you get all those functions to work by integrating those controllers and the pedal. This info is gonna help a lot when I get around to putting in my 6.8L SBC!

Erik (hardkandiboi@hotmail.com) MSG #4, 09-12-2007 11:59 PM
      An Impala SS with the LS DOD raced me about 2 months ago ..they do get up and move ..I can just imagine what its gonna be like in a Fiero

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #5, 09-13-2007 12:52 AM
      Here are some pictures of the auto trans flexplate (flywheel) and back of the block...





This flexplate does NOT have a counterbalance weight; but it does have the FWD torque converter bolt pattern (for the larger, 258mm converter like the 3800 SC engines use).

Here are some pics of the transmission, off the engine...





And the left rear mount area I mentioned earlier where GM didn't cast in extra beef because no mounts were used in this location on this case, in the cars it was put into... A few of the holes are not even tapped or drilled all the way either.



One of the things I was doing today was machining out some sleeves so they could accept the 84-87 Fiero engine cradle rubber mount bushings that I am using for my motor mounts.



Since I had use of the neighbor's lathe all day I went ahead and knocked a few out. I also went ahead and made some aluminum inserts for mock-up when I weld everything together. The rubber cradle bushings have an interference fit to these sleeves so they have to be pressed in. And I can't weld on these sleeves with bushings in them; so that's where the aluminum inserts come in.



-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #6, 09-13-2007 01:05 AM
      Here is a picture of the engine block when I had the heads off.



I did the port work on the cylinder heads myself -- focusing especially in the area of the valve guide in both ports; which needed a lot of attention. I then took the heads to the machine shop to have a multi-angle, performance valve and seat grinding job done. Installed new valve seals and put everything back together (engine only had 40,000mi on it so there was no reason to change out valve springs).

Here are some pictures of the stock ports...







Here is after the porting before the heads went to the machine shop...







-ryan

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 09-13-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #7, 09-13-2007 01:08 AM
      O ryan, you and your slick motor mounts, I might try them on my next swap coming up in 2 weeks.

This ls4 swap seems like a whole barrel of fun, My hardware is not far off of being able to tune those ls4 pcm's, so Ill keep you updated there.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #8, 09-13-2007 01:17 AM
      The factory head gaskets are 3 layers (aka: multi layer steel, or MLS) and are coated with a black sealing agent in key areas. Obviously new factory gaskets were used, and the head bolts that are used on this engine are torque to yeild, so those had to be replaced as well. The LS4 uses ten - 11mm x 2.0 thread pitch bolts around the cylinders and five - 8mm x 1.25 bolts along the lifter valley per head. The 11mm bolts get torqed to 22 ft/lbs in sequence, then 90 deg turn each in sequence, then an additional 70 degrees in sequence for the final pass. Then the 8mm bolts get torqued to 22 ft/lbs from the center out.

Pics of the engine reassembled...









Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #9, 09-13-2007 06:43 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

The front cover / water pump housing used on this engine is quite ingenious. All coolant connections are located in this cover as well as the fill point for the entire cooling system (the grand prix's radiator did not have a fill point on it). Below is a picture of the T-stat housing and all heater hose and radiator hose connections, which are located just behind and below the water pump.





More pictures to follow. Other pictures and information on the LS4/4T65-E can be found on a page I dedicated to this powertrain on my website here:

http://www.gmtuners.com/LS4/index.htm

-ryan



Where did you get your information on the coolant flow? It looks like the coolant would flow in the opposite direction since the thermostat housing appears to be located centrally at the back of the pump. I was confused for a moment with the 3900 coolant flow since the thermostat is located in the same area as shown in your picture however, the filler neck and crossover mounted at the end of the heads up high suggested that despite the thermostat location it is the inlet point for coolant.


FIEROPHREK MSG #10, 09-13-2007 12:32 PM
      Hey Joe you always want your coolant to flow out of the T-stat. If cool coolant flowed past it, it would stay closed all the time. If Darth doesn't want to rip that water pump off and post pics i can disassemble mine and post some pics. Keep the pic coming



Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #11, 09-13-2007 01:10 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:

Hey Joe you always want your coolant to flow out of the T-stat. If cool coolant flowed past it, it would stay closed all the time. If Darth doesn't want to rip that water pump off and post pics i can disassemble mine and post some pics. Keep the pic coming



That's why I've been so concerned about my situation, I haven't received confirmatory information for my engine in which case my hoses would be connected backwards. It just didn't seem right for it to have traditional flow pattern with the thermostat at what is normally the inlet on previous engines so I'll swap the hoses around especially given you are absolutely right about the premature closing of the thermostat that would result. In my case it might not manifest very easily since I drilled some safety holes in the face of the stat in the event of a failure to allow some coolant flow.


AkursedX (akursedx@aol.com) MSG #12, 09-13-2007 01:35 PM
      I would assume by the porting job that the owner of this car is looking for some more power. I know there isn't much out there for the ls4 yet, but Harland Sharp apparently makes 1.8 rockers for this engine. That might be something the owner would be interested in.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #13, 09-13-2007 04:19 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Joseph Upson:


Where did you get your information on the coolant flow? It looks like the coolant would flow in the opposite direction since the thermostat housing appears to be located centrally at the back of the pump. I was confused for a moment with the 3900 coolant flow since the thermostat is located in the same area as shown in your picture however, the filler neck and crossover mounted at the end of the heads up high suggested that despite the thermostat location it is the inlet point for coolant.


I was looking thru the service manual for the LS4 and found some pictures in the section titled "Radiator Hose Replacement - Outlet LS4". Here is a picture from that section showing the outlet hose and where it connects to the engine...



EDIT: My initial statement about coolant inlets and outlets turned out to be incorrect/backwards. The coolant inlet to the engine is in-fact the t-stat housing. The smaller coolant port just below this housing is the heater core return to the engine which routes returning coolant across the t-stat. There is a bypass hole that connects the inlet/outlet portions of the system that gets closed off once the t-stat opens. Before that (with t-stat closed) coolant is allowed to circulate between the two sections of the system so the t-stat will always see a constant flow of coolant.

I apologize for this mistake and will update the coolant flow pics as soon as possible.

-ryan

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 11-21-2007).]

Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #14, 09-13-2007 04:40 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


I was looking thru the service manual for the LS4 and found some pictures in the section titled "Radiator Hose Replacement - Outlet LS4". Here is a picture from that section showing the outlet hose and where it connects to the engine...
As you can see in the picture, the indication is the outlet hose connects to the t-stat housing. The heater hose connection that comes in closest to the t-stat housing I assume is the hot water outlet to the heater core. Therefore the two other ports must be returns.


Thanks, my problem is that I'm apparently not paying as close attention to detail as I should. My picture of the hose connection is titled rad outlet and I was so focused on the picture which has no writing indicating the direction that I missed the title description. So my hoses are connected backwards which explains why things didn't make since to me when looking at the fitting arrangement.


What I don't like about this configuration on my engine is the height of the inlet, and the pump configuration which sucks water out of the block as opposed to pushing it through the heads then out the bottom of the block. It can also be a problem in the event of a low coolant level in my case if there is not enough water to push into the inlet which sits kind of high.

[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-13-2007).]

FIEROPHREK MSG #15, 09-13-2007 05:00 PM
      Hey Joe don't forget that the LS series of motors untilizes reverse flow cooling. The round holes on the waterpump housing are for coolant into the engine. The square holes are for the coolant out of the engine.



There are actually 4 passagways in the housing. If your hoses where hooked up backwards the only thing i think it would do is change the direction of coolant flow through your radiator. That might create some issues with your coolant overflow since it is now on the hot side of the rad.



blkcofy MSG #16, 09-14-2007 12:50 AM
      This is why I fell in love with the LS4. For the last 2 years I've been eyeing the 3.8 Series II/III S/C until I started to learn more and more about this engine. With all of the porting Ryan's done and with the planned tuning, I'm hoping to deliver at least 340hp. And I'm guessing the all aluminum engine block is lighter than the 2.8L that's coming out!

[From ]www.modernracer.com]
The heart of the Grand Prix GXP is the new 5300 V-8 – the first time in almost 20 years that a V-8 engine has been offered in a Grand Prix. It also is the first application ever for the small-block V-8 in a front-wheel-drive configuration.



Engineered specifically for front-drive layouts, the 5300 V-8 produces a peak of 303 horsepower and 323 lb.-ft. of torque – with 90 percent of torque available from 1500 rpm to 5200 rpm. It also incorporates Displacement on Demand (DOD) technology, which debuted in 2005 GM extended midsize SUVs equipped with the Vortec 5.3L V-8 (LH6) engine.
With the 5300 V-8, DOD technology enables fuel economy gains of up to 12 percent in certain driving conditions by reducing the number of cylinders engaged in the combustion process. A sophisticated engine controller determines when to deactivate cylinders, allowing the engine to maintain vehicle speed in lighter load conditions such as highway cruising. When the cylinders are deactivated, the engine effectively operates as a V-4, with alternate cylinders on each cylinder bank disabled. The engine returns to V-8 mode the instant the controller determines the vehicle speed or load requires additional power. The process is seamless and virtually imperceptible.
The all-aluminum 5300 V-8 is based on the Gen IV small-block architecture, but is modified to accommodate the “east-west” mounting position of the Grand Prix’s front-wheel-drive chassis. To fit the “sideways” positioning in the Grand Prix, several changes were made to reduce the engine’s overall length, including the use of a shorter crankshaft and a single-belt accessory drive system.

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 09-14-2007).]

Madess (madess@fuse.net) MSG #17, 09-14-2007 08:06 AM
      Ok question - I want to do an LS4 swap as well - but I want to go with a manual tranny. Computer wise is this possible and if so, what is required?

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #18, 09-14-2007 01:36 PM
      The Gen III and IV engines are NOT, to my knowledge, reverse flow cooling. That was a trick that GM used with the Gen II's to get a little more from the outdated design before the Gen III came out.

FIEROPHREK MSG #19, 09-14-2007 05:01 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

The Gen III and IV engines are NOT, to my knowledge, reverse flow cooling. That was a trick that GM used with the Gen II's to get a little more from the outdated design before the Gen III came out.



I'm not sure if GM considers it "reverse flow" anymore but i just went outside and ran some water through the pump ports. I ran water into the round ports and water came out of the inlet tube on the housing. That round port on the block goes right to the heads. The heads get the coolant first.



blkcofy MSG #20, 09-15-2007 03:47 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Madess:

Ok question - I want to do an LS4 swap as well - but I want to go with a manual tranny. Computer wise is this possible and if so, what is required?


To try to answer your specific question, I was strongly advised against keeping my 5sp manual getrag. Despite the fact that it is a newly rebuilt tranny w/ less than 300 miles on it the logic thought of 135hp engine match w/ now a 340hp engine match probably doesnt make alot of sense. While many folks have reported that the Getrag should have been able to handle the power, I've weighed that advice vs logic, as well as hearing many of these same Getrag loyals looking for new tranny's after a few years. I've had my car for 14 years and would like to have it another 14, so I opted with using the tranny that came with the engine (4T65e). Now, I actually ended up having Ryan practically rebuild compenents on it to handle future power upgrades as well as more aggressive shifting since I'm also keeping the TAPShift functionality. Would I have loved to keep a manual in the car? H-E-double toothpick yeah! So I did look into it further and found that the 6sp tranny in the G6 would be a possible option. I think you'd still have to do some mods to it to firm it up, as the G6 GTP is only 252hp.

Keep asking and looking if you want to go manual...look into the G6 even. And if you think you actually can use a 5sp Getrag....do I have a deal for you!!



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #21, 09-15-2007 08:36 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


To try to answer your specific question, I was strongly advised against keeping my 5sp manual getrag. Despite the fact that it is a newly rebuilt tranny w/ less than 300 miles on it the logic thought of 135hp engine match w/ now a 340hp engine match probably doesnt make alot of sense. While many folks have reported that the Getrag should have been able to handle the power, I've weighed that advice vs logic, as well as hearing many of these same Getrag loyals looking for new tranny's after a few years. I've had my car for 14 years and would like to have it another 14, so I opted with using the tranny that came with the engine (4T65e). Now, I actually ended up having Ryan practically rebuild compenents on it to handle future power upgrades as well as more aggressive shifting since I'm also keeping the TAPShift functionality. Would I have loved to keep a manual in the car? H-E-double toothpick yeah! So I did look into it further and found that the 6sp tranny in the G6 would be a possible option. I think you'd still have to do some mods to it to firm it up, as the G6 GTP is only 252hp.

Keep asking and looking if you want to go manual...look into the G6 even. And if you think you actually can use a 5sp Getrag....do I have a deal for you!!


To further contribute to this discussion one of the other major reasons I advised against using the manual trans with this engine was because of the starter mounting issue. As you can see in the pictures above, the starter mounts to the 4T65-E auto transmission, not the engine. There really isn't room on the engine to mount a starter unless something was done to the oil pan. Which means the only way to get a starter on this engine would have required custom machining and fabrication of some kind which would have really run the cost of the swap up. Furthermore, nobody has proven a 6-speed G6 transmission will hold up to the power of a V8 or a healthy V6 yet. And like blkcofy said, he wants this car to be as reliable as possible. I just don't think any affordable manual transmission would be as reliable as the 4T65-E HD auto trans that came with this engine.

Aside from that, it is unclear how well this LS4's PCM would work without the presence of the auto transmission's computer (and missing auto trans); and if the DoD would continue to work without communications with the TCM.

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 09-15-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #22, 09-17-2007 11:30 PM
      Comin' out...



After some work...





Now I have some cleanup to do in the eng compartment and with this cradle. After the initial cleaning is done I will start on test-fitting the LS4/4T65-E powerplant into the engine bay. Stay tuned...

-ryan


blkcofy MSG #23, 09-18-2007 02:02 AM
      I don't suppose anyone would be interested in a 2.8 V6 engine? It's got about 75,000 or so miles on her. I just hate throwing things away...I'm such a pack rat sometimes. But the only choice Ryan will have is sending her to the junk heap. Sad, sad, sad. Is there anyone that will give her a new home? She ran great from Cinci to Fort Wayne, +200miles, no over heating, averaging 80mph the whole way. Ryan can give an honest assessment on how she looks if there's any real interest. PM me.

darkhorizon MSG #24, 09-18-2007 09:53 AM
      post it up in the mall, I would suggest you part out the commonly used stuff, like IGN modual, exhaust, egr tube, distributer ect...

OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #25, 09-18-2007 11:37 AM
      blkcofy, PM sent

Raydar (raydarfiero@comcast.net) MSG #26, 09-19-2007 12:00 AM
      .

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 10-28-2007).]

OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #27, 09-19-2007 10:08 AM
      Another PM your way.

blkcofy MSG #28, 09-19-2007 10:24 PM
      Does anyone have any perspective and/or advice on brake packages? I've already put the vented front brake conversion kit from The Fiero Store on the car before the swap.

It greatly improved braking, but that was with the 2.8L! I've reviewed the 11" kit from RCC Specialty for $1260. Does anyone have any experience with this kit? It seems like it would do the trick, I'm just cautious about dropping that much money this early in the swap process on brakes...unless I have to. Of course with bigger brakes, I'd need bigger wheels/tires...(darn it!!)

Ryan mentioned that some folks have had good experience with a Lebarron Brake kit? I'll do a search to see what I find, but has anyone used this? What I'm basically wanting is to make sure I can bring this puppy to a halt when needed, and I'm also going to have it on the track probably once to twice a year, so brake fade is important. This is NOT going to be a race car, but with 340hp, I'm just thinking I need some serious stopping power. I'm just curious about hearing from folks whom have had good experiences with upgraded brakes.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #29, 09-19-2007 10:28 PM
      Test Fit #1...

















darkhorizon MSG #30, 09-19-2007 10:39 PM
     

Does it interface with that hinge perch?

As far as brakes go, the grand am/lebaron swap is a very decent upgrade over a 84-87 brake setup. The 88 brakes should offer plenty of stopping power for you.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #31, 09-19-2007 11:02 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Does it interface with that hinge perch?


It doesn't interface with the hinge support, but it will interfere with it once the coil packs are installed (not to mention the water pump housing cover); so some clearancing of this hinge support will be required.

 
quote

As far as brakes go, the grand am/lebaron swap is a very decent upgrade over a 84-87 brake setup. The 88 brakes should offer plenty of stopping power for you.


This is an 87 car. Currently it has the factory rear brakes and the Grand Am vented upgrade on the front. I think what blkcofy was asking was if the 11.25" LeBaron brake upgrade was comparable to the 12" (corvette?) brake upgrade; and what the price difference was vs. perforance difference. I personally haven't messed around with anything more than the Grand Am brake upgrade so I couldn't offer any advice or price lists.

-ryan



FIEROPHREK MSG #32, 09-20-2007 09:09 AM
     



Thats a TON of room ! SAweet ! Awsome progress Darth.

Are you planing on relocating the coils on the front side of the motor? They look like they might interfer with the hinge box.



darkhorizon MSG #33, 09-20-2007 09:24 AM
      Assuming the grand am brakes give you 88 like performance, I would be happy with just running the grand am upgrade. To prevent high speed fade, some type of vented upgrade on the rear would be nice I would think.

blkcofy MSG #34, 09-21-2007 01:01 AM
     
So, I've spent the last 2 hours searching the net trying to figure out the 11.25" Grand Am/LeBaron/Caddie/Blazer/Wilwood Brake Kit!! Whew! Too much information!

What I have figured out, is that I should investigate this combo kit before investing $1300 in a turn key kit on the web. There's some good kits out there from RCC, WCF, and V8 Archie. But it sounds like I can get similar performance from this 11.25" kit if I went all four. So here's my question...if I have the Grand Am kit from The Fiero Store on the fronts, am I partially there? What do I need to get to upgrade to a 11.25" rotor and a multi piston caliper from Wilwood...or any other high performance lightweight caliper?

And for the rears, since I want to keep the e-brake functionality, and these are still stock rotors and calipers. Do I start from scratch to get them to 11.25" rotors? I think this is where the Caddie/Blazer stuff starts happening, in order to keep e-brake. There was alot of stuff about weird positioning of the brakets, and not being able to use certain brake lines, ect.

I'm trying to allow Ryan to stay focused on the engine swap, and try to figure out the right brake upgrade myself, but it sure seems easier to buy something off the shelf right now. Hopefully there is guidance out there for me!


darkhorizon MSG #35, 09-21-2007 01:19 AM
      Rear brakes only do about 15-20% of your braking anyway, so focusing on upgrading the rears, lends you less benifit than upgrading the front. As much as a pain as e-brakes are, I wouldnt attempt to put an ebrake on stock fiero brakes, let alone upgraded ones, so if I was you, i would leave stock rears, and then go radical up front.

Why are you not happy with your grand am swap already?


OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #36, 09-21-2007 11:50 AM
      blkcofy, PM sent..............again.

blkcofy MSG #37, 09-21-2007 05:54 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Rear brakes only do about 15-20% of your braking anyway, so focusing on upgrading the rears, lends you less benifit than upgrading the front. As much as a pain as e-brakes are, I wouldnt attempt to put an ebrake on stock fiero brakes, let alone upgraded ones, so if I was you, i would leave stock rears, and then go radical up front.

Why are you not happy with your grand am swap already?


I was very happy with the Grand Am upgrade up front w/ 135hp engine behind me. My assumption is that this won't be enough with 340hp behind me!!

Plus, I can pretty easily be categorized as 60% performance, 40% all looks and asthetics! So when I go from the stock 15" tires to the planned 18", I can't have those whimpy 9" rotors exposed! On the performance end, if I slam it to the floor in an aggressive/gingerly sort of way, I can lock the tires up without too much control loss at a 70mph to dead stop action, but I've not been 100% accurate with this manuver and that's with the now removed stock 2.8L engine. I do NOT want to count on a similar approach going from say 90mph to dead stop...which is what I'm figuring the same time and distance would be with the new engine. (no calculator here, just assumptions!)

I'll continue the search. My goal is to have a complete list of the parts needed to get me 11.25 rotors (cross drilled) in the front and back...keep my e-brake functionality as I live in a hilly area and I need e-brakes in winter snow (don't ask)!

All the searches I've found on Pennock capture alot of debating but very little "Brake Upgrade List for Dummies" information, which I think alot of folks other than myself would love to see. Don't get me wrong, reading some of the chastising, "my piston is better than yours" conversation is informational and sometimes even entertaining...but when you're actually in the middle of a swap and rebuild, sometimes you just want to hit the "easy button" and cut straight to the chase!

Once I have the complete list and a few options of GM Metric Calipers...Wilwood Calipers...or cleaned up calipers from the junk yard options, I can figure the final choices myself based on what I want to spend and what type of performance I want. Again...alot of work...fun work...but work nontheless. Which is making the off the shelf options looking more and more attractive! Thanks for the insight on the brake load on front vs. rear. This does make sense, as even on my BMW, the brake rotors on the front tires are slightly bigger than the rears, so the logic holds true on newer cars apparently.


MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #38, 09-21-2007 09:50 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:

Are you planing on relocating the coils on the front side of the motor? They look like they might interfer with the hinge box.



It looks like a ton of room but I have seen one installed in person and there isnt as much room as it looks like. There will be several obsticules to overcome with clearance issues with the LS4. It is going to have to be mounted very solid to insure it doesnt rock to much a come in contact with the firewall. Looks to be coming along and will be finished in not time. Who are you going to use for wiring the setup or are you going to do it yourself?



blkcofy MSG #39, 09-22-2007 11:31 PM
      Thought I would share the work I did on the interior before handing off to Darth Fiero for the LS4 Swap. Leather seat kit from Mr. Mike's. I had Mike stitch the logo design from the gentleman who redesigned the horse logo and got eveyone all excited about new badges...still haven't received mine yet! But it looks nice on the seats. Then I color matched the Lambo Creme color and Pistol Grip Black from Mr. Mike w/ Sherwin Williams Automotive Interior paint and sprayed all the panels using a low volume pressure spray gun. New carpet, new black seat belts, new headliner and sunroof trim, and short shifter from Rodney's (though that all goes away with the paddle shift kit).

Here's what the interior looked like before painting...


And now after the interior work. I think it turned out pretty darn good. I told my wife all of the episodes of Unique Whips and Overhauling would pay off! I still have to paint the instrument panel housing, but will do that after I the swap...




New air vent corner panels were also painted, and I painted the ash tray door covers and even the carpet on the glove compartment pocket. Turned out pretty good too. The steering wheel was a MOMO steering wheel I picked up off ebay. I was able to mount it to keep the OEM Fiero horn. One day I'll figure out how to wire the horn to get rid of that darn metal pin, as it's not working well right now. I still have to order the Mr. Mike lower door panels (black to match seats) and visors (lambo creme to match seats) to finish the interior. I also recovered the fire wall in black vinyl.


Eau_Rouge MSG #40, 09-23-2007 08:47 AM
      blkcofy, where did you get your black seatbelts? I'm also looking for a pair. Do they fit under the plastic panel without any problems?

blkcofy MSG #41, 09-23-2007 11:45 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Eau_Rouge:

blkcofy, where did you get your black seatbelts? I'm also looking for a pair. Do they fit under the plastic panel without any problems?


Eau_Rouge,
Check ebay as search for Fiero Seat Belts. You'll need the 3 point belts. The retracter box is a different shape than the OEM belts, but it still fits under the side trim. I did have to purchase longer size bolts from Auto Zone to fit properly into the car as the bolts that came w/ the belts were too short. Other than that, it fits just fine.

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 09-23-2007).]

blkcofy MSG #42, 09-27-2007 12:16 AM
      Smashed another one of my piggy banks recently to continue to keep Darth busy on the swap. I think Peter Parker's Uncle Ben said it best..."With great power, comes great responsibility...and better aftermarket parts!".


Intrax Front and Rear Sway Bars to keep this thing on the road!


Koni Shocks and Struts from The Fiero Store


400lb springs and coilovers from West Coast Fiero


Complete Poly kit on pretty much everything but the engine mounts from The Fiero Store


I've got an order on it's way for some hot C6 Corvette tips from tc7130 (can't wait!)


A Steering Wheel Sport Paddle Shifter kit from Twist Machine (this almost makes up for loosing my 5sp Getrag)


This was 'Junior' as I left him in the great hands, care, and expertise of Darth Fiero. I didn't realize how much I'd miss this car until it was gone!

I'm still on a quest for an affordable, yet effective bigger rotor brake upgrade. I think I'm pretty much sold on the RCC Specialty kit and will look to find my own rotors and calipers. I'm sooo impressed with the folks there. They've bent over backwards to help me. And since I'm going with at least 11" rotors, I have to find an affordable, yet unique tire/wheel package. After seeing all the awesome setups on many of the Pennock owners, I'm looking for a 17x8 225/45 on the fronts and 18x9 265/35 on the rears. From what I've read, I need to stay w/in a 35 to 40 offset range. Painting and body work won't happen til next year, while I work my azz off to re-stock my depleting piggy banks! But I'm going with a gun metal metalic gray w/ black racing stripes. Have you seen this look on the porsche? Fricken killer look...in my opinion.



I've been dreaming about doing this for at LEAST 8 years. I am just so dang stoked about it finally coming to life, you have no idea. I haven't figured out if my wife is happy for me or just laughing at my childish giggles everytime I check on Darth's progress. A key to that of course is keeping the reciepts far, far, away from her! A boy and his toys...


darkhorizon MSG #43, 09-27-2007 10:17 AM
      Ill bet your wallet is a bit upset after that shopping spree!

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #44, 09-27-2007 01:14 PM
      Before you go out an buy the 11.25 upgrade you should look into the 12" vette rotor setup. If you use the stock 88 fiero calipers you can save yourself a couple hundred dollars and end up with a bigger rotor out of the deal. Vette rotors are cheaper even with the machine costs of re-drilling a new bolt pattern. You can use the stock master cylinder and lines so that money goes back into you pocket. You will need concentric rings to center the rotor. If you prefer to buy them instead of making them you can get them from Rockcrawl. The brackets needed to make the rotors fit is very, very easy. Here is a shot of a set. Remember these brackets are for 12" vette rotors with 88 fiero calipers on an 84-87 fiero (confused yet? ).


-The rotors need re-drilled with the fiero bolt pattern. Rotors can be found anywhere but I have found the best price (~$20 dollars each) at Rockauto.com. Rockcrawls also sells them pre drilled for $135 + shipping I believe.
-You will need to turn down the fiero front rotor to the hub or buy a set of brake upgrade hubs ($100) from West Coast Fiero.
-Stock 87 master and lines are retained though I would suggest using stainless lines (also $100 from WCF).
-You may have to make the brackets since I have not got confirmation from Rockcrawl that he is selling them. I bought mine from him but he didn't say if he was selling more. Try sending him a message. If he does not have them and you cannot make them let me know and I will get you the measurments so you can have someone else make them. Basically they are a 1/2" steel plate with one edge rounded for clearance. There are two steel sleeves welded on to space them out. The holes on the other side are drilled and tapped to accept the 88 fiero caliper bolts.
-You will need 16" or larger wheels and this could be the determining factor for the total price of this upgrade for you.
-No need for a perportioning valve cause you are using stock fiero calipers and master.
-Total cost of upgrade for me is ~$550 including high performance pads (~$80 WCF). All new parts except for the 88 calipers which I bought and re-built. Even if you buy everything new it wont cost anywhere near the 1300 dollars of the RCC upgrade.

Here is a couple of links in case you don't have them already.

http://stores.ebay.com/Fiero-Addiction
Send him a message from here and see if he has the brackets/rings and rotors available.

http://www.westcoastfiero.c...ake_accessories.html
Lots of stuff here to help you with the upgrades. FYI those hubs will work if you go with the 11.25 upgrade also. Much, much easier then turning down the ones on the car.

For me I didn't really have a choice. I decided to go with the 88 cradle swap which made the 11.25 very tough to use in this application. In the long run I was glad I did. I got a better brake upgrade that used stock fiero parts and the lower cost of it offset the cost of the 88 cradle swap. Hope this helps or at least gives you another option. Can wait to see this car together. Later.

Men need toys just as much as women need shoes. I don't know about you guys but my woman spends more on shoes then I do on car builds. lol Men need toys, it keeps that primal urge to hunt and kill at bay.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 09-27-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #45, 09-27-2007 02:36 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:

Before you go out an buy the 11.25 upgrade you should look into the 12" vette rotor setup. If you use the stock 88 fiero calipers you can save yourself a couple hundred dollars and end up with a bigger rotor out of the deal.


Because this is an 87 car, if we used stock 88 Fiero calipers with a 12" rotor setup, we would still need to buy calipers. And the last time I priced rear 88 calipers, they weren't cheap ($100 per side plus a $60 core).

Another observation I have is I drove a 88 Fiero with the 12" rotors (cross-drilled) using the stock 88 calipers and I wasn't impressed. I don't know if the problem was the type of brake pads that were used or because of some other problem, but the car had very high pedal effort -- and to be honest, my impression was that it stopped worse than my 87 with the 4-corner Grand Am upgrade. Now I am sure it probably didn't fade like my 87 does when I really push it hard, but my concern is the pedal effort required just to stop the car during normal driving. Again, I didn't put that brake system together so I don't know what parts were used and if someone switched out the brake M/C.

Now what I know about brakes is larger rotors are just one part of the equation. With bigger rotors you should also install brake calipers that have more piston area (ie: bigger piston or multiple pistons) to bring the pedal effort down. Obviously the system needs to be balanced because you don't want to have a touchy system that is easily prone to locking up. But that 88 I drove with the 12" rotors was at the extreme opposite end of the scale to this.

Just an observation and my $0.02 on the subject.

-ryan



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #46, 09-28-2007 01:31 PM
      I was just throwing another option out there for you guys. My understanding is that the 88 fiero calipers have a slightly larger piston size then the earlier fieros. Using these should decrease pedal pressure a littleI am in the process of building my car now so I have not been able to test out these brakes yet. I am going with a higher performance pad. Actually I'm going with the Portfield R4-S. They are a pad made for high performance street and autocross. Here is a link to their site with some more info on them.
http://www.porterfield-brakes.com/pads.html

I like the idea of using fiero components in the braking system. The parts are readily available and since this forum is here you can get them at decent prices. I know that this upgrade has been done for nearly 20 years as it was one of the first brake upgrades ever done on a fiero. When I get mine done and tested I will post back my results if you guys are interested. Out of all the people I have talked to you are the first to give any feedback on this brake set-up. I hope my results are a little better then the ones you have driven. Thats the great thing about fieros, there are so many options out there.

The build looks great. Keep up the good work. If you can get a video of the car running so the rest of us will get a chance to hear it that would be excellant. Great job so far.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #47, 09-29-2007 12:19 PM
      The oil dipstick tube was long enough that I was able to rebend it so it could be repositioned to be fastened to the back of the cylinder head -- thus giving easier access to it once installed in the Fiero...



The oil filter was hitting the cradle so that had to be delt with...



Not pictured is the plate I welded across the bottom of the cradle in this area in order to box it in and reinforce it. I was concerned about not doing this because I felt without the boxing the cradle would have been weak in this area.

As seen in one of the pictures above in one of my previous posts, during the test fit the oil pan was resting on the cradle -- so that had to be corrected...



In doing this, it created a problem where the control arm would have hit the now boxed area if the suspension would have bottomed out so I did have to modify the control arm in the area of the bushing slightly (not pictured); but it wasn't a big deal.

The only other area that required notching was on the left side where the transmission side cover had a boss on it that would have contacted the cradle. So I corrected it by notching this area out of the cradle and then filled in the hole by welding in some metal...



No control arm modifications were required on this side after this was done because it wasn't that big of a cut-out. Also notice in the above pic where some of the area where the mount bolts to the cradle had to be ground away to clear the corner of the transmission pan. Not pictured are about 3 other areas that required slight massaging to clear the engine/transmission. Not a big deal, but again it had to be done. Since the 88 cradles have less room, I assume more work will be required to get this powerplant to fit in one of those cars but that was expected.

-ryan


darkhorizon MSG #48, 09-30-2007 02:15 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

The oil dipstick tube was long enough that I was able to rebend it so it could be repositioned to be fastened to the back of the cylinder head -- thus giving easier access to it once installed in the Fiero...

O how I wish I could do this with 3800's easily, Maybe I will try mounting them farther back next time in the swap I am doing right now

The oil filter was hitting the cradle so that had to be delt with...

Fairly large mod there, could you of used a oil filter relocator to fix that interferance?

Not pictured is the plate I welded across the bottom of the cradle in this area in order to box it in and reinforce it. I was concerned about not doing this because I felt without the boxing the cradle would have been weak in this area.

I do this whenever I can, I know that its not technically a weak point, but I dont like the idea of 3x the power that cradle was designed for, twisting around on top. That rail seems so small and fragile that you could twist it and break it without much effort. I assume your dumping the stock ebrake system then?

As seen in one of the pictures above in one of my previous posts, during the test fit the oil pan was resting on the cradle -- so that had to be corrected...

I had this problem on one of my 3800s I fixed it by mounting it slightly higher in the rear so it tilted a bit differently.

In doing this, it created a problem where the control arm would have hit the now boxed area if the suspension would have bottomed out so I did have to modify the control arm in the area of the bushing slightly (not pictured); but it wasn't a big deal.

What did you have to modify? just cut out a part of the lower side of the arm? What do you think you would do if it was an 88?

The only other area that required notching was on the left side where the transmission side cover had a boss on it that would have contacted the cradle. So I corrected it by notching this area out of the cradle and then filled in the hole by welding in some metal...

Hmm, if your cutting there, it looks like you are really fighting to get this mounted really low eh?

No control arm modifications were required on this side after this was done because it wasn't that big of a cut-out. Also notice in the above pic where some of the area where the mount bolts to the cradle had to be ground away to clear the corner of the transmission pan. Not pictured are about 3 other areas that required slight massaging to clear the engine/transmission. Not a big deal, but again it had to be done. Since the 88 cradles have less room, I assume more work will be required to get this powerplant to fit in one of those cars but that was expected.

I always prefered doing swaps on 88 cradles, but I think I mounted things a bit higher and farther forward than you do. I noticed that on akursed swap, it seemed really centered in the engine bay. Great post, I love the detail. I might have to consider this swap when I have some access to tuning it. I can get these motors/trannies cheaper than you guys want to hear.

-ryan



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #49, 10-01-2007 05:53 PM
      [QUOTE]Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Fairly large mod there, could you of used a oil filter relocator to fix that interferance?


Probably could have, but the amount of money that would have been required to purchase everything needed to relocate the oil filter would have been more than it cost me to modify the cradle.

 
quote
I assume your dumping the stock ebrake system then?


No. The owner (blkcofy) wants to keep the e-brake for the reasons he described in an earlier post.


 
quote
I had this problem on one of my 3800s I fixed it by mounting it slightly higher in the rear so it tilted a bit differently.


Tilting the powertrain up in the rear would have created clearance problems elsewhere; especially up front in the area of the water pump.

 
quote
What did you have to modify (control arm)? just cut out a part of the lower side of the arm? What do you think you would do if it was an 88?


I will show what I did to the control arm once the poly bushings are installed later. It was a "minor" modification. I don't know what is going to be required for an 88 cradle until I do one of these swaps in an 88 Fiero.

 
quote
Hmm, if your cutting there, it looks like you are really fighting to get this mounted really low eh?


Fighting? No. Notching the cradle to clear the transmission used in that LT1/4T60-E swap I did a few years ago was "fighting". This is nothing compared to that. But as with all my swaps, I always try to mount the engine/trans as low as possible for many reasons. One reason is for deck lid/upper end clearance and another reason is for lower center of gravity. Since I make custom mounts anyway, I can mount the engine/trans anywhere I want it (within reason and respect to drive axle angles). In the case of this swap, the engine/trans is being mounted as low as possible to maximize clearance between the deck lid and the water pump housing as well as the intake manifold. Now the LS4's intake sits so low it would probably never interfere, but I wanted to leave the option open for a different intake should the owner desire it.

 
quote
I always prefered doing swaps on 88 cradles, but I think I mounted things a bit higher and farther forward than you do. I noticed that on akursed swap, it seemed really centered in the engine bay. Great post, I love the detail. I might have to consider this swap when I have some access to tuning it. I can get these motors/trannies cheaper than you guys want to hear.


I can only work with what I am supplied with. If the customer brings me an 84-87 Fiero and wants a swap done to it, that's what I use; if I am supplied with an 88 Fiero, that's what I use. I have seen earlier cars (84-87) where people swapped 88 cradles into them; but 88 cradles aren't cheap plus you have to consider the cost of the rest of the parts needed to put one into an earlier car; so for many people on a budget, this isn't an option.

AkursedX's swap used a SS intercooler which required me to mount the engine/trans low on the cradle in order to clear the deck lid without cutting. I don't like cutting on the Fiero chassis or body parts if I don't have to. Cradles are much easier to find and replace than chassis' and body parts; should anyone ever desire to revert the car back to stock for any reason -- OR -- transfer the swap to another car in case of body/chassis damage as the result of an auto accident. In the case of this swap tho, there are going to be modifications required to the chassis in order to clear this engine; but that has to be done for other swaps as well (3.4 DOHC, NorthStar, etc).

Concerning tuning software, HP Tuners and EFI Live already has support for the LS4 and both companies have assurred me their software can defeat the VATS securty functions in the ECM. I have already ordered a tuning software suite for this swap so I've got that covered. But the ECM/TCM programming isn't what I am worried about; the DIC and BCM concerns me more. I (and the owner) want to use the BCM and DIC in this swap; and as you know there is no tuning support for the BCM at this time (and probably will never be). So I will probably have to spoof a lot of inputs to the BCM in order to get the BCM to work as desired and prevent any warning messages from being flashed up on the DIC.

Now as far as LS4/4T65-E powertrains are concerned, Ed Morad is the one we got this powertrain from; and he told me when I picked this one up that he is pricing them out at $3000-$3500 complete depending on mileage and included hardware -- which I think is a great deal. He can be contacted via his website here: www.moradpartscompany.com if anyone is interested in purchasing one of these setups.

-ryan




Austrian Import (maximilian_ledworowski@csumb.edu) MSG #50, 10-01-2007 11:26 PM
      This thread is awesome. How on earth did I miss it? Love the Lambo creme interior. More pictures please.
*bump*


darkhorizon MSG #51, 10-01-2007 11:42 PM
      i want to know your ebrake secrets.

blkcofy MSG #52, 10-02-2007 12:34 AM
      CALLING ALL FIBERGLASS ARTISIANS!!

Okay, here's the challenge. I can follow directions pretty well, and can make things up as I go. BUT, fiberglassing is an art, and I've never tried. So, instead of doing something crazy, I'd like to ask if anyone has any...or knows of someone...who can do custom fiberglass work. Ryan is going to attempt to keep many, if not most of the Drivers Information Center functionality from the donor car (2005 Grand Prix GXP) using the DIC module...measured in inches for width and depth:



The DIC/Trip computer has a 5 button system with DIC information plus compass, outside air temperature, average speed, elapsed timer, average and instantaneous fuel economy, range, remaining oil life, transmission fluid temperature, battery voltage, engine hours, intermediate gear positions and performance upshift light. As I mentioned, Ryan is trying to capture as many of these functions as possible to pair them to the new computer from the LS4. This is a blurry readout, but gives an example of what it looks like.



My preference is to provide as many pictures ect. as possible, as I'm not really wanting to ship the DIC (cost too much to loose or get damaged) unless absolutely necessary. Ryan does have the cover plate that came out of the Grand Prix that could be used for mock up purposes.



My objective would be to design something that replaces the Fiero 2 guage pod that sits above the HVAC, and mount something in the same place. I don't think theres enough dash space to build the DIC into the Fiero dash like it is on the original donor car...



So if there's any advice out there to help me figure out how to create a housing that I can either paint or wrap in black vinyl that would dress up the module. Worse case scenario I can just fabricate a bracket and have it screw into the skeleton that the current pod sits, but it would look kinda tacky. I have ZERO fiberglass experience, so I'd definitly consider commissioning someone else to create something for it.

Please let me know!! Thanks!



darkhorizon MSG #53, 10-02-2007 12:37 AM
      BTW ryan I just had a short conversation about BCM's with my friend that works at a pontiac dealer, he seems confidant he can flash a bcm with whatever code he wanted to.

I know this doesnt really help, but it might help in the brain storming category if you find a specific year or application you would want to try to make work.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #54, 10-02-2007 11:01 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

BTW ryan I just had a short conversation about BCM's with my friend that works at a pontiac dealer, he seems confidant he can flash a bcm with whatever code he wanted to.

I know this doesnt really help, but it might help in the brain storming category if you find a specific year or application you would want to try to make work.


Thanks for the help, but I also have access to a GM dealer employee who can do the same. The trouble is all they can do is just reflash it (the BCM) with stock programming, and what I would need turned off is standard equipment in these cars so no stock programming with that disabled is available. What I need is the ability to pick and choose what functions in the BCM I want to disable.


darkhorizon MSG #55, 10-02-2007 12:18 PM
      Yea, that was my point, you might benifit from possibly flashing it with "base model" code thats all I was thinking. I am also thinking there might be some things VERY hard to emulate on that BCM, such as shifter position, and Hvac control settings. The BCM might also controll the dash a bit, and there could be some 2way communication there.

If it was a obd2 style BCM I would attempt trying to mess with hex editing, but that all depends on how good a friend you have at the dealer.

Alot of speculating, but I think the best bit of speculation is that the BCM will still function without having everything there. Technicly a "non critical solid state" peice of hardware like this would not have limp home mode built into it or somthing of the like. Overall the idea of a BCM is being more of an output computer than an input computer like the PCM is also.

I hope you have a nice wiring diagram layed out. Fairly crazy amount of wires going to and from any of the body moduals I have seen, luckily enough most of the communiction arcitecture is based of GM lan now, which is 1 wire and some grounds.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #56, 10-03-2007 03:55 PM
      Just a little update: did the 2nd test fit yesterday with the water pump housing installed; which revealed that I will have to modify the water pump housing in the upper portions (top front idler pulley, coolant fill cap locations) so it will work in the Fiero engine compartment. The front upper idler pulley will hit the firewall when installed and the coolant fill cap will interfere with the deck lid hinge. I don't have any pictures of what I am going to do to modify this housing yet, but I will post some when the modifications are done so you can see what I had to do.

I borrowed a spot weld drilling tool kit and removed the dog bone mount bracket and battery tray from the chassis. I also clearanced the hinge support and will be working on a plate to weld in there to support the modified deck lid hinge. I am also working on motor and trans mount brackets. As soon as I get these completed, I will post some pics.

-ryan


darkhorizon MSG #57, 10-03-2007 05:25 PM
      well crap, there goes the "leave the fiero stock, but mod the cradle" idea. O well, I dont think anyone would ever want to downgrade from a ls4.

aaronrus (stickpony@gmail.com) MSG #58, 10-03-2007 06:16 PM
      i have some questions for the thread starter, or anyone else who could answer them..

1)what aftermarket exhaust headers are available and can be modded for use on the fiero..

2) are there any immediate camshaft/valvatrain/intake upgrades that can be performed right away before you put it in? it is an SBC, so does that mean aftermarket parts for GEN IV RWD SBCs can be used on this engine?

3)what is the weight of this engine by itself? im curious to know what it weighs compared to the 2.8L

4) what kind of fuel economy is this engien getting coupled with the 4t65e?

[This message has been edited by aaronrus (edited 10-03-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #59, 10-03-2007 07:59 PM
      The fuel econ should be better than 35mpg (some can get 40mpg with 3800's), assuming that there get the advertised 30mpg in the big bonnie or grandprix.

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #60, 10-03-2007 08:43 PM
      Jon (AKA Rockcrawl) just added these to his ebay store. Best bang for the buck IMO.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymot...6QQitemZ160164527897


blkcofy MSG #61, 10-03-2007 11:48 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:

Jon (AKA Rockcrawl) just added these to his ebay store. Best bang for the buck IMO.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymot...6QQitemZ160164527897


I'll definitely check these out. The kit is $500, but I'd have to buy a full set of 88' Fiero Calipers. The Fiero Store sells the front set ($160) and rear set ($280). This quickly adds up to $940 and would have to find longer parking cables. I'll check it out...but the Lebaron DIY kit with rjblaze's brackets comes out much more affordable. I'm not sure the performance differential between the two will justify the cost. I'd need to find way cheaper calipers!


Raydar (raydarfiero@comcast.net) MSG #62, 10-04-2007 05:53 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


I'll definitely check these out. The kit is $500, but I'd have to buy a full set of 88' Fiero Calipers. The Fiero Store sells the front set ($160) and rear set ($280). This quickly adds up to $940 and would have to find longer parking cables. I'll check it out...but the Lebaron DIY kit with rjblaze's brackets comes out much more affordable. I'm not sure the performance differential between the two will justify the cost. I'd need to find way cheaper calipers!


check out www.calipersonline.com

The 88 fronts are $125 per set. New Old Stock. Including pads. No core charge.
The 88 rears are $350 including core charge, though.


Tom Slick (tom.slick@northtexasfieroclub.org) MSG #63, 10-04-2007 09:35 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:
I'd like to ask if anyone has any...or knows of someone...who can do custom fiberglass work.


contact Amida, he does great fiberglass work. just look at his repo 355 interior kit.



darkhorizon MSG #64, 10-04-2007 12:54 PM
      I got 4 calipers from a junkyard, somewhere (www.car-part.com) shipped to my door for $75.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #65, 10-04-2007 02:33 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by aaronrus:

i have some questions for the thread starter, or anyone else who could answer them..

1)what aftermarket exhaust headers are available and can be modded for use on the fiero..


I am not aware of any aftermarket headers that will work with this engine in a Fiero without modification. The stock exhaust manifolds do work in the confines of the Fiero's engine compartment, but just barely.

 
quote

2) are there any immediate camshaft/valvatrain/intake upgrades that can be performed right away before you put it in? it is an SBC, so does that mean aftermarket parts for GEN IV RWD SBCs can be used on this engine?


Concerning the camshaft, the short answer to your question is no. I have talked to a few cam companies and they are unsure about the lobe requirements for the DoD system. They want a stock cam sent to them for examination; and I am reluctant to let the only one I have go without knowing when and if I will get it back. But that is the decision of the owner. The rockers could probably be upgraded but with the stock ratio (1.7) GM is already reporting the valve lift to be 0.490".

The intake manifold is one upgrade I have looked into. I tried a 6.0L truck intake on this engine and it appears that it will bolt right up; and because I am mounting the engine/trans so low on the cradle, it will also clear the deck lid. But the truck intake I have uses a different throttle body and fuel rails/injectors; and it has a longer runner design than the stock LS4's. I do have a neighbor/friend who used to work at Lingenfelter that said he is going to contact them to see if they will loan us a stock LS2-vette intake so we can see if it works as well. I will advise if and when I get ahold of one of those.

 
quote

3)what is the weight of this engine by itself? im curious to know what it weighs compared to the 2.8L


By itself, the LS4 longblock (block, internals, heads; but NO intake or assy's) weighs 339 lbs. Now before you get too excited about this number you need to keep in mind other components are needed (such as water pump, alternator, starter, etc) in the swap. Once you add all the assy's, brackets, and mounting hardware, the weight total swells to 478 lbs! Just to give you an idea of how the weight total added up so quickly, here are the weights of the various components...

Shortblock (dry): 259 lbs (incl crank, rods, pistons, cam, lifters, oil pan, balancer)
Heads (each) : 23 lbs (incl valves, springs, retainers, locks)
Pushrods/rocker arms (both banks): 13 lb
Valve covers (both): 6 lb
Plastic Intake, TB, mounting hardware, fuel rails: 17 lb
Misc brackets & mounting hardware: 21 lb
Front cover incl water pump: 15 lb
starter, alt, mounting hardware: 24 lb
mounts, mount brackets, pulleys, hardware: 12 lb
coil packs (both banks): 8 lb
a/c compressor: 15 lb
head gaskets: 2 lb
head bolts, other gaskets, mounting hardware: 5 lb
front exhaust manifold: 16 lb
rear exhaust manifold: 11 lb
exhaust crossover pipe: 8 lb

As you can see, all of these extra components weigh something. I think that when people on this forum throw out weights of engines they are going to use in their swaps, sometimes they omit the weight of required hardware and components needed in the swap as well. I know this weight total for the LS4 sounds like a lot, but compare this with a fully dressed iron-block SBC. I bet that SBC even with alum heads probably weighs 100lbs or so more than this LS4 once you bolt everything on it required for the swap. Just for reference, the 4T65-E weighs 214 lbs.

 
quote

4) what kind of fuel economy is this engien getting coupled with the 4t65e?



My sister-in-law has an 06 Grand Prix GXP with the LS4 and she gets 30mpg on the highway @ 60-65mph when the DoD is active. I figure in a Fiero once you consider the weight and aero differences, you should see 35mpg or more at the same speed. Now it should be noted that you probably won't get this good of fuel economy if you are tooling down the highway doing 80mph, or if you are driving thru hilly or mountain terrain. This is because the ECM for this LS4 will command the DoD system to deactivate at higher loads.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #66, 10-04-2007 02:46 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

well crap, there goes the "leave the fiero stock, but mod the cradle" idea. O well, I dont think anyone would ever want to downgrade from a ls4.


I never said the Fiero was going to be left stock. I did say I like to do that whenever I can, but there are instances (like in the case of the 3.4 DOHC or the Northstar) where you have to modify the Fiero's chassis so it will work with those engines. Having said that, one of my goals when I do swaps that require modifications be made to the chassis is to minimize those modifications as much as possible.

To give you an example, earlier you suggested that the engine/trans could be tilted forward to avoid interference between the transmission and the cradle. Well if I did that, this would have created problems with the water pump (which cannot be relocated unless I throw it out and run an electric one) as I mentioned earlier. But what I didn't mention is the clearance with the exhaust manifolds. The front manifold is less than 1 inch away from the front firewall in some places; and the rear manifold is less than 1" below the trunk bulkhead -- so close in fact I am going to have to relocate the upstream O2 sensor from it's original location in the manifold. Now if I had done what you suggested, the front and rear manifolds would have been moved closer if not touched these areas which would have created more problems. So given the choice, I would rather clearance the cradle so I can set the engine/trans as low as possible rather than do a lot of other sheetmetal work to the chassis of the car.

And again my reasoning for doing what I do isn't just because of the thought someone in the future may want to de-mod; but rather move this swap to another vehicle, perhaps in the case of an auto accident that totals this car. If you have a different way of doing your swaps; then you can do them your way. This is just the way I like doing things in my swaps.

-ryan


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #67, 10-04-2007 04:11 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


I'll definitely check these out. The kit is $500, but I'd have to buy a full set of 88' Fiero Calipers. The Fiero Store sells the front set ($160) and rear set ($280). This quickly adds up to $940 and would have to find longer parking cables. I'll check it out...but the Lebaron DIY kit with rjblaze's brackets comes out much more affordable. I'm not sure the performance differential between the two will justify the cost. I'd need to find way cheaper calipers!


I bought mine here on the forum for 110 shipped (all 4). Probably another 50 to rebuild them all. There are always 88 coupes being parted in the mall. Good thing is you have some time to find exactly what you want. You can buy the rebuild kits from Rockauto.com or possibly your local auto parts store. I just wanted to throw another option out there for you. Doesn't matter what you use to stop this car, it will haul a$$ either way. Looks great so far.


FIEROPHREK MSG #68, 10-04-2007 06:16 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Concerning the camshaft, the short answer to your question is no. I have talked to a few cam companies and they are unsure about the lobe requirements for the DoD system. They want a stock cam sent to them for examination; and I am reluctant to let the only one I have go without knowing when and if I will get it back.


Hey Darth if you are really interested in a cam i have one that is not going to be used . I'm sure there are some LS4 guys on LS1tech that would love an cam option for thier DoD cars. Let me know if you want this cam and i can hook you up.



Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #69, 10-04-2007 06:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Just a little update: did the 2nd test fit yesterday with the water pump housing installed; which revealed that I will have to modify the water pump housing in the upper portions (top front idler pulley, coolant fill cap locations) so it will work in the Fiero engine compartment. The front upper idler pulley will hit the firewall when installed and the coolant fill cap will interfere with the deck lid hinge. I don't have any pictures of what I am going to do to modify this housing yet, but I will post some when the modifications are done so you can see what I had to do.

I borrowed a spot weld drilling tool kit and removed the dog bone mount bracket and battery tray from the chassis. I also clearanced the hinge support and will be working on a plate to weld in there to support the modified deck lid hinge. I am also working on motor and trans mount brackets. As soon as I get these completed, I will post some pics.

-ryan


Not sure what your interference problem is without pictures but I did run into coolant filler neck interference with the deck lid hinge on the 3900 swap and just cut out a plate and welded a neck onto it to mount on the coolant crossover manifold to allow relocation of the filler cap assembly.



MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #70, 10-04-2007 08:20 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Joseph Upson:


Not sure what your interference problem is without pictures but I did run into coolant filler neck interference with the deck lid hinge on the 3900 swap and just cut out a plate and welded a neck onto it to mount on the coolant crossover manifold to allow relocation of the filler cap assembly.


The problem is the filler neck hits the hinge and the upper pulley hits the firewall on the LS4. The hinge can be modified to make the fill point work if need but the pulley really needs to be moved down to clear the firewall. The pulley is very close to the firewall if not touching so it either has to be moved in or the firewall boxed to allow for clearance. These are 2 reasons why I may be putting my LS4 into a 88 Coupe and not my 88 GT, I really not forsure if I want to modifiy it in anyway. Over all the motor is a tight fit on the whole Pass side of the car and the Alt is going to have to be moved also and then it still is going to be an issue with clearance. This install is coming right along and cant wait to see the final outcome.

Just so its clear and I am not taking credit, all that I know and talk about of the LS4 install, I have learned from another installer who did all the test fitting(but with a LS1/65E) and ran into the clearance problem many months ago. I am gald that another installer is doing the swap so more can be learned about the swap and make it easier for me when I get around to doing my swap.


blkcofy MSG #71, 10-04-2007 08:43 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


And again my reasoning for doing what I do isn't just because of the thought someone in the future may want to de-mod; but rather move this swap to another vehicle, perhaps in the case of an auto accident that totals this car.

-ryan


Heyyyyy, whoa there pahtna!! Don't go jinxing me now!! I don't plan on driving any faster than the legal speed limit will allow......give or take 50mph!

(Knock, knock, on wood!)


aaronrus (stickpony@gmail.com) MSG #72, 10-04-2007 11:14 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


My sister-in-law has an 06 Grand Prix GXP with the LS4 and she gets 30mpg on the highway @ 60-65mph when the DoD is active. I figure in a Fiero once you consider the weight and aero differences, you should see 35mpg or more at the same speed. Now it should be noted that you probably won't get this good of fuel economy if you are tooling down the highway doing 80mph, or if you are driving thru hilly or mountain terrain. This is because the ECM for this LS4 will command the DoD system to deactivate at higher loads.


coool..thanks for answering those questions. Your information pretty much answered all my questions. i have been contemplating for a while weather to do a rebuild and build-up of a 4.9L, or just get a 5300 v8, it appears that even with all of its accesories, a built-up 4.9L weighs over 100 pounds less than a 5300( 371 pounds with all accesories according to jon lagler ), while performing about the same. I was getting 32 mpg on the highway at 70 mph in my citation x-11 with the econo 4 speed muncie attached to the 4.9L, i imagine that the luxury of tap shifting is one thing i would have to give up, and it deifnately does appeal to me, however, considering the difficulty of getting the ecm to work in the fiero and all the hoops i have to jump through, i'd almost rather just do a 4t60e coupled with a built up 4.9L.

Rick Stewart was getting 285 HP and 370 lb.ft. of TQ at the crank ( calculated assuming 18% drivetrain loss to the wheels because of the tranny) with his built up 4.9L with allante intake, using the delta cams .480 lift drop-in camshaft, and that was in a completely untuned state and he was running pig rich, so i can image that the HP numbers will rival the 5300 v8 when properly tuned..

as far as wihc swap is cost effective? i havent really sat down to crunch the numbers..

anyways, i will certainly be watching this thread intensely


darkhorizon MSG #73, 10-04-2007 11:24 PM
      I didnt mean anything with that post Ryan, I was just thinking out loud. I appreciate the clarification though, its great info.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #74, 10-05-2007 01:37 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:


Hey Darth if you are really interested in a cam i have one that is not going to be used . I'm sure there are some LS4 guys on LS1tech that would love an cam option for thier DoD cars. Let me know if you want this cam and i can hook you up.



Thanks. PM sent.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #75, 10-05-2007 03:17 PM
      Here are some update pics of the modifications needed to the right side of the engine compartment. This particular car looks to of had a battery leak at one point which caused some damage in and around the area of the battery tray. As you can see in one of the pictures a plate had to be welded over a bad area that had rusted thru in a few places. Also pictured is the modified hinge support bracket.





Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #76, 10-05-2007 04:14 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:





Just an FYI. If you remove the three 7mm screws from the C203 connector you can pass the whole wiring harness through the firewall. This will get it completely out of the way for when you install the firewall insulation. This is how I did mine last week. Works like a charm and takes all of 2 minutes to remove or re-install. I had a nice size hole under the battery tray also.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 10-05-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #77, 10-05-2007 07:12 PM
      I am envious of your dog bone delete.

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #78, 10-05-2007 07:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:



Thats a question. Are you going to re-enforce this area? I just did this myself and am still trying to decide whether I need to or not. You will be pushing more power then me but the same should apply.


darkhorizon MSG #79, 10-05-2007 08:20 PM
      Ill answer that one.

Just look at the other side, youll see it looks identical to that side now.... so no you wont need anything there. I really have been wanting to do that on my swaps, It makes for a cool custom look among fiero guys.


MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #80, 10-05-2007 09:47 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:




Is removing the DB bracket going to solve the issue with the Alt clearance? From what I have seen, its going to have to be mounted low in the area that it is on the 3800 install. The install is looking good and all the pictures take the leg work out of my install. Thanks for providing all the pictures and the details about the swap.



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #81, 10-05-2007 10:23 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Ill answer that one.

Just look at the other side, youll see it looks identical to that side now.... so no you wont need anything there. I really have been wanting to do that on my swaps, It makes for a cool custom look among fiero guys.


Thats exactly what I was thinking before I cut it off. I guess I wont know how it will be on this car til I get a chance to drive it. Thanks
Here is the only pic of how it looks so far.


I also did the same repair for under the battery tray but mine was much worse. I had to cut out a big portion of the panel. Notice the chisel made holes in the firewall? Had to fix those too.
Before


After. I'm still not sure why the camera picked up those spots and made it look like there was still rust. It looks much better in person.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 10-05-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #82, 10-08-2007 12:28 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MstangsBware:


Is removing the DB bracket going to solve the issue with the Alt clearance? From what I have seen, its going to have to be mounted low in the area that it is on the 3800 install. The install is looking good and all the pictures take the leg work out of my install. Thanks for providing all the pictures and the details about the swap.


Unfortunately, no. The alternator, as-mounted from the factory on the LS4, would have it's pulley well into the strut tower by the time you bolted it up. I have done some mock-ups of where to relocate the alternator on this engine and it looks like the only place it has a chance to fit is above the right side CV joint -- but it is very tight there because of the location of the stock rear exhaust manifold. But it looks like it will fit; it will just be very tight. Of course I will post pics of my low-mount alternator solution when I get to that point.



Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #83, 10-08-2007 04:32 PM
      Have you considered a smaller alternator with appropriate output?

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #84, 10-08-2007 06:24 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Joseph Upson:

Have you considered a smaller alternator with appropriate output?


This thing is pretty small already being a Denso unit; and the size of the alternator wouldn't matter with respect to the factory mounting location (if that's what you're asking) because of where the belt runs and it's relationship to the strut tower. If coil overs were going to be used on the rear of this car, I suppose you could modify the strut tower to clear the alternator; but then there would be the issue of how high the alternator sits on the factory bracket and if that would clear the deck lid or not. It should be noted that the alternator in this application is under full computer control and there is actually a battery current sensor that goes around the battery cable (inductive pickup) so the BCM can monitor battery health and charge/load status.



blkcofy MSG #85, 10-10-2007 09:35 PM
      Brake Upgrade Decision

I want to thank everyone for their advice and recommendations on brake upgrade options. I've investigated everything from leaving my current setup as is (Fiero Store Grand Am brakes on front and OEM on rear), to Grand Am brakes all around, to the Lebaron 11.25 rotor upgrade, to the big brake kits offered by V8 Archie, West Coast Fiero, and RCC. At the end of the day, I wanted vastly improved stopping power than I currently have, great asthetic appeal, and at an affordable price (seeing that I'm not being as thrifty as I thought I'd be with all the "extras" I'm doing with this swap!!).

I've decided to go with one of the recommedations you guys made, and went with Fiero Addiction's 12" Corvette Rotor Brake Upgrade with drilled/slotted/zinc plated rotors.



The kit has everything I need (ahem...Ryan needs) to upgrade my 87' Fiero short of the front and rear calipers, and a longer brake line to keep my emergency brake functional. Now, the only task now is to find 88' front and rear calipers, which this kit requires to work with my OEM master cylinder (though I think I might need to go bigger if the force to push the pedal is drastically increased). Not at all an easy, nor inexpensive task...as I'm quickly finding out.

I had found a pair of NEW front 88 calipers on ebay for $90...but I lost the bid in the final seconds to someone who bid $135.55!! The Fiero Store has a set of fronts for $160, but I was hoping to do better. Finally, I found a NEW set on calipersonline.com for $125 w/ no core charge...so I quickly snatched those up yesterday.



So now I just need to find 88 rear calipers. Same place above has them for $350!! Yeah, I know! I thought it was a misprint...but The Fiero Store is selling them for $340!! These must be in serious short supply! But I'm going to keep searching, hoping I can either get lucky and find some cheaper, or at least salvage some from a junk yard and either have them reconditioned myself or use these as cores to get the $350 price down. I did find out that the All Wheel Drive 88-90 Pontiac 6000 shared the same rear calipers as the 88 Fiero, so I'm going to try searching under that description as well. Too bad I can't use my 87 rears as a core!

Then again....anyone interested in buying a Grand Am front brake set for an 87' Fiero!!

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 10-10-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #86, 10-10-2007 11:40 PM
      Junkyard is your best bet, as I said before I just got mine for $25 each!

www.car-part.com, search 88 fiero rear calipers, call up the junkyard that has the best deal, and order 2. You most likely will be able to get fiero brakes off there, there were plenty to pick from when I went.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #87, 10-11-2007 01:25 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Unfortunately, no. The alternator, as-mounted from the factory on the LS4, would have it's pulley well into the strut tower by the time you bolted it up. I have done some mock-ups of where to relocate the alternator on this engine and it looks like the only place it has a chance to fit is above the right side CV joint -- but it is very tight there because of the location of the stock rear exhaust manifold. But it looks like it will fit; it will just be very tight. Of course I will post pics of my low-mount alternator solution when I get to that point.


I don't remember the A/C mounting, but on the Northstar both the A/C compressor and alternator mount low on the forward side of the engine. Is that workable in this case?


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #88, 10-11-2007 04:02 PM
      I have a guy up the street that is parting out a couple of 88 coupes. I will ask him is he still has the calipers. He usually want 35 a piece for them (cause that is what the Fiero Store gives as credit). If your interested let me know and I will find out if he has them for sure. I can ship them to you with a discount on shipping. Should be ~10-20 dollars.

EDIT: I just spoke to the guy and he sold them yesterday. I will keep my eyes open for a set and let you know if I find anything. I got mine in the mall for a good price. FYI, the rear 88 fiero calipers are also available on a 88-90 pontiac 6000 AWD. This will give you a few more options for where to find them or at the least a few more years that they were made. The fronts are unique to the fiero so the mall is probably the best choice for those.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 10-11-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #89, 10-11-2007 09:47 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


I don't remember the A/C mounting, but on the Northstar both the A/C compressor and alternator mount low on the forward side of the engine. Is that workable in this case?



Nope, water pump mounts directly above the A/C compressor leaving no room on the front of the engine for the alternator....




Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #90, 10-11-2007 11:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:


Thats a question. Are you going to re-enforce this area? I just did this myself and am still trying to decide whether I need to or not. You will be pushing more power then me but the same should apply.

No dog bone for quite a wile, and no problems. No stress cracks in the paint or under the paint.








I plan to do my 4.9 swap the same way, no dog bone and more than the stock three mounts down low. At least 5 under the engine. More power needs a stronger mounting system.


KurtAKX MSG #91, 10-12-2007 12:02 AM
      All this 88 Fiero caliper sourcing from an AWD 6000 cracks me up.

There were roughly as many AWD 6000s built as there were Indy Fieros, and I've owned two myself, as well as my brother owning one, and I've parted a couple out in junkyards and seen a few on the road. Good luck finding a far-less-common than 88 Fiero AWD car to source from
I believe the numbers were:
88 124 AWDs produced
89 1700 some
90 200 red, 200 blue.



Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #92, 10-12-2007 08:57 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:
EDIT: I just spoke to the guy and he sold them yesterday. I will keep my eyes open for a set and let you know if I find anything. I got mine in the mall for a good price. FYI, the rear 88 fiero calipers are also available on a 88-90 pontiac 6000 AWD. This will give you a few more options for where to find them or at the least a few more years that they were made. The fronts are unique to the fiero so the mall is probably the best choice for those.


FYI, there were at most 2500 AWD 6000's made (I have a '90), so that's less than 1/10 as many '88 Fieros made.

Edit: Kurt beat me to it.

On the plus side I can use a 12" Corvette brake kit for an '88 Fiero on the rear of my AWD...

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 10-12-2007).]

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #93, 10-12-2007 09:10 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Nope, water pump mounts directly above the A/C compressor leaving no room on the front of the engine for the alternator....


Oh yeah... the Northstar puts the w/p on the back of the engine and doesn't have to deal with it in front... bummer. Chance to mount it top & center for easy maintenance like a 4.9? Since it's an alternator, it doesn't matter which way you spin it (the rectifier determines output polarity), so you could turn it around and mount it where the battery used to be.



darkhorizon MSG #94, 10-12-2007 12:11 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Oh yeah... the Northstar puts the w/p on the back of the engine and doesn't have to deal with it in front... bummer. Chance to mount it top & center for easy maintenance like a 4.9? Since it's an alternator, it doesn't matter which way you spin it (the rectifier determines output polarity), so you could turn it around and mount it where the battery used to be.


That would be funny to see.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #95, 10-12-2007 12:25 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


Oh yeah... the Northstar puts the w/p on the back of the engine and doesn't have to deal with it in front... bummer. Chance to mount it top & center for easy maintenance like a 4.9? Since it's an alternator, it doesn't matter which way you spin it (the rectifier determines output polarity), so you could turn it around and mount it where the battery used to be.


That thought had crossed my mind as well until I looked inside the alternator and noticed which way the fan blades were bent. If I tried to spin it backwards, the cooling fans wouldn't work properly. BUT, it should be noted that on the Supercharged Ecotec the alternator is spun backwards according to the pictures I have seen.

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #96, 10-12-2007 12:31 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

No dog bone for quite a wile, and no problems. No stress cracks in the paint or under the paint.
I plan to do my 4.9 swap the same way, no dog bone and more than the stock three mounts down low. At least 5 under the engine. More power needs a stronger mounting system.


You don't need a dog bone as long as the powertrain is supported in all 4 corners. The only reason why the Fiero had one stock was because of the 3-point mounting system.

Having said that I have been doing some thinking about using a dog bone on future LS4/4T65-E swaps. The reason was discussed earlier; GM didn't cast in enough beef in the left rear corner of the transmission case for a standard 3-bolt mount in that area. I had to make a bracket that bolts both to 3 of the side cover to case bolts as well as the available 3 rear case bolt holes (6 bolts total); but this was very labor intensive (and time consuming) to make. I am going to see how much work it is going to take to build a custom strut tower brace that has provisions for dog-bone mounting so I can use a dog-bone on the left side of the engine. The strut tower brace would be a complete bolt-on with no welding required to the chassis as I have envisioned it. But that idea has been put on the back burner until the next LS4 swap I have scheduled.

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 10-12-2007).]

Fierobsessed (nstarfiero@aol.com) MSG #97, 10-12-2007 06:43 PM
      I did something simular to that in the past. Other then loosing the decklid springs, it was really effective. This was on a two point like the 87-88 4 cyl automatic Fiero's sit on, but with a 3.1 Aluminum headed engine and a 4T60. It did not function as a strut tower brace however, but I easily see how it could have, draw inspiration as needed.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #98, 10-12-2007 06:57 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fierobsessed:

I did something simular to that in the past. Other then loosing the decklid springs, it was really effective. This was on a two point like the 87-88 4 cyl automatic Fiero's sit on, but with a 3.1 Aluminum headed engine and a 4T60. It did not function as a strut tower brace however, but I easily see how it could have, draw inspiration as needed.



Hmm, what you didn't would probably work but I was thinking of just running the strut tower brace and dog bone mount along the back firewall. That way the brace could be shorter/smaller than what you did.




Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #99, 10-20-2007 12:01 PM
      Sorry for the delay but I had to install a new shop heater this week since the weather has started to go downhill. But I was able to borrow an LS2 intake from Lingenfelter and here is what I found...



The LS2 intake's throttle body inlet is molded too low and won't clear the oil pressure sending unit; but even if that were removed and the boss for it machined down, measurements indicate the intake will still not clear the DoD electrical plug.

So I turned the LS2 intake around to see if it would fit the other way and yes it will -- at least bolt right down on the heads and clear the oil pressure sender and DoD plug... BUT...





Once the water pump housing is installed it won't clear a critical part of the housing -- one of the coolant passages. Here is a comparison picture between the LS2 and LS4 intake...



As you can see the LS2 intake has a much larger throttle body opening than the LS4. However, it's unclear at this time if the LS4 needs this large of a throttle body. I'm sure the LS4 would benefit from a larger throttle body and throttle body opening but exactly what size is optimal is still unknown. Also, the factory LS4 throttle body and fuel rails will not work with the LS2 intake.

Based on the test fits I have performed, I have determined that it might be possible to modify an AFTERMARKET cast-aluminum LSx intake to work on this engine and still have the throttle body facing the correct way. But prices for such intakes range from $500 and up, plus the factory LS4's fuel rails or throttle body may not be compatible. So extra costs will be associated with the upgrade.

That aside, I was able to finish the engine and transmission mounts so I will get pictures of those as soon as the paint dries. I am working on modifying the water pump housing as well as building my alternator relocation brackets and will get pictures posted of those when I am done.

-ryan


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #100, 10-20-2007 12:43 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

No dog bone for quite a wile, and no problems. No stress cracks in the paint or under the paint.

I plan to do my 4.9 swap the same way, no dog bone and more than the stock three mounts down low. At least 5 under the engine. More power needs a stronger mounting system.


I've actually got 4 poly mounts for my 4.9 and tranny. Maybe I wont even bother with the dogbone. I'll have to wait til its running to find out for sure though. Thanks for the info.

 
quote
Originally posted by KurtAKX:

All this 88 Fiero caliper sourcing from an AWD 6000 cracks me up.

There were roughly as many AWD 6000s built as there were Indy Fieros, and I've owned two myself, as well as my brother owning one, and I've parted a couple out in junkyards and seen a few on the road. Good luck finding a far-less-common than 88 Fiero AWD car to source from
I believe the numbers were:
88 124 AWDs produced
89 1700 some
90 200 red, 200 blue.


Wow. I had no idea they were that rare. There are two of them in my neighborhood. That sucks. I guess this forum is still the best place to find used 88 calipers. Kickhill.com has them for $50 bucks a peice if you cant find them here. Thanks guys


Darth: Funny you should mention the strut tower brace with provisions for the dogbone. That is what I have been working on for the last couple weeks. I swiped the tower brace out of the 93 deville my 4.96 camer out of. Its basically 1" square stock (steel) with bolt on end brackets. I figured on re-making the brackets with provisions for the engine grates. Just an idea.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 10-20-2007).]

RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #101, 10-20-2007 05:04 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Sorry for the delay but I had to install a new shop heater this week since the weather has started to go downhill. But I was able to borrow an LS2 intake from Lingenfelter and here is what I found...



The LS2 intake's throttle body inlet is molded too low and won't clear the oil pressure sending unit; but even if that were removed and the boss for it machined down, measurements indicate the intake will still not clear the DoD electrical plug.

So I turned the LS2 intake around to see if it would fit the other way and yes it will -- at least bolt right down on the heads and clear the oil pressure sender and DoD plug... BUT...





Once the water pump housing is installed it won't clear a critical part of the housing -- one of the coolant passages. Here is a comparison picture between the LS2 and LS4 intake...



As you can see the LS2 intake has a much larger throttle body opening than the LS4. However, it's unclear at this time if the LS4 needs this large of a throttle body. I'm sure the LS4 would benefit from a larger throttle body and throttle body opening but exactly what size is optimal is still unknown. Also, the factory LS4 throttle body and fuel rails will not work with the LS2 intake.

Based on the test fits I have performed, I have determined that it might be possible to modify an AFTERMARKET cast-aluminum LSx intake to work on this engine and still have the throttle body facing the correct way. But prices for such intakes range from $500 and up, plus the factory LS4's fuel rails or throttle body may not be compatible. So extra costs will be associated with the upgrade.

That aside, I was able to finish the engine and transmission mounts so I will get pictures of those as soon as the paint dries. I am working on modifying the water pump housing as well as building my alternator relocation brackets and will get pictures posted of those when I am done.

-ryan

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/icons/icon8.gif FYI, several hot rod magazines have done dyno tests on intakes and they say the ls2 actually lost power over the stock intake. evan with a cam upgrade. They say to stay away from it. (Hot Rod) I,m doing a ls4 swap also.
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/icons/icon8.gif


FIEROPHREK MSG #102, 10-21-2007 01:53 PM
      Hey Darth Edelbrock makes a victor manifold that has injector bosses pre drilled. I'm sure you could make a TB adapter easily and mount it to the top facing up. Then you would just need an elbow for the TB inlet. The only problem with this is making the engine to tall to fit under the stock decklid.

The manifold pn EDL-29085 from summit . Lists for 325.95
http://store.summitracing.c...&img=edl-29085_w.jpg

The fuel rails are pn EDL-3638 from summit . List for 77.95

Thats just a tic over 400 bucks not to shabby , I bet you could make it work. Granted you'll neeed to fab a TB adapter and fab some fuel lines but thats nothing to difficult.



blkcofy MSG #103, 10-21-2007 09:35 PM
      SUSPENSION AND 12" CORVETTE BRAKE UPDATE

Shiny red Koni Shocks and Struts...check! Shiny blue Performance Springs and Coil Overs from WCF...check! But I'm still trying to find a company that can make good on the purple Intrax Front and Rear Sway Bars. I've bought them twice, only to be told they are on so long on back order, that both companies gave me my money back! Has ANYONE been successful at getting these bars? I'm still holding out for Intrax, but will start looking for other options very soon. The front bar won't be a problem, but I need to get a rear bar to Darth soon, so he can make sure it fits with the LS4.

Speaking of the LS4, I was very interested in the LS2 Intake option, as logic should support bigger gains from a bigger inlet, but I read the Hot Rod article as well. It wasn't as conclusive as "run away from the LS2", but it clearly was not showing huge improvements from it as they thought there were other issues with the overall 2 piece design that minimized any gains from the larger intake. With all of the porting Darth has done on this engine, I'm feeling quite content with staying with the OEM LS4 intake, small intake and all!

Back to the 12" Corvette Brake update. Darth received all the parts needed for the upgrade from Rockcrawl. Hopefully Darth can send me a quick picture so I can see how the slotted cross drilled rotors look. I received my 1988 Front Calipers from calipersonline.com and painted the front half of them with red caliper paint. Not as nice as powder coating, but I didn't feel really bullish about taking these calipers apart. The below picture looks really "bloody", as they actually look good for paint, but not as good as powder coating. Maybe in the future...



I'm still waiting to get my 1988 Rear Calipers from calipersonline.com, and maybe I'll try powder coating these. That is one skill I can at least claim competency on! I had Darth take my main suspension parts off my car and send them to me. Didn't look too bad, in terms of rust as the car had been given a Ziebart undercoating back in 1988. This first picture is the underside of my front suspension. Can't wait to get these OEM shocks, springs, and 9" rotors replaced!!


This second shot are my rear upper control arms. Not too much rust, if at all, but definitely could use a good cleaning and powder coating.


I joined a private garage last year in Fairfield, Ohio called Painters Lane (http://www.painterslane.com/) which is basically a DIY
center that supplies all the equipment and "coaching" one needs to do restoration and repair to your car. I learned how to powder coat, and decided to apply this new skill to my suspension parts. The biggest task is getting these pieces sand blasted down to the metal. The paint and rust comes off pretty easy, but the undercoating and 20 years of caked on grease was a pain, but I think the results were well worth it!








So I've still got to do the Front Lower Control Arms and the Rear Knuckles, which are going to be a big task in getting all the rust and Ziebart undercoating off, but once done, should look pretty nice up against the red polyurethane bushings, red shocks, and blue springs. The coating I used is a Black with Silver Vein with a coat of gloss. I kept the coating out of the bearing areas as much as possible. I've also still have to do the Front Spindles, which I'm likely to find some bolts to screw into the threads to keep the powder coat out. There's also some heat tempature tape I'll use to keep the powder out of the areas it shouldn't be allowed to go.



Once all of this is done, I'm shipping it back to Darth so he can have them for assembly. It always amazes me how much shops charge to powder coat, as it's a pretty easy process if you have the right equipment...then I remember how tough it is to get the parts down to the metal and then it makes sense. But if you can do it yourself, it saves a bundle. I may just get the Fiero Store sway bars and powder coat them myself as well.

Hope you guys don't mind all the pictures. It really helps to have mini-projects to do on the car while Darth has the main project going to "keep busy" while my baby is gone! I can't wait to see this project finished. Next step is finding some dang wheels to fit this car! Someone said this part was more of an "art" then hard fast guidelines. They are soooo right. The 12" Corvette Rotors will NOT fit my 15" OEM Wheels, unless Darth does a bit of creative cutting and grinding, so I have to at least go 16". Of course I'll be going bigger than that. My goal is 17x7 w/ 225/45 on the front and 18x8 w/ 255/35 in the rear. Like I said...not an easy task! The trick is getting the right offset, which is difficult to do without having the car to test fit!

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 10-21-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #104, 10-22-2007 12:03 AM
      Lookin' good, blkcofy! I will get you some pictures of the rotors tomorrow.

The paint has dried on the mounts so as promised here are the pictures...





Not pictured is the one bracket that had to be welded to the cradle for the right rear transmission mount. It did work out that the other half of this RR trans mount bracket was able to be bolted directly to the cradle so that will make it easier to remove and install the mount in this location. As with previous swaps utilizing this mounting design, I am using OE-Replacement 84-87 Fiero front cradle mount bushings for my rubber mounts. They aren't quite as firm as poly mounts but I believe they are just about as strong. The benefit of using the rubber vs. the poly is better noise and virbation isolation which is what blkcofy opted for.

 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:

Hey Darth Edelbrock makes a victor manifold that has injector bosses pre drilled. I'm sure you could make a TB adapter easily and mount it to the top facing up. Then you would just need an elbow for the TB inlet. The only problem with this is making the engine to tall to fit under the stock decklid.

The manifold pn EDL-29085 from summit . Lists for 325.95
http://store.summitracing.c...&img=edl-29085_w.jpg

The fuel rails are pn EDL-3638 from summit . List for 77.95

Thats just a tic over 400 bucks not to shabby , I bet you could make it work. Granted you'll neeed to fab a TB adapter and fab some fuel lines but thats nothing to difficult.



Thanks for the info but I have never been a fan of using "converted" carb intakes in port FI applications. The airflow path and distribution aren't as good as an intake designed for port FI; but the ultimate decision on this rests with the owner. But it already sounds like he wants to stay with the factory LS4 intake. Thanks anyway.

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 10-22-2007).]

OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #105, 10-25-2007 09:48 AM
      Darth, blkcofy, you guys have a PM.

darkhorizon MSG #106, 10-25-2007 11:41 AM
      Not to mention Ryan makes his living tuning FI systems...

Anyway, those mounts look fairly basic, nothing to far from what I would of made on a 3800 swap anyway, am I right? With no major cradle revisions, I think this might be the new "techie" swap of choice eh? I think we can pretty much count the LSJ out of the picture, but it still looks like thats the best bet for the manual enthusiast's on here.

Totally off topic question, but while researching manual transmissions, I found a CVT (constantly variable transmission) in some of the early saturn vue's. Anyone ever see what sorta bolt pattern those have?


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #107, 10-25-2007 03:35 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Totally off topic question, but while researching manual transmissions, I found a CVT (constantly variable transmission) in some of the early saturn vue's. Anyone ever see what sorta bolt pattern those have?


I have been interested in one of these also. My idea was to mate it to an electric motor though. 100% torque through a CVT could be tons of fun.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #108, 10-25-2007 04:09 PM
     













motoracer838 (jmartin@musicunveiled.com) MSG #109, 10-25-2007 08:37 PM
      Ryan; you have a pm.

Joe


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #110, 10-28-2007 11:58 AM
      I figured out a solution for relocating the alternator but it was a tight fit; and some modifications were required to the block and chassis to accomidate this mounting location...















It may be hard to see in the pictures, but there is about 1/4" clearance between the alternator and CV drive axle and exhaust manifold. The CV drive axle tripod end shouldn't ever be able to come in contact with the alternator and the exhaust manifold is double wrapped with thermal barrier. I also applied some heat reflective tape to the area of the alternator that is closest to the manifold. Should keep it sufficiently protected.


blkcofy MSG #111, 10-28-2007 07:28 PM
     
wow...


Raydar (raydarfiero@comcast.net) MSG #112, 10-28-2007 07:37 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


wow...


Seriously!



MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #113, 10-28-2007 09:21 PM
      This Thread is going to make installing the LS4 into a Fiero so much easier. I have been slowly working on mine but seeing this one being put together so fast makes me want to get mine going. I have a long ways to go though and sure its going to be many more months before its even close.

FIEROPHREK MSG #114, 10-29-2007 08:07 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MstangsBware:

This Thread is going to make installing the LS4 into a Fiero so much easier. I have been slowly working on mine but seeing this one being put together so fast makes me want to get mine going. I have a long ways to go though and sure its going to be many more months before its even close.


Yeah no crap. I'm waiting on pistons that have been back ordered for 2 months. I'll get to mine some time this millenium. Good job with the mounts darth ,they look very well made.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #115, 11-01-2007 01:16 AM
      Finished the fuel pump install (Walbro 255lph) and hooked up the fuel pressure regulator...



Also got the water pump housing/cover cut down and ready for welding. But before I do that it was time for another test fit to make sure everything I have done so far is going to work...















And it looks good. I think I have the belt routing sorted out so as soon as I get the welding done to the housing I will add the last idler pulleys. The tensioner I decided to go with on this engine was the most compact one I could find -- which was for an LQ1 engine (3.4 DOHC).

Think I'm going to take a break from the mechanicals for a couple of days and start on the wiring. More pics to come...

-ryan


OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #116, 11-02-2007 11:16 AM
      Darth, PM sent.

fierodeletre (b7gwap@hotmail.com) MSG #117, 11-02-2007 03:54 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

Then again....anyone interested in buying a Grand Am front brake set for an 87' Fiero!!



Oo! Oo! Me! Me! How much?



blkcofy MSG #118, 11-02-2007 06:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by fierodeletre:


Oo! Oo! Me! Me! How much?



Welp...I paid $299.95 less than two years ago. I've put at most 400 miles on them since then. They looked like this when new...


84-87 VENTED FRONT BRAKE CONVERSION KIT
Greatly improves stopping power, decreases your stopping distances and produces far less brake fade under extreme braking conditions. Bolt-on kit, no modifications needed. Kit Includes:2 vented front rotors, 2 front calipers (5mm larger piston diameter), 2 wheel bearing hubs, caliper brackets, semi-metallic brake pad set, Inner/outer wheel bearings & seals, new wheel studs and caliper bolts.(As reported by The Fiero Store).

If your serious, and if Darth can repurpose all the original parts you'd need since my 12" Corvette Kit should be fitted directly to the OEM setup instead of the Fiero Store Grand Am kit...then based on the depreciation calculations, the position of the moon in respect to mars and venus...$84.95. Which just happens to be how much I need to buy front tie rods from the Fiero Store!


For an extra $25, I'll have Darth send them to me first and I'll media blast everything...'cept the rotors of course, so you'll have a "clean start". I'm not sure how much is left on the pads, but should be more than 75%. Shipping not included. PM me if your serious and we can figure out what Darth needs to keep and what he doesn't and we can adjust down from there.


MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #119, 11-02-2007 10:01 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:




-ryan


The LS4 is such a tight fit all the way around, it doesnt have any room to move at all. Looks good so far and sure it will turn you nice.



blkcofy MSG #120, 11-04-2007 09:26 PM
      SECOND PHASE OF SUSPENSION POWDER COATING

Okay, I've finally gotten the rear knuckle brackets and front spindles sand blasted and powder coated. True labor of love, this one. I opted to go with an Argent Silver instead of the darker powder on the control arms.

I taped off the ends of the spindles and plugged any of the holes with threads to keep the powder out of these areas. I'm pleased for the most part, 'cept for the wierdest thing that occurred on the way back from the ovens. Using the same powder and process, one pair of knuckle/spindle remained bright chrome when I added the clear gloss coating, and the other pair turned a bit gray! Have no idea how or why, unless the oven was baking unevenly and the clear coat didn't cure as it should have. All four parts were the same after the first coating, but changed during the last. Oh well, you won't really see much of these parts to be able to compare side by side once Ryan get's them on the car...and they're a millions times better than the rusty mess they were before.




Well, on to the final phase with the front upper control arms...which are covered in thick under coating from Ziebart. I've soaked these things for days, and still can't soften them up enough. I'll probably go to a more coarse medium of sand to blast them off later this week.

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 11-04-2007).]

Trolleyman (patrick.colchin@cox.net) MSG #121, 11-12-2007 09:28 PM
      I’m so jealous…. I thought we had something real, a commitment! Now I see you whoring around with this low mileage unit, a tight interior and augmented brakes from the Buckeye state. While I’m out here in San Diego saving the world from Al qaeda, and my LS4 seats collecting dust in a pole barn in Fort Wayne!!!

After you get done shaking up the winter with that little whitey, put it to the curb and give me a call. LOL

[This message has been edited by Trolleyman (edited 11-15-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #122, 11-14-2007 12:19 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Trolleyman:

I’m so jealous…. I thought we had something real, a commitment! Now I see you whoring around with this low mileage unit, a tight interior and augmented brakes from the Buckeye state. While I’m out here in San Diego saving the world from Al qaeda, and my LS4 seats collecting dust in a pole bran in Fort Wayne!!!

After you get done shaking up the winter with that little whitey, put it to the curb and give me a call. LOL




Will do. In the meantime, keep your head down and your powder dry!

-ryan


Trolleyman (patrick.colchin@cox.net) MSG #123, 11-15-2007 11:17 PM
      I’ve not read any talk about using the MAF on the LS4? Are you planning to use one or go with speed density?

Relocation of the alternator looks very clean and helps with the oil fill cap too.

Will the battery be relocated to the front of the car?

[This message has been edited by Trolleyman (edited 11-15-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #124, 11-15-2007 11:19 PM
      Battery is getting relocated to the front using one of norm's kits. I modified the tray by adding provisions for "tying down" the battery in case no spare tire is going to be present (stock spare won't work with the 12" brake upgrade that is going on this car).




Got started on the exhaust system and built it as far as to the cats. Will finish it up once the engine goes back in for the last time.




Below is a picture of the LS4 engine and transmission wiring harness with most of the loom removed. I took a few measurements before I removed the engine/trans from the car this last time so I can get as much rewiring done as possible with the engine out. Saves me from having to lean over into the engine compartment as much.




For ECM and TCM mounting I recycled some of the fiberglass front spare tire well I had to cut out for the battery box. The cases of the ECM and TCM should never be mounted to a metal surface that is grounded to the chassis. The reason why is because if the ground strap ever became severed from the engine to the chassis, or from the engine to the battery (but still connected from battery to chassis); high current could go thru the computers and damage them. GM keeps the cases to their computers isolated from chassis ground for this reason.




Also received the powdercoated suspension pieces from blkcofy and they look great. Got the new ball joints pressed into the front lower control arms tonight. I also got some fittings made for the modified front engine/water pump cover. Will get those welded on next week so I can get that put back on the engine and finalize my serp belt routing. Not pictured is the wiring I have already completed for positive and ground supply from the battery to chassis, engine, and alternator. The battery relocation kit comes with 4ga cable to run from the pos battery term to the starter; but for this swap I elected to upgrade this to 2ga because of the V8. I did use the 4ga cable to connect the starter to the Fiero's original power distribution block. I also pulled the clutch line, shifter, and shift/throttle cables from the car. Installed the auto trans cooler lines and I am working on mounting the fly-by-wire gas pedal assembly.

Something else noteworthy that I haven't spoken of yet is a tale about the ECM that came with this engine. This tale actually encompasses a couple of weeks that it took me to get where I am now. The ECM that came with this engine did come out of the same car the engine came out of. But what wasn't known at the time was that the ECM had been custom programmed by a company that I prefer not to name here. I didn't discover this until I got my bench harness built a couple of weeks ago and tried to read its programming using my HP Tuners tuning software. In short, the HP Tuners software wouldn't read the ECM at all and gave me an error indicating the security codes in the ECM had been changed (locked). HP Tuners customer support informed me that this ECM was probably not going to be usable unless I could hunt down the person/company that reprogrammed it and get them to unlock it. Well while I was waiting on getting in contact with the reprogrammer, I took the ECM to the dealer to see if they could force a reflash using SPS pass-thru programming. Well that ended up not working because of the software lock in the ECM.

After about a week I was put in touch with the original programmer and he informed me that the software he used to reprogram this particular ECM was in BETA TEST back when it was done. He also said he no longer had the beta software and basically the ECM I had was worthless (IE he couldn't even reprogram it if he wanted to). So, in short, I had to order a replacement ECM which I did get ahold of one for a very fair price. So hopefully in the next few days I will get the opportunity to get into the dealer and get the correct stock programming and VIN put onto this replacement ECM so I can start working on the custom program that will be used in this swap.

At this point there are a lot of different things I am working on at the same time. So updates and pics may be slow in coming.

-ryan


blkcofy MSG #125, 11-15-2007 11:40 PM
     
I'm really jealous right now,.....then i realize I'm getting jealous of myself!




Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #126, 11-15-2007 11:48 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Trolleyman:

I’ve not read any talk about using the MAF on the LS4? Are you planning to use one or go with speed density?

Relocation of the alternator looks very clean and helps with the oil fill cap too.

Will the battery be relocated to the front of the car?



The LS4 came with a MAF sensor and yes it will be used in this swap.



RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #127, 11-17-2007 10:57 PM
      How do you plan to deal with the unwanted ecm/tcm issues like pk3, traction control, magnasteer, dod, and all the many ecm inputs that will cause codes?

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #128, 11-18-2007 12:07 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:

How do you plan to deal with the unwanted ecm/tcm issues like pk3, traction control, magnasteer, dod, and all the many ecm inputs that will cause codes?


Add everything, of course.

Its looking really good. I think a first start-up video is deffinately in order here.


Fiero2m8 MSG #129, 11-18-2007 09:31 PM
      Nice buildup guys - looking forward to seeing how the paddle shifter works out, I'll stay tuned...

Ryan


OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #130, 11-19-2007 09:16 AM
      Darth.
PM at ya, please read ASAP as it may be an issue.
Noting too drastic, so as not to scare you too much.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #131, 11-19-2007 12:10 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:

How do you plan to deal with the unwanted ecm/tcm issues like pk3, traction control, magnasteer, dod, and all the many ecm inputs that will cause codes?


The Passkey/Security functions can be switched off in the ECM by HP Tuners. The functions and trouble codes for the traction control and magnasteer will also be switched off. The DoD will be left functioning.


RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #132, 11-19-2007 01:30 PM
      Darth, Thanks for the info. I'm doing the same swap but i think i'm going to delete the DOD and of course traction control. My 88 fiero has the a/c delete, so i will be mounting the alternater whare the a/c comp goes. Also plan on doing the TAP shift on the console using buttons or spring loaded switches.

blkcofy MSG #133, 11-20-2007 01:30 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:

Darth, Thanks for the info. I'm doing the same swap but i think i'm going to delete the DOD and of course traction control. My 88 fiero has the a/c delete, so i will be mounting the alternater whare the a/c comp goes. Also plan on doing the TAP shift on the console using buttons or spring loaded switches.



Instead of buttons on the console, you might want to consider the steering wheel paddle shift kit from Twisted Machines...
http://www.twistmachine.com/products/shrifter.html


If the LS4 your using came from a car with TAP Shift, then the only part of the kit you need are he paddles and steering hub adapter.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #134, 11-21-2007 03:05 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Joseph Upson:


Where did you get your information on the coolant flow? It looks like the coolant would flow in the opposite direction since the thermostat housing appears to be located centrally at the back of the pump. I was confused for a moment with the 3900 coolant flow since the thermostat is located in the same area as shown in your picture however, the filler neck and crossover mounted at the end of the heads up high suggested that despite the thermostat location it is the inlet point for coolant.



Turns out you were correct in your initial assessment. The coolant inlet to the engine is in-fact the t-stat housing. I realized this once I removed the water pump and found the t-stat passage leading right to the center of the water pump. I did some more digging in the service manual and indeed it does state this. Appearantly the section on "radiator hose replacement; outlet LS4" refers to the radiator's outlet; not the outlet of the engine. I also found out that the coolant flows from the water pump to the block FIRST then to the cylinder heads; so this is not a "reverse flow" cooling system like the LT1 uses (on the LT1 the heads get the coolant first and then the block).

Later I will get the flow picture I made up of the coolant connections corrected to reflect the correct flow path of the coolant. Sorry for the mistake but that's what you get when you don't read the whole service manual cover to cover. Just glad I caught this before I spent too much time on hooking up the coolant hoses.

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #135, 11-21-2007 09:25 PM
      here is the updated coolant flow pic

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 11-21-2007).]

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #136, 11-22-2007 07:34 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
I also found out that the coolant flows from the water pump to the block FIRST then to the cylinder heads; so this is not a "reverse flow" cooling system like the LT1 uses (on the LT1 the heads get the coolant first and then the block).

Later I will get the flow picture I made up of the coolant connections corrected to reflect the correct flow path of the coolant. Sorry for the mistake but that's what you get when you don't read the whole service manual cover to cover. Just glad I caught this before I spent too much time on hooking up the coolant hoses.

-ryan


Reverse flow cooling was just a bandaid to stretch the utility of an obsolete architecture (SBC) another couple of years. It's not actually a good way to run things, since it creates problems bleeding the cooling system.
Also don't forget that modern GM engines employ a recirculating thermostat rather than a simple valve like SBC's.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #137, 11-30-2007 10:30 PM
      Probably the most time consuming single job of any swap involving an EFI engine and electronic auto transmission is the wiring. Sure I could have taken a short cut here and not modified the original LS4 wiring much but that's not how I do things. Pretty much every wire in the harness had to have its length changed so it could be routed the way I wanted. OEM had the wires going over the top of the intake for almost every device/sensor and I just don't like it done that way. I like to keep as much off the intake as possible and you can see the difference in the pictures below...

In progress...





Here's what it looked like stock...



Here's what it looks like now...







Still have quite a bit to do including integrate the engine harness into the vehicle but it's getting there.


merlot566jka (merlot566jka@yahoo.com) MSG #138, 12-01-2007 01:11 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Finished the fuel pump install (Walbro 255lph) and hooked up the fuel pressure regulator...





i need this for my 3500 swap....can you provide info? or better yet ill email ya


Mr.PBody (paniccia008@aol.com) MSG #139, 12-01-2007 01:16 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


I'm really jealous right now,.....then i realize I'm getting jealous of myself!


ugh hem fellow cincy boy, do I get a ride when its done? My 7730 2.8L V6 should be done by spring and we can race .



merlot566jka (merlot566jka@yahoo.com) MSG #140, 12-01-2007 08:16 PM
      ttt

dizmon_85GT (disbennett1@gmail.com) MSG #141, 12-02-2007 08:46 AM
      blkcofy, you have a PM

motoracer838 (jmartin@musicunveiled.com) MSG #142, 12-02-2007 11:22 AM
      Ryan, did you get my pm?

Joe


blkcofy MSG #143, 12-02-2007 04:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Mr.PBody:

ugh hem fellow cincy boy, do I get a ride when its done? My 7730 2.8L V6 should be done by spring and we can race .


First of all...consider it a locked date on the calendar. The first place we should head to is Mid-Ohio to put it on the track.

Second of all...how in the heck did you get a smile face to do the 'superman' dance?? Now THAT's impressive!!


PerKr (per_kristoffersson1@hotmail.com) MSG #144, 12-02-2007 05:08 PM
      On the brake topic... *edit* you already did that (that's what I get for not taking the time to read the entire thread) so my post was kinda useless

[This message has been edited by PerKr (edited 12-03-2007).]

Trolleyman (patrick.colchin@cox.net) MSG #145, 12-02-2007 07:43 PM
      Nice work on the wiring harness, is heat going be a problem?

Will you be using the coil blower (fan) in the trunk?


dizmon_85GT (disbennett1@gmail.com) MSG #146, 12-02-2007 07:45 PM
      blkcofy, you have another PM

Trolleyman (patrick.colchin@cox.net) MSG #147, 12-02-2007 08:09 PM
      This swap is raising the price of the LS4 engine on ebay, up to 3800 coinage now.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #148, 12-03-2007 12:30 PM
      EDIT: Email issue corrected.

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 01-08-2008).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #149, 12-05-2007 01:30 PM
     

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-05-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #150, 12-05-2007 01:38 PM
      countum, 6 idler pullies!

Shad0wguy MSG #151, 12-05-2007 02:53 PM
      Damn, I am so jealous.

Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #152, 12-05-2007 09:00 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

countum, 6 idler pullies!


I count 5.

5 idlers, alternator, tentioner, waterpump, crank, and AC.


Mr.PBody (paniccia008@aol.com) MSG #153, 12-09-2007 08:55 AM
      Theres also a tensioner I think he counted that too. Blkcofy PM me and I'll give you my email if you're serious about meeting up or something next year (sounds so wierd to say that).

dizmon_85GT (disbennett1@gmail.com) MSG #154, 12-09-2007 09:26 AM
      Blkcofy, you have a PM. OOPS, "heard" was missing from message.

[This message has been edited by dizmon_85GT (edited 12-09-2007).]

blkcofy MSG #155, 12-16-2007 02:36 PM
      SUSPENSION AND BRAKE UPDATE

Ryan is the best! In between all of the MAJOR wiring work that he's doing to keep many of the original functionality of the DoD and DIC from the 2005 GXP Grand Prix to work with the Fiero, he's also been able to partner with me to do a rebuild of most of my suspension and brakes.

Here's how things looked before the work began...


As you can read in earlier posts, I had Ryan send me the control arms and spindles, which I media blasted, checked for any structural issues, and then powder coated them. I have the WCF performance springs and Koni shocks installed. Also new tire rods from The Fiero Store. I originally tried to go cheap and bought some from ebay, but they were crap...so ended up paying the extra bucks and got them at TFS. I haven't replaced the front sway bar yet, but will do so myself when I get the car back. I do have the rear sway bar from TFS, as well as all the poly bushings.




You can also see the 12" Corvette rotors from Rockcrawl's Brake Kit installed. Ryan is currently working on getting the 88' Fiero calipers installed such that it works with Rockcrawl's Kit. I originally hoped I could get my OEM wheels to fit these rotors, but no such luck. It would take alot of grinding away at the rims and that would just not make alot of sense. I wanted to keep the OEMs as Winter Tires or even drag strip rims...but no such luck. I will likely put these up for sale if there is any interest. You can see them in one of the pictures above.

Right now, I'm looking for wheels/tires that will make the most of my current setup. I have coil overs in the rear, so I'm going to go as wide as my pocket book will allow!

My preference is a staggered height setup, similar to the Corvette's by going 17 x 8.0 w/ @ 42mm offset and 225/40 tires in the front and 18 x 8.0 w/ 35mm offset and 265/35 tires in the rear. Its the rear that's been the hardest to find in affordable performance tires.

More to come....



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #156, 12-16-2007 11:10 PM
      Sorry for the lack of updates guys. There is a lot of new ground being broken in many areas of this swap which is requiring a lot of extra on-the-fly R&D to be done so the swap can progress. But it's getting there. Case in point: the wiring is quite litterally about 5x more involved with this swap compared to the typical 3800 swap after you factor in the BCM for this LS4 and what it wants to see and have control over in the car. And that's factor in what has been taking so long. I have to figure out what devices are essential (such as the brake pedal position sensor) and what devices and controls are not (headlight controls, etc). The ultimate goal with keeping the BCM is to implement the factory keyless entry and remote start that came on the Grand Prix it came out of and make it all work in the Fiero. The BCM is also needed because it tells the DIC when to turn on (there is no key-on voltage that goes to the DIC and other devices in these newer GM cars; the signal to turn them on comes across the class 2 data communications circuit).

As you can see in the above pictures posted by blkcofy, the front suspension is done and I have began working on the rear. The engine/trans/cradle went back into the car for the last time on Friday. I've already started hooking up the cooling system and wiring so it won't be long before this thing is ready to fire. One improtant thing I have yet to do is get back to the dealer to get the replacement ECM reflashed with the correct factory programming. I have to do this thru a third party and our schedules haven't sync'd up in the last 4 weeks but I'm still hopeful I can get this very important thing done before Christmas.

-ryan


darkhorizon MSG #157, 12-16-2007 11:36 PM
      Is taking out the BCM communication possible with a programming job? I would think some people could get away with just having to do slightly limited things wiring wise in the future.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #158, 12-17-2007 12:59 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Is taking out the BCM communication possible with a programming job? I would think some people could get away with just having to do slightly limited things wiring wise in the future.



I don't know that at this time. The reason why is because the signal to crank/start the engine comes from the ignition switch and goes directly to the BCM, then the BCM commands the ECM to engage the starter relay via the Class 2 serial data line. So what I am going to attempt to do when I get ready to fire this thing up is to unplug the BCM and just engage the starter solenoid directly and see if the ECM will allow the engine to run even though it wasn't commanded to start the engine. HP Tuners says their software can disable the VATS in the ECM programming so that shouldn't be an issue.


FastFieros (fastfieros@fastfieros.com) MSG #159, 12-17-2007 01:25 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

Is taking out the BCM communication possible with a programming job? I would think some people could get away with just having to do slightly limited things wiring wise in the future.



The communications of the 2004 and newer with the PassKey 3 PLUS.... is a whole new world. Back in 2004 when I put the 3800SC with the TAP shift transmission to the 88 GT I did, I wanted to only use the PCM because HPTuners assured me that they can hack the PK3+ out. However in 4 attempts they could not. All they were doing is finding the DTC flag in the code and setting it to false. However, the OS needed more than that to turn it off. Today I have the memory location of the VTD in the 2004 PCM with PK3+. I cannot read the assembly however to know what it needed to turn off the VTD so the PCM is happy.

Loyde
http://www.fastfieros.com/projects

[This message has been edited by FastFieros (edited 12-17-2007).]

timwdegner MSG #160, 12-17-2007 01:29 PM
      Ryan, PM sent. Great thread BTW, really appreciate those labelled photos.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #161, 12-17-2007 02:27 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:
The communications of the 2004 and newer with the PassKey 3 PLUS.... is a whole new world. Back in 2004 when I put the 3800SC with the TAP shift transmission to the 88 GT I did, I wanted to only use the PCM because HPTuners assured me that they can hack the PK3+ out. However in 4 attempts they could not. All they were doing is finding the DTC flag in the code and setting it to false. However, the OS needed more than that to turn it off. Today I have the memory location of the VTD in the 2004 PCM with PK3+. I cannot read the assembly however to know what it needed to turn off the VTD so the PCM is happy.

Loyde
http://www.fastfieros.com/projects



According to the service manual, this car came with the Pass-Key III system. There is no mention of PK3+; but if it's the same, it doesn't really matter.

Bill at HP Tuners guaranteed me just a couple of months ago that their software could modify the LS4 E40 ECM's OS to turn off the VATS/PK3 system. If that turns out not to be the case, then I will take it up with Bill when time comes. But I am not going to jump to any conclusions at this time.

But that might not even be a relavent issue for this swap. As mentioned before, the BCM will need to be present in this swap because of the reasons given above. And what I have been reading up on in the Service Manual about the factory remote start is that the security/theft system needs to be working properly or the remote start function may be disabled. So I have done further research and have found some PK3 bypass modules available in the auto alarm aftermarket which might be required for everything in this swap to function as desired.

http://www.bypasskit.com/

I don't consider the VATS/PK3 issue to be an issue at all in this swap. There are aftermarket ways to bypass the system outside of computer programming if it comes to that so I am not concerned.

-ryan

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-17-2007).]

FastFieros (fastfieros@fastfieros.com) MSG #162, 12-17-2007 03:06 PM
      ok.. rather then use the word 'think' I called ByPassKit.com .. had a nice conversation with John. He fully explains that their system is NOT a bypass for VTD. it is purely for a remote start situation that cannot be used to circumvent the VTD of a GM PK3+ system. He said he gets many calls a month for such a device, and they are not capable to engineer such a device.

As to Bill at HPT.. I was promised that in 2004 when I was doing the PK3+ system that hack was going to be available come time for me to try. I got 4 new updates to my software, and not a one worked. Now, in HPT defense is time. Over the last 2 years Chris at HPT has managed to write custom OS. However, this OS is for the V8 LS1 and LS2 where they sell lots of bells and whistles for that target market. That DoD ( as it is called now AFM .. active fuel management ) is going to be alot of code that is going to have to be disassembled and rewrote... I would say that if there is not a OS ready to use today, that in 2 months there is not going to be an OS still that can get around VTD in a PK3+ system. However, I have the memory locations of that code in the 04 Grand Prix GTP, and that would need to be disassembled at that location, and then matched to the same disassembly of the 2005 / 2006 code in the GXP V8 stuff. Its way more then just changing hex bytes in a hex editor. The OS will have to be custom wrote.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

But, let me explain how VTD PK3+ works as I understand it for 2004 GTP... the key of the car has a transponder in the head. The transponder is like the cool little sercurity tabs you see on consumer goods that AutoZone Walmart and many thousands of others use today. This is a nice URL explaning it http://electronics.howstuff...plifting-device3.htm .... so, this key is read by the exciter as GM calls it, and the signal is sent to the BCM. The BCM then decides if it is the correct signal. Upon that decision, another is made based on 3 other events... however, once the BCM is happy, it sends a nice HEX code to the PCM ( VCM really ) and it becomes happy with the HEX code, and releases the injectors to start the car.

Now, once I had this nice 2004 GTP TAP shift powertrain installed to my 88 GT, I could sit there and start the engine on carb cleaner and run it until that carb cleaner can was empty. Well, what else was I going to do. I was waiting on HPT to come up with a hack, and each one was a no go. Finally, I had to study the VTD system, put the BCM in, marry the system with my Tech II and SPS software... and talk about another set of issues getting the system as whole happy so that marriage could take place...

It was alot of fun. Since then.. one other person in Florida made his attempt to install a 2005 powertrain to a Fiero, and he could not get it all running until he sent me the Key, BCM, VCM.. and I had to build a custom harness to meet the 'happy' part of the system so I could marry them all.... so he finally got all this installed to the car, and last I heard it ran and moved, but had other issues related to the actual workmanship of the install.


Loyde


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #163, 12-17-2007 04:52 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:

ok.. rather then use the word 'think' I called ByPassKit.com .. had a nice conversation with John. He fully explains that their system is NOT a bypass for VTD. it is purely for a remote start situation that cannot be used to circumvent the VTD of a GM PK3+ system. He said he gets many calls a month for such a device, and they are not capable to engineer such a device.

As to Bill at HPT.. I was promised that in 2004 when I was doing the PK3+ system that hack was going to be available come time for me to try. I got 4 new updates to my software, and not a one worked. Now, in HPT defense is time. Over the last 2 years Chris at HPT has managed to write custom OS. However, this OS is for the V8 LS1 and LS2 where they sell lots of bells and whistles for that target market. That DoD ( as it is called now AFM .. active fuel management ) is going to be alot of code that is going to have to be disassembled and rewrote... I would say that if there is not a OS ready to use today, that in 2 months there is not going to be an OS still that can get around VTD in a PK3+ system. However, I have the memory locations of that code in the 04 Grand Prix GTP, and that would need to be disassembled at that location, and then matched to the same disassembly of the 2005 / 2006 code in the GXP V8 stuff. Its way more then just changing hex bytes in a hex editor. The OS will have to be custom wrote.

Then again, I could be completely wrong...

But, let me explain how VTD PK3+ works as I understand it for 2004 GTP... the key of the car has a transponder in the head. The transponder is like the cool little sercurity tabs you see on consumer goods that AutoZone Walmart and many thousands of others use today. This is a nice URL explaning it http://electronics.howstuff...plifting-device3.htm .... so, this key is read by the exciter as GM calls it, and the signal is sent to the BCM. The BCM then decides if it is the correct signal. Upon that decision, another is made based on 3 other events... however, once the BCM is happy, it sends a nice HEX code to the PCM ( VCM really ) and it becomes happy with the HEX code, and releases the injectors to start the car.

Now, once I had this nice 2004 GTP TAP shift powertrain installed to my 88 GT, I could sit there and start the engine on carb cleaner and run it until that carb cleaner can was empty. Well, what else was I going to do. I was waiting on HPT to come up with a hack, and each one was a no go. Finally, I had to study the VTD system, put the BCM in, marry the system with my Tech II and SPS software... and talk about another set of issues getting the system as whole happy so that marriage could take place...

It was alot of fun. Since then.. one other person in Florida made his attempt to install a 2005 powertrain to a Fiero, and he could not get it all running until he sent me the Key, BCM, VCM.. and I had to build a custom harness to meet the 'happy' part of the system so I could marry them all.... so he finally got all this installed to the car, and last I heard it ran and moved, but had other issues related to the actual workmanship of the install.


Loyde


1) This is a swap using a LS4 out of a 2005 Grand Prix GXP, not a swap using a 3800 out of a 2004 Grand Prix.

2) Concerning the 2004 Grand Prix 3800 PCM you have experience with... I fail to see the connection between it and what I am working with (OS) in the 2005 GXP LS4 ECM and TCM. I don't think they are remotely the same; so even if you knew the location of the VTD switch in the '04 3800's PCM programming I don't see how that is going to help us with the '05 LS4 ECM. But even if you did, how is this going to help me with the BCM and getting it satisfied so I can use the remote start functions?

3) It doesn't look like you have talked to Bill at HP Tuners in a while about the VTD issue. You can rest assurred I had a lengthy conversation about this, pertaining specifically to the LS4 ECM programming, and made sure the HP Tuners software was going to fulfill my needs before I bought support for it. He assurred me it would. Now if it doesn't, then I will take that issue up with Bill and only Bill. So rather than you making an assumption on this issue, why don't you contact HP Tuners yourself and discuss the subject with them?

4) I used bypasskit.com as an example of where you could get a PK3 bypass module. I'm sure there are MANY other manufacturers who have similar devices available. But I have to say, knowing your past, I'm not surprised you jumped on the phone with them to see if you could find a way to dispute what I have said here in this thread. Now I'm sure what they told you was standard company policy. As with any alarm bypass manufacturer, they are only concerned with making items that work in the original car they are intended to be used in. So I can't say I'm surprised you got the answer from them you did. If I made a widget for a specific carline, I'm not going to go around and say it will work in others until I have verfied it would work myself. Having said that; here is a short list of the devices bypasskit lists that are available for the PK3 system:

 
quote
Data Transponder Interface: Override 1st, 2nd & 3rd Generation OEM PASSKEY3 Transponder Immobilizer Via Data (No Key Required).
Number of keys required to program kit: 1

Number of keys required for kit operation: 0


 
quote

Data Bus Interface: Data override of GM Passkey 3 Transponder Immobilizer & GM Passlock 2 Immobilizer via class 2 data bus. No Key Required. The GMBP is a "3 in 1" bypass solution which is compatible with the 1st generation GM Passkey used on the '99 Transport, Venture & Silhouette and the more common 2nd gen. Passkey 3 as well as the Passlock II resistor code immobilizer.
Number of keys required to program kit: 1

Number of keys required for kit operation: 0


 
quote

XK06 programmable Immobilizer Data Override Interface preloaded with upgradeable firmware (PKG7). Compatible with GM Hybrid Passlock Passkey immobilizer systems like that used on 2004-07 Chevrolet Malibu's. XK06 temporarily overrides the factory immobilizer when remote starting while maintaining the integrity of the manufacturer's anti-theft system when remote start is not in use. *Programmable firmwares available that cover all GM Passlock, Passkey, PASSkey3+, and ION type immobilizers.
Number of keys required to program kit: 1

Number of keys required for kit operation: 0



The above examples I gave are just a few devices offered by just this one company. According to the information given by the bypasskit.com website, the above devices will OPERATE without a key being present, as long as you have one to program it with; which isn't a problem. I have access to another vehicle with a functioning PK3 system which I can use to program this kit if needed.

In any case, the function of the above devices is to send the correct password to the BCM which will allow the engine to start and run without a key being present in the ignition. So if this is true, then this device should be able to be wired/installed in such a way that it will "think" that we are always using a remote start regardless if there is a remote start module installed in the car or not. It's all a matter of manipulating the wiring. The key item here is will these modules function without a key being present? The manufacturer says they will, and that's all I need. If for some reason I cannot use the modules from bypasskit.com, I will seek out a company that can supply me with such a module.

Tell you what, Loyde. Why don't you just worry about your own customers and let me work on this swap on my own. Regardless of what I come up with, I will be sure to post the results here. I have to question why you feel the need to jump into my swap threads and involve yourself in my projects. Do I do that to you? I can assure you that I will be able to make this swap work without your help; which is to say your help and advice in this thread are not needed and not desired. If you wish to make a comment about PK3 operation, you can start your own thread about it and not involve me.

To the rest of the members of this forum: I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh here towards Loyde, but he has a reputation of jumping into threads for the sole purpose of bashing his competition. And the fact that he went out of his way to call up some company that I used as an example in an appearant effort to refute the facts posted by me make me suspect there is a hidden agenda here; one I don't care to be any part of. This thread is about the LS4 DoD 4T65-E swap I am doing to a Fiero. Not Loyde's, or anyone else's swap; which is to say the way I do things are not subject to debate on any internet message forum. If he or anyone else wants to do their own LS4 swap, then they can do it their way.

-ryan




FastFieros (fastfieros@fastfieros.com) MSG #164, 12-17-2007 05:42 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


The above examples I gave are just a few devices offered by just this one company. According to the information given by the bypasskit.com website, the above devices will OPERATE without a key being present, as long as you have one to program it with; which isn't a problem. I have access to another vehicle with a functioning PK3 system which I can use to program this kit if needed.

In any case, the function of the above devices is to send the correct password to the BCM which will allow the engine to start and run without a key being present in the ignition. So if this is true, then this device should be able to be wired/installed in such a way that it will "think" that we are always using a remote start regardless if there is a remote start module installed in the car or not. It's all a matter of manipulating the wiring. The key item here is will these modules function without a key being present? The manufacturer says they will, and that's all I need. If for some reason I cannot use the modules from bypasskit.com, I will seek out a company that can supply me with such a module.

Tell you what, Loyde. Why don't you just worry about your own customers and let me work on this swap on my own. Regardless of what I come up with, I will be sure to post the results here. I have to question why you feel the need to jump into my swap threads and involve yourself in my projects. Do I do that to you? I can assure you that I will be able to make this swap work without your help; which is to say your help and advice in this thread are not needed and not desired. If you wish to make a comment about PK3 operation, you can start your own thread about it and not involve me.

To the rest of the members of this forum: I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh here towards Loyde, but he has a reputation of jumping into threads for the sole purpose of bashing his competition. And the fact that he went out of his way to call up some company that I used as an example in an appearant effort to refute the facts posted by me make me suspect there is a hidden agenda here; one I don't care to be any part of. This thread is about the LS4 DoD 4T65-E swap I am doing to a Fiero. Not Loyde's, or anyone else's swap; which is to say the way I do things are not subject to debate on any internet message forum. If he or anyone else wants to do their own LS4 swap, then they can do it their way.

-ryan



Wow.. hidden agenda.. I was called on the phone by 2 people regarding this thread and was asked to input my thoughts and knowledge... This revolves around PK3+, and that is shared with the 2004 3800 Series 3 powertrain, because it was the one product line to get PK3+ that I have worked directly with... PK3 is completely different from PK3+.

To the nice PFF people that called... this is why I didnt want to share / educate this thread. I have a hidden agenda..

And vendor bashing? Come on... I did not attack you in any way. I was trying to have a civil conversation.

Loyde
Look me up at http://www.fastfieros.com/projects


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #165, 12-17-2007 05:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:


Wow.. hidden agenda.. I was called on the phone by 2 people regarding this thread and was asked to input my thoughts and knowledge... This revolves around PK3+, and that is shared with the 2004 3800 Series 3 powertrain, because it was the one product line to get PK3+ that I have worked directly with... PK3 is completely different from PK3+.

To the nice PFF people that called... this is why I didnt want to share / educate this thread. I have a hidden agenda..

And vendor bashing? Come on... I did not attack you in any way. I was trying to have a civil conversation.

Loyde
Look me up at http://www.fastfieros.com/projects


Yea ok. This coming from the guy that goes around bragging about how he likes to take customers from other swappers/vendors. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't your first post in this thread in response to a question somebody (darkhorizon) asked who you have flamed a lot on this forum? Seems strange to me you would "volunteer" your help to someone you have a problem with. Sorry, but I don't have time for your games and hidden motives. If you want to "contribute" your knowledge about the PK3+ system for the 2004 3800 PCM to this forum, you can just as easily start your own thread about it and keep your nose out of mine.

-ryan


aaronrus (stickpony@gmail.com) MSG #166, 12-17-2007 06:26 PM
      Guys, come on now, lets not get out of hand. This is a GOOD build thread, it doesnt belong in the trashcan...once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-wan's apprentice...


that was for all the star wars geeks out there


FastFieros (fastfieros@fastfieros.com) MSG #167, 12-17-2007 07:38 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Yea ok. This coming from the guy that goes around bragging about how he likes to take customers from other swappers/vendors. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't your first post in this thread in response to a question somebody (darkhorizon) asked who you have flamed a lot on this forum? Seems strange to me you would "volunteer" your help to someone you have a problem with. Sorry, but I don't have time for your games and hidden motives. If you want to "contribute" your knowledge about the PK3+ system for the 2004 3800 PCM to this forum, you can just as easily start your own thread about it and keep your nose out of mine.

-ryan

Ron called me about 3 times over this issue of a 5.3 and what is going to work with what. Then another guy called about 2 weeks ago, and there was the same question about the VTD PK3+. I was asked to contribute and I indicated I would not most likely be posting about it. However, I thought it would be nice that you and I might talk about this VTD PK3+ and how it actually works / can be defeated. You are not the only person on PFF that is putting a 5.3 in a Fiero today. There are about 5 luckers at least that call me about this and always reference to '' I saw it on the internet where you can put a 5.3 DoD engine in a Fiero " ... Gee, I wonder where they saw that. I finally told Ron lets just get this out between us that it is PFF where he is reading this stuff, and I have no clue if Ryan is up on PK3+ and knows if it is going to work or not. So, I see Ron now making a few posts about it. You know what... Him and the other 4 or 5 people would like a solution BEFORE they actually start because they dont want it to be a dead end project. I ASSURED them it is not a dead end project. I have accomplished PK3+ in a hybrid install, so I know 100% it can work. Time and money can always resolve issues. So, 100% I know you will get the install done and running. You just might be using HPT however to defeat the VCM on VTD.

Now as to what Bill at HPT will answer if you email to him....

Loyde,

Yeah its covered more in depth here http://www.hptuners.com/for...owthread.php?t=12399

William Henn
HP Tuners LLC.
www.hptuners.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow, I see this in that thread...

To disable VATS you must do the following:

1. Set the VATS value to "PWM"
2. Set DTC P1626 to "3 - No Error Reported"
3. Set DTC P1629 to "3 - No Error Reported"

If you have problems please email your file to support.

Note: For v2.1.18 and earlier some vehicles may show the VATS type as the opposite than installed. If you see this try the other setting and please email your file to support so it can be fixed (so far i think i have fixed them all).

Chris...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now this is from Chris on May 25th 2007... Amazing it was just after I emailed to them on May 5th about this... now what happen on May 10th, the customer sent me his PCM. He has HPTuners MPVI. He applied the 'fix' noted above and it did not work. So, I fixed it and he is running today. I said running... not sure it is actually driving however..

I then had another conversation with a GM engineer that indicated that PK3+ was an OS level implementation and not a CAL level implement. So Chris and I even discussed this in 2005 that the OS level was going to need to be change perhaps, but they were not prepared to do this. What is noted above is purely a CAL level change. IF it was OS level, they would indicate that you must do a FULL write to the file for the changes to take effect.

Like I said Ryan, this is not just about you… its about the lurkers that want to do this install and don’t want to start unless something is known for sure 100% and not just hear say. People want to buy engines and transmissions for Christmas maybe. Its called having a project plan. Like I said, you will be successful at this swap. I know the solution 100%, so I know you can figure it out also.

For those interested however in another solution to this discussion…. There is a MEFI5 coming out Feb 2008. I have spoke with the hardware engineer on this and it is going to be very programmable. It will even be able to set shift logic to any configuration making it capable of running up to the 4T and 4L series transmissions. They are almost sure it will run the new 6T75 which I have already started on getting the wiring and other items together for this install to a hybrid installation. Just gathering parts here however, not trying to do any mating yet.. Oh, the 6T75 has a M6 pattern on it.

Loyde

[This message has been edited by FastFieros (edited 12-17-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #168, 12-17-2007 08:04 PM
      Nice EDIT Loyde; but you were too late.

 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:

you know Ryan, your ego is just too big even for a couple of certifications in automotive. Loyde



You know this is the very thing I have been talking about. If this guy (Loyde) feels as though someone is a threat to him (competing business, vendor, etc); he starts the personal attacks and misinformation. Well I am tired of it. I'm not in the mood for his games and I don't have time for them. Seems to me he (Loyde) should be worrying about serving his customers who have paid him to do a job ( http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/063942.html ) more so than trying to stick his nose into other people's swaps just so he can make a name for himself, or claim credit for something, etc.

Loyde, for the last time: YOU ARE NOT WELCOME IN THIS THREAD. GO AWAY.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #169, 12-17-2007 09:03 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:

I was asked to contribute and I indicated I would not most likely be posting about it. However, I thought it would be nice that you and I might talk about this VTD PK3+ and how it actually works / can be defeated. You are not the only person on PFF that is putting a 5.3 in a Fiero today. There are about 5 luckers at least that call me about this and always reference to '' I saw it on the internet where you can put a 5.3 DoD engine in a Fiero " ... Gee, I wonder where they saw that. I finally told Ron lets just get this out between us that it is PFF where he is reading this stuff, and I have no clue if Ryan is up on PK3+ and knows if it is going to work or not. So, I see Ron now making a few posts about it. You know what... Him and the other 4 or 5 people would like a solution BEFORE they actually start because they dont want it to be a dead end project. I ASSURED them it is not a dead end project. I have accomplished PK3+ in a hybrid install, so I know 100% it can work. Time and money can always resolve issues. So, 100% I know you will get the install done and running. You just might be using HPT however to defeat the VCM on VTD.


Here's the problem: I didn't ask for your contribution. And you make posts here in MY SWAP THREAD thinking I am going to forget what you have said about me on this and other forums in the past? Not going to happen. I see how you treat others who do a swap or provide services that you also do/sell as if they don't know as much as you, like they are in some way inferior. Just as an example, anyone on this forum can do a search for Darkhorizon and you and see many threads where you are rude to and flame him. I don't agree with darkhorizon on a lot of things, but you don't see me going around flaming him do you?

On your own website you speak about how people "don't have the talent" to do what you can do. And I'm tired of the lies and deception you spread and have spread about me and others. I don't want to be your friend and I don't want to work on anything with you. I don't need you, Loyde. Contrary to your belief, I am smarter and more informed than you think; and I'm quite capable of successfully completing this swap without your "help". And when it is done, I will make the resolutions to many "issues" associated with this swap known so anyone who wants to do one of these swaps can do it themselves.

 
quote

Now as to what Bill at HPT will answer if you email to him....

Loyde,

Yeah its covered more in depth here http://www.hptuners.com/for...owthread.php?t=12399

William Henn
HP Tuners LLC.
www.hptuners.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wow, I see this in that thread...

To disable VATS you must do the following:

1. Set the VATS value to "PWM"
2. Set DTC P1626 to "3 - No Error Reported"
3. Set DTC P1629 to "3 - No Error Reported"

If you have problems please email your file to support.

Note: For v2.1.18 and earlier some vehicles may show the VATS type as the opposite than installed. If you see this try the other setting and please email your file to support so it can be fixed (so far i think i have fixed them all).

Chris...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now this is from Chris on May 25th 2007... Amazing it was just after I emailed to them on May 5th about this... now what happen on May 10th, the customer sent me his PCM. He has HPTuners MPVI. He applied the 'fix' noted above and it did not work. So, I fixed it and he is running today. I said running... not sure it is actually driving however..


That's nice. But what's that got to do with THIS swap? I still have to satisfy the BCM in order for the remote start to work, and changes to the ECM's programming aren't going to do anything for the BCM. So I have to think ahead (like I have been) about the PK3 issue and how to impliment a work-around. Now if there is an issue with the HP Tuners software I HAVE concerning the the VTD in the ECM's programming, then that is between me and HP Tuners; and I don't see how it concerns you. Now if it turns out the HP Tuners software I have cannot switch off the VTD in the ECM programming; then that topic will come up in this thread again. And at that time I will post the ultimate fix for it to share with others.

 
quote


I then had another conversation with a GM engineer that indicated that PK3+ was an OS level implementation and not a CAL level implement. So Chris and I even discussed this in 2005 that the OS level was going to need to be change perhaps, but they were not prepared to do this. What is noted above is purely a CAL level change. IF it was OS level, they would indicate that you must do a FULL write to the file for the changes to take effect.


Here we go again with the "I talked to a GM Engineer" statement. WHO was it? WHAT was their phone number? How do I know 1) you actually had this conversation in the first place, and 2) you actually talked to someone at GM who worked on the actual programming this swap is using instead of some pencil pusher who works in the same building as the engineer who did?

 
quote
Like I said Ryan, this is not just about you… its about the lurkers that want to do this install and don’t want to start unless something is known for sure 100% and not just hear say. People want to buy engines and transmissions for Christmas maybe. Its called having a project plan. Like I said, you will be successful at this swap. I know the solution 100%, so I know you can figure it out also.


This thread isn't just about the LS4 DoD 4T65-E swap I am doing? Really? What else is it about? I wasn't aware this was a multiple topic thread.

 
quote

For those interested however in another solution to this discussion…. There is a MEFI5 coming out Feb 2008. I have spoke with the hardware engineer on this and it is going to be very programmable. It will even be able to set shift logic to any configuration making it capable of running up to the 4T and 4L series transmissions. They are almost sure it will run the new 6T75 which I have already started on getting the wiring and other items together for this install to a hybrid installation. Just gathering parts here however, not trying to do any mating yet.. Oh, the 6T75 has a M6 pattern on it.

Loyde


That's great information -- that could have been put in another thread. Why does it belong here? Why don't you start your own LS4 DoD swap thread and get out of mine? After all, you come in here telling me how I shouldn't start a swap before I know 100% what's involved but yet I haven't seen you produce any LS4 DoD 4T65-E swaps yet. Have you? What makes you the expert?

Get your own thread.


blkcofy MSG #170, 12-17-2007 09:13 PM
      Ryan,
I am STEADFAST. UNWAVERED and UNDETERRED in my 100% confidence in your mastery and skill. You need not expend any of your energy or time in defending your craftsmanship to anyone. I've pushed you and challenged you on many levels, and each time you provided me with the facts, what's possible, what affordable, and what's not. Whenever you met an obstacle or hurdle, you quickly presented 2 or 3 options by which to overcome and included me in the process.

As you now can appreciate, I do as much homework and research on a topic as anyone on this site...if not more. While I am not a trained engineer or mechanic, I know when someone has a clue and treats you with respect, and I know when someone is making it up as they go, or treats you like a potential mortgage payment, instead of a valued customer. I reviewed and discussed my swap dreams at length with at LEAST 6 serious swappers in this game. I won't mention names, as my intent is not to compare or call other folks out for not meeting my specific criteria, principles, and values. What I will say publically, and loudly, is that no one and I mean NO ONE had the strength of track record or level of satisfaction from the process and resulting product than you. I spoke to no less than 5 recipients of your last swaps and they talked of you like you were Chip Foose or Carroll Shelby! Now, there are many great people in this game. But based on my requirements, you were the absolute best choice for me. And on this particular thread...that's all that should matter.

It's very clear that you and Lloyde have "history" and it sounds like you've both been down this path with each other before. Just remember that in this cyber world of digital tracking and social networking, the truth is never but a few search clicks away. One's reputation and 'motives' are easily revealed by anyone who's interested in figuring it out. All they have to do is google a few times.

I suggest that we keep what's in the past, in the past. I know of you as a stand up business and family man with ridiculous levels of accolades from this and other Fiero communities. Let others defend you. Let your work speak for itself. This would be the exact same advice I'd give Lloyde. He is probably the best choice for someone else or some other project. I'd rather put cars to test on the track and who's still driving 2-3 years from now. Until then, there's not alot of value in opinions on threads...other than someone else's perspective.

Now...back to my dream project!!

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 12-17-2007).]

OH10fiero (scottfiero27@aol.com) MSG #171, 12-18-2007 09:51 AM
      I was just going to stay put of this thread since it took an ugly turn, but even though I will never do this swap I am very interesed in seeing it done purely from the stand point of the obsticals you have faced and the methods you used to work trough or around them. From our conversation when I stopped by I can say Ryan you are better then this petty bickering being done here, and honestly I do not see any reason you should have to explain in great detail that this is not a V6 3800 swap, but the swap that you intended to do for a customer and share with the rest of us. The knowledge you have put in these pages is priceless as far as I am concerned, and the can be used in other swaps even if they would be something that is not DoD, but even a carberated car. I find this thread more of a way to think outside the box when taking on a complex swap of adding a drivetrain that did not originaly come with a car and useing your skills to overcome what would seem like an impossible task and making it work.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #172, 12-18-2007 10:43 AM
      Thanks for the kind words, blkcofy and OH10fiero. I just want to make it clear I am focused on the swap at hand; and this thread was, is, and will be all about the LS4 DoD 4T65-E TAPShift swap I am doing for blkcofy. I apologize for the brief history lesson, and I'm sorry it took this thread down a path I never intended it go. While I welcome genuine questions and difference of opinions pertaining to the things I am doing in this swap, I think it's important that everyone reading this thread understand why I refuse to have anything to do with certain members of this forum. There is a reason why and that was the reason for my last few posts -- just so everyone understands where I am coming from. Yes it is true that topic could have been discussed in another thread and been kept completely out of this one, but some things are simply out of my control.

The goal of this thread is to show the Fiero community the way I'm doing this swap. Will this swap become the next DIY'er's dream swap? I don't have the answer to that yet. With the 3800 being discontinued by GM a new powerful alternative needs to be found. And it would be premature for me (or anyone else) to jump to any conclusions about things that haven't even been attempted yet. This swap is the first one like it as far as I am aware. Sure other people have installed V8's in a Fiero and at least one or two others are currently working on a swap using the LS4; but I am not aware of any who are doing this swap using the LS4 and 4T65-E, keeping the DoD and TAPShift functions as well as installing the BCM and DIC all into the same car. So there is a lot of new ground being covered here and my intention is to freely share my findings and solutions with the community as a whole in the hopes it can help others with their swaps. You can trust that I did my research and homework long before I agreed to take on this project. I would not have attempted this swap if I doubted I could make it work outside of its native environment. There is still a lot of work to do so I have to get back to it. Stay tuned...

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

-ryan


blkcofy MSG #173, 12-18-2007 02:11 PM
     



darkhorizon MSG #174, 12-18-2007 02:20 PM
     
 
quote
. I don't agree with darkhorizon on a lot of things


now here I thought it was only a few things......Maybe a PM could help clear up the stuff other than our NA/SC power handleing debate..

Otherwise, the whole PK3 debate here is sorta pointless, we all know there has been no easy fix for this implemented yet, so we shall see how it turns out in the end.

I still wouldnt mind my question answered directly if it is possible to do this swap without a BCM or possibly for the manual heads out there a TCM existing? I dont forsee it being that hard to make a Class2 simulator of some sort that will send a start signal to the PCM and pretend like the bcm sent it. It might be hard to get going at first, but I doubt you would have a problem selling it eventually..

edit for spelling

[This message has been edited by darkhorizon (edited 12-18-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #175, 12-18-2007 04:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:


now here I thought it was only a few things......Maybe a PM could help clear up the stuff other than our NA/SC power handleing debate..

Otherwise, the whole PK3 debate here is sorta pointless, we all know there has been no easy fix for this implemented yet, so we shall see how it turns out in the end.

I still wouldnt mind my question answered directly if it is possible to do this swap without a BCM or possibly for the manual heads out there a TCM existing? I dont forsee it being that hard to make a Class2 simulator of some sort that will send a start signal to the PCM and pretend like the bcm sent it. It might be hard to get going at first, but I doubt you would have a problem selling it eventually..

edit for spelling



The TCM (transmission control module) is responsible for reading the VSS sensor's output and then sending the vehicle speed signal to the ECM (engine control module) via the GM LAN data bus. In turn, the ECM sends out the VSS signal via 1 wire to other devices in the car that need it (in the Grand Prix GXP it was the radio); other devices that need to see a VSS signal get it via the Class 2 data circuit coming from the ECM. The TCM also might be vital because it gets the GM LAN data bus signal from the ECM and then sends it off to the Diagnostic Connector (DLC). Don't know if the TCM could be removed from the loop and still have the GM LAN communications function normally or not because I haven't tried it yet.

So you might have two problems here if you don't hook the TCM up to the ECM. 1) GM LAN communications between the ECM and the DLC may not exist. 2) If the ECM doesn't see a speed signal, there is no way you will ever be able to get the cruise control to work because those functions are handled directly thru the ECM as it controls the electronic throttle control (ETC) system.

The good news is there is tuning support out there for this platform. So even if you were going to use a manual trans you could just disable all of the related trouble codes in the TCM's programming and just install it with minimal wiring for what it is needed for anyway. But then the question needs to be asked; why even use this ECM/TCM combo at all? There are other vehicles out there (rear-drive) that use the 5.3L DoD engine; maybe one of their computers would be better capable of meeting your needs for a 5.3 DoD manual trans swap? I haven't looked into it myself yet but it might be worth researching.

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-18-2007).]

darkhorizon MSG #176, 12-19-2007 12:50 AM
      I think I would like to argue about this a bit more than pcms..

this guy is seeing 200 extra WHP with just a turbo bolted on, yawzaz.
http://www.clubgp.com/newfo...&p=1&tmode=1&smode=1


FastFieros (fastfieros@fastfieros.com) MSG #177, 12-19-2007 09:13 AM
      Scott, Ryan ruined his own thread with his attacks on me... Right now there is Steven, Ron, Fred sitting on the outside looking in at a 5.3 project. They wanted to know what is VTD disable possiblities since that is the subject at hand. While I can only speak from a BCM standpoint in a 3800 S3 project, it is all related to PassKey 3+. Ryan will not need to disable the PK3+ since he is wanting all the add on's like remote unlock and remote start. However, for people like the above mentioned 3, they dont want to run BCM's, then you were inquiring to the TCM being left out for manual applications. Ryan made reference to HPTuners being able to disable this, but I know the above mentioned method of disable was tried in May 07, and it did not work.

Loyde


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #178, 12-19-2007 03:49 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FastFieros:

Scott, Ryan ruined his own thread with his attacks on me...


No, you ruined this thread by sticking your nose into it making personal attacks against me as well as making unfounded statements about my abilities and resources for making this swap work. In the past you have done this in an attempt to raise doubts about my abilities in the minds of my future/potential customers for the ultimate goal of getting them to go to you to have the work done, instead of me. When you were successful at doing this, you bragged to me about how you "stole my customers". I have a copy of these posts you made that prove it.

I HOPE I'M WRONG in this case; but your track record is quite representative of your true motives.


 
quote
Right now there is Steven, Ron, Fred sitting on the outside looking in at a 5.3 project. They wanted to know what is VTD disable possiblities since that is the subject at hand. While I can only speak from a BCM standpoint in a 3800 S3 project, it is all related to PassKey 3+. Ryan will not need to disable the PK3+ since he is wanting all the add on's like remote unlock and remote start. However, for people like the above mentioned 3, they dont want to run BCM's, then you were inquiring to the TCM being left out for manual applications. Ryan made reference to HPTuners being able to disable this, but I know the above mentioned method of disable was tried in May 07, and it did not work.

Loyde


This is NOT the only LS4 swap I have scheduled. There are others who want me to do this swap for them and not all of them want to have the BCM installed. That is the reason why I am going to see if I can get this thing running without the BCM being present; hence the need for the HP Tuners software to work as advertised. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there have been new releases of the HP Tuners core software since May of this year; I currently have the latest version (2.2.0) which was released in SEPTEMBER and features an OS Patch for the VATS system. Is it going to work? I don't know that yet because the swap isn't done and I haven't tried it. From the sounds of it, YOU HAVEN'T TRIED IT EITHER. So I don't know how you can keep making statements about how it isn't going to work if, you, yourself haven't even tried it on an LS4 E40 ECM yet. As I have mentioned countless times in this thread, I will make it known if the HP Tuners software is able to disable the VATS; and if not, what action is needed to bypass the system so it will work outside of the natvie GXP environment. If it turns out the HP Tuners software cannot disable the VATS system, then I will have to look into other tuning options; such as EFI Live.

But there's no reason to jump to conclusions now about what can and cannot be done until it is tried. And the whole point I have been trying to make is: just because older software YOU were using with a 3800 PCM didn't work; doesn't mean newer software isn't going to work with this LS4's E40 ECM. So rather than make assumptions about things you haven't even tried yet, I suggest you wait and see what comes out of this project -- or try it yourself. Either way, there's no reason for your 3800 PK3+ discussion to be in this thread. Again, you can just as easily start your own thread about it instead of inserting yourself into mine.

Basically what I am trying to say is I would appreciate it if you would just go away, Loyde; and let this thread get back on-topic.

-ryan



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #179, 12-19-2007 07:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


This is NOT the only LS4 swap I have scheduled. There are others who want me to do this swap for them and not all of them want to have the BCM installed. That is the reason why I am going to see if I can get this thing running without the BCM being present; hence the need for the HP Tuners software to work as advertised. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there have been new releases of the HP Tuners core software since May of this year; I currently have the latest version (2.2.0) which was released in SEPTEMBER and features an OS Patch for the VATS system. Is it going to work? I don't know that yet because the swap isn't done and I haven't tried it. From the sounds of it, YOU HAVEN'T TRIED IT EITHER. So I don't know how you can keep making statements about how it isn't going to work if, you, yourself haven't even tried it on an LS4 E40 ECM yet. As I have mentioned countless times in this thread, I will make it known if the HP Tuners software is able to disable the VATS; and if not, what action is needed to bypass the system so it will work outside of the natvie GXP environment. If it turns out the HP Tuners software cannot disable the VATS system, then I will have to look into other tuning options; such as EFI Live.

But there's no reason to jump to conclusions now about what can and cannot be done until it is tried. And the whole point I have been trying to make is: just because older software YOU were using with a 3800 PCM didn't work; doesn't mean newer software isn't going to work with this LS4's E40 ECM. So rather than make assumptions about things you haven't even tried yet, I suggest you wait and see what comes out of this project -- or try it yourself. Either way, there's no reason for your 3800 PK3+ discussion to be in this thread. Again, you can just as easily start your own thread about it instead of inserting yourself into mine.

Basically what I am trying to say is I would appreciate it if you would just go away, Loyde; and let this thread get back on-topic.

-ryan


WTF do you need help with?
PK III?
PK III+?

You do know that GM uses 3 LAN types and Class II on newer cars
They run Low Speed and High Speed GMLAN on cars starting in 04. Medium Speed GMLAN is new for 09 car.

I have a lot of experience with PK3. I keep Class II bypass modules in stock.

I will send you anm email.

[This message has been edited by AJxtcman (edited 12-19-2007).]

AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #180, 12-19-2007 07:32 PM
      I think the file is toooooo big. I will send it to Loyde

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #181, 12-19-2007 11:52 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:

I think the file is toooooo big.


Got the file; thanks.

According to the service manual, this system uses the High Speed GM LAN data link and the Low Speed Class 2 data link as described in the article below...

 
quote

Data Link Communications Description and Operation
Circuit Description
There are 2 different communication networks on this vehicle: The class 2 network and the GMLAN network. The class 2 serial data circuit is the low speed link, and the GMLAN serial data circuit is the high speed link. Modules that need real time communications are attached to the high speed network. The engine control module (ECM) is the gateway between the networks. The purpose of the gateway is to transfer information from one network to another.

GMLAN Circuit Description
The data link connector (DLC) allows a scan tool to communicate with the GMLAN serial data circuit. On this vehicle, only GMLAN high speed is used. That means that the serial data is transmitted on 2 wires at an average of 500 Kbps. The high speed dual wire GMLAN is a differential bus. That means that 2 bus lines, GMLAN high and GMLAN low are driven to opposite extremes from a rest or idle level. The idle level which is approximately 2.5 volts is considered a recessive transmitted data and is interpreted as a logic 1. Driving the lines to their extremes means adding 1 volt to GMLAN high wire and subtracting 1 volt from GMLAN low wire. This dominant state is interpreted as a logic 0. GMLAN network management supports selective start up and is based on virtual networks. A virtual network is a collection of signals started in response to a vehicle event. The starting of a virtual network signifies that a particular aspect of the vehicle's functionality has been requested. A virtual network is supported by virtual devices which represent a collection of signals owned by a single physical device. So, any physical device can have one or more virtual devices. The signal supervision is the process of determining whether an expected signal is being received or not. Failsofting is the ability to substitute a signal with a default value or a default algorithm, in the absence of a valid signal. Some messages are also interpreted as a heartbeat of a virtual device. If such a signal is lost, the application will set a no communication code against the respective virtual device. This code is mapped on the Tech 2 screen as a code against the physical device. Note that a loss of serial data DTC does not normally represent a failure of the module that set it.

Class 2 Circuit Description
The data link connector (DLC) allows a scan tool to communicate with the class 2 serial data line. The serial data line is the means by which the microprocessor-controlled modules that are connected to it communicate with each other. Once the scan tool is connected to the class 2 serial data line through the DLC, the scan tool can be used to monitor each module for diagnostic purposes and to check for diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs). Class 2 serial data is transmitted on a single wire at an average of 10.4 Kbps. The bus is active at 7 volts nominal and inactive at ground potential. When the ignition switch is in RUN, each module communicating on the class 2 serial data line sends a state of health (SOH) message every 2 seconds to ensure that the module is operating properly. When a module stops communicating on the class 2 serial data line, for example, if the module loses power or ground, the SOH message it normally sends on the data line every 2 seconds disappears. Other modules on the class 2 serial data line, which expect to receive that SOH message, detect its absence; those modules in turn set an internal DTC associated with the loss of SOH of the non-communicating module. The DTC is unique to the module which is not communicating, for example, when the body control module (BCM) SOH message disappears, several modules set DTC U1064. Note that a loss of serial data DTC does not normally represent a failure of the module that set it.

Data Link Connector (DLC)
The data link connector (DLC) is a standardized 16 cavity connector. Connector design and location is dictated by an industry wide standard, and is required to provide the following:

• Scan tool power battery positive voltage at terminal 16

• Scan tool power ground at terminal 4

• Common signal ground at terminal 5

• Class 2 signal at terminal 2

• GMLAN high circuit at terminal 6

• GMLAN low circuit at terminal 14

GMLAN Serial Data Line
The GMLAN serial data communications circuit used on this vehicle is in a linear topology. The following modules are connected to the link, in order from the data link connector (DLC) to the end of the linear configuration:

The following modules communicate on the GMLAN serial data circuit:

• The transmission control module (TCM), (LS4) 5.3L V8

• The engine control module (ECM), (LS4) 5.3L V8

Class 2 Serial Data Link
The class 2 serial data link allows the following modules to communicate and share data with each other:

• Body control module (BCM)

• Digital radio receiver (DRR) (U2K)

• Drivers information center (DIC)

• Electronic brake control module (EBCM)

• Instrument panel cluster (IPC)

• Heads up display (HUD) (UV6)

• HVAC module (CJ8), (C67)

• Powertrain control module (PCM) (L32), (L26)

• Radio

• Inflatable restraint sensing and diagnostic module (SDM)

• Vehicle control interface module (VCIM) (UE1)

The class 2 serial data link allows a scan tool to communicate with the above modules for diagnostic and testing purposes.



Also according to the service manual, this vehicle has the Pass-Key III system; as described in the artcile below...

 
quote

Vehicle Theft Deterrent (VTD) Description and Operation
The vehicle theft deterrent (VTD) system functions are provided by the body control module (BCM). When an ignition key is inserted into the ignition lock cylinder and the ignition is switched ON, the BCM supplies battery voltage to the theft deterrent exciter module. The transponder embedded in the head of the key is energized by the theft deterrent exciter module which is surrounding the ignition lock cylinder. The energized transponder transmits a signal that contains its unique value, which is received by the theft deterrent exciter module. The BCM monitors the theft deterrent exciter module for the transponder value via the security system sensor signal circuit. The BCM then compares this value to a value stored in memory, learned key code. If the value is correct the BCM sends the fuel continue password via the serial data circuit to the powertrain control module (PCM). If the transponders value is incorrect the BCM will send the fuel disable password to the PCM via the serial data circuit. The components of the VTD system are as follows:

Body control module (BCM)
Theft deterrent exciter module
Powertrain control module (PCM)
Ignition key (Transponder)
Ignition lock cylinder
Security indicator
Body Control Module (BCM)
When an ignition key is inserted into the ignition lock cylinder and the ignition is switched ON, the body control module (BCM) supplies battery voltage to the theft deterrent exciter module. The transponder embedded in the head of the key is energized by the theft deterrent exciter module which is surrounding the ignition lock cylinder. The energized transponder transmits a signal that contains its unique value, which is received by the theft deterrent exciter module. The BCM monitors the theft deterrent exciter module for the transponder value via the security system sensor signal circuit. The BCM then compares this value to a value stored in memory, learned key code. The BCM then performs one of the following functions:

If the transponder value is correct, the BCM will send the fuel continue password to the powertrain control module (PCM) via the serial data circuit.
If the transponders value is incorrect the BCM will send the fuel disable password to the PCM via the serial data circuit.
If the BCM is unable to measure the ignition key transponder value for one second due to a damaged or missing pellet or a damaged theft deterrent exciter module, the BCM will send the fuel disable password to the PCM via the serial data circuit.
The vehicle theft deterrent (VTD) system uses the following inputs, battery voltage, ignition switched voltage, security system sensor signal and ground circuit. The VTD system uses the following outputs, security system sensor supply voltage and password exchange with the PCM, fuel continue/disable via the serial data circuit.


Important
On some vehicles, if the VTD system is unable to read the ignition key transponder value after the vehicle has started, the VTD system will consider itself malfunctioning. The VTD system will enter a fail enable state and will command the driver information center (DIC) to display the service theft - VTD fail enable message. When the VTD system is in a fail enable state the vehicle will NOT stall or stop running. If the VTD system is in a fail enable state when the ignition is switched OFF, the VTD system will remain fail enable until it is able to read a learned ignition key transponder value. When the VTD system is in a fail enable state the VTD system is NOT active and the vehicle will start. This feature is NOT available on all GM vehicle lines.


Theft Deterrent Exciter Module
When an ignition key is inserted into the ignition lock cylinder and the ignition is switched ON, the body control module (BCM) supplies battery voltage to the theft deterrent exciter module. The transponder embedded in the head of the key is energized by the theft deterrent exciter module which is surrounding the ignition lock cylinder. The energized transponder transmits a signal that contains its unique value, which is received by the theft deterrent exciter module. The BCM monitors the theft deterrent exciter module for the transponder value via the security system sensor signal circuit.

The theft deterrent exciter module uses the following inputs, security system sensor supply voltage and ground circuit. The theft deterrent exciter module uses the following outputs, security system sensor signal.

Powertrain Control Module (PCM)
The powertrain control module (PCM) verifies that the password received from the body control module (BCM) via the serial data circuit is correct. The PCM can learn only one fuel continue password. If the fuel continue password is correct, the PCM enables the starting and fuel delivery systems.

The PCM disables the starting and fuel delivery systems if any of the following conditions occur:

The fuel continue password is incorrect.
The fuel disable password is sent by the BCM.
No passwords are received - there is no communication with the BCM.
The PCM uses the following input, password exchange with the BCM, fuel continue/disable via the serial data circuit.


Important
On some vehicles, if the PCM is unable to communicate with the VTD system after the vehicle has started, the PCM will consider the vehicle theft deterrent (VTD) system to be malfunctioning. The PCM will enter a fail enable state and will command the driver information center (DIC) to display the service theft - VTD fail enable message. When the PCM is in a fail enable state the vehicle will NOT stall or stop running. If the PCM is in a fail enable state when the ignition is switched OFF, the PCM will remain fail enable until communications with the VTD system has been restored. When the PCM is in a fail enable state the VTD system is NOT active and the vehicle will start. This feature is NOT available on all GM vehicle lines.


The Ignition Key (Transponder)
The ignition key for passkey III (PK3) equipped vehicles is a typical looking ignition key with a transponder located in the plastic head of the key. The transponder value is fixed and unable to be changed. The vehicle theft deterrent (VTD) system uses the ignition key transponder value to determine if a valid ignition key is being used to start the vehicle. There are approximately three trillion possible transponder values. There are no visible electrical contacts. The keys may be identified by the letters PK3 stamped into the steel shank of the key. The VTD systems use the following types of ignition keys:

Master Keys
Master keys have a black plastic head for full access operation of the vehicle. Master keys may perform the following functions:

Start the vehicle.
Lock/unlock all of the door locks.
Lock/unlock all of the storage compartments.
Valet Keys

Important
Valet keys are NOT standard equipment on all GM vehicle lines.


Valet keys have a gray plastic head and are for restricted operation of the vehicle. Valet keys may perform the following functions:

Start the vehicle.
Lock/unlock all of the door locks.
Ignition Lock Cylinder
The ignition lock cylinder performs all of the functions of a lock cylinder on a non passkey III equipped vehicle. The ignition lock cylinder for vehicles with PK3 may be located on the steering column or on the instrument panel. In either location the exciter coils surround the ignition lock cylinder such that they are very close to the head of the key which contains the transponder pellet.

If an ignition lock cylinder is replaced, the new ignition lock cylinder must be coded to match the mechanical coding of the PK3 keys. When replacing an ignition lock cylinder, and new PK3 keys are required, the new keys must be learned by the BCM. Refer to Programming Theft Deterrent System Components .

Security Message Operation
Theft System Not Programmed
The body control module (BCM) or powertrain control module (PCM) will send a message to the driver information center (DIC) to display Theft System Not Programmed when either the BCM or PCM are in the vehicle theft deterrent learn mode.

Service Theft System
The PCM will send a message to the driver information center (DIC) to display Service Theft System when the PCM has lost communication with the BCM after the vehicle has been started. The BCM will send a message to the driver information center (DIC) to display Service Theft System when the BCM is unable to read the key transponder value after the vehicle has started.

Starting Disabled Due To Theft System
The BCM will send a message to the driver information center (DIC) to display Starting Disabled Due To Theft System when the BCM has either received no key transponder value or the incorrect key transponder value.



AJ, based on the information given by the service manual for this vehicle including wiring diagrams, I can tell you the PK3 system is directly hooked to the BCM. The only data connection between the BCM and ECM is the Class 2 data bus which is low speed. So the "fuel enable" password must be sent along the Class 2 serial data line. Which means one of your bypass modules might work.

-ryan




Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #182, 12-20-2007 01:14 AM
      So basically I need to wait till somebody else does this swap before I see any more good info?
The flame war stuff sux. Why cant people offer there two cents and move on. Why does other peoples swaps burn some people so bad they cant stay out of arguing?
Even I can take a hint, and step back if the author of a thread don't want me arguing? Heck, I would just start my own thread if I felt so strong about some thing?
Thanks to anyone that offers good info. But we can do without the bickering. Let people make the mistakes on there own if they don't listen to good reason.



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #183, 12-20-2007 06:53 AM
      A little history

UART Serial Data
Two methods of data transmission are used. One method involves a universally asynchronous receiving/transmitting (UART) protocol. UART is an interfacing device that allows the on board computer to send and receive serial data. Serial data refers to information which is transferred in a linear fashion, over a single line, one bit at a time. A data bus describes the electronic pathway through which serial data travels. The UART receives data in a serial format, converts the data to parallel format, and places them on the data bus which is recognizable to the on board computer. This method had been the common strategy for establishing a communication link between the on board control module and the off board monitor/scanner since 1981. UART is now used to communicate between certain modules within the vehicle.

Class 2 Serial Data = 12Kb/s
U.S. Federal regulations require that all automobile manufacturers establish a common communications system. This Shelby vehicle utilizes the Class 2 communications system. Each bit of information can have one of two lengths: long or short. This allows vehicle wiring to be reduced by the transmission and reception of multiple signals over a single wire. The messages carried on Class 2 data streams are also prioritized. In other words, if two messages attempt to establish communications on the data line at the same time, only the message with higher priority will continue. The device with the lower priority message must wait. The most significant result of this regulation is that it provides scan tool manufacturers with the capability of accessing data from any make or model vehicle sold in the United States.

THIS IS ON NEWER THAN 04 CARS

Circuit Description
The communication among control modules is performed primarily through the GMLAN high speed serial data circuit and the GMLAN low speed serial data circuits. The modules that need real time communication are attached to the high speed GMLAN network. The body control module (BCM) is the serial data gateway between the networks. The purpose of the gateway is to translate serial data messages between the GMLAN high speed buss and the GMLAN low speed buss. The Local Interconnect Network (LIN) is another serial data communication network used on this vehicle which is dedicated to the door/power windows subsystem. Below are more detailed descriptions of the individual networks. The gateway will interact with each network according to that network's transmission protocol. Refer to Body Control System Description and Operation for more information about the gateway.

GMLAN High Speed Circuit Description
The data link connector (DLC) allows a scan tool to communicate with the high speed GMLAN serial data circuit. The serial data is transmitted on two twisted wires that allow speed up to 500 Kb/s. The twisted pair is terminated with 120 ohms resistors. One of the resistors is located in the rear fuse block, and others are internal to the engine control module (ECM), distance sensing cruise control (DSCC) module , and the body control module (BCM). The resistors are used to reduce noise on the High Speed GMLAN bus during normal vehicle operation. The high speed GMLAN is a differential bus. The high speed GMLAN serial data bus (+) and high speed GMLAN serial data (-) are driven to opposite extremes from a rest or idle level. The idle level, which is approximately 2.5 volts, is considered recessive transmitted data and is interpreted as a logic 1. Driving the lines to their extremes, adds one volt to the high speed GMLAN serial data bus (+) and subtracts one volt from the high speed GMLAN serial data bus (-) wire. This dominant state is interpreted as a logic 0. GMLAN network management supports selective start up and is based on virtual networks. A virtual network is a collection of signals started in response to a vehicle event. The starting of a virtual network signifies that a particular aspect of the vehicles functionality has been requested. A virtual network is supported by virtual devices, which represents a collection of signals owned by a single physical device. So, any physical device can have one or more virtual devices. The signal supervision is the process of determining whether an expected signal is being received or not. Failsofting is the ability to substitute a signal with a default value or a default algorithm, in the absence of a valid signal. Some messages are also interpreted as a heartbeat of a virtual device. If such a signal is lost, the application will set a no communication code against the respective virtual device. This code is mapped on the Tech 2 screen as a code against the physical device. Note: a loss of serial data DTC does not represent a failure of the module that the code is set in.

GMLAN Low Speed Circuit Description THIS IS NOT CLASS II
The data link connector (DLC) allows a scan tool to communicate with the low speed GMLAN serial data circuit. The serial data is transmitted over a single wire to the appropriate control modules. The transmission speed for GMLAN low speed is up to 83.33 Kb/s. Under normal vehicle operating conditions, the speed of the buss is 33.33 Kb/s. This protocol produces a simple pulse train sent out over the GMLAN low speed serial data bus. When a module pulls the buss high, 5 volts, this creates a dominant logic state or 0 on the buss. When the buss is pulled low, 0 volts, it is translated as a recessive logic state or 1. To wake the control modules connected to the GMLAN low speed serial data buss, a high voltage wake up pulse is sent out over the buss, the voltage level of the pules is +10 volts. Modules connected to the GMLAN low speed buss can be part of a virtual network as described in the previous paragraph. The modules on the GMLAN low speed serial data buss are connected to the buss in a parallel configuration.

Local Interconnect Network (LIN) Description
The driver door module (DDM) and the front passenger door module (FPDM) communicate with window motors on the local interconnect network bus 1 and the local interconnect network bus 2 circuits respectively. The DDM LIN buss is connected to all window motors on its side of the vehicle, while the FPDM LIN buss is connected to the other window motors. Communication on this network is only between the door modules and the window motors. The window motors are in effect modules. The window motor modules do not communicate on any other data buss; therefore the door modules, which also communicate on the low speed GMLAN serial data buss will perform all communication with each other, the motors, the body control module (BCM) (gateway) and the scan tool including setting LIN buss DTCs.

Keyword 2000 Circuit Description
The keyword protocols utilize a single wire bi-directional data line between the module and the scan tool. The message structure is a request and response arrangement. The keyword serial data line is used for scan tool diagnostics of the climate control seat module (CCSM) only. Other modules on the vehicle do not exchange data on this circuit.

Data Link Connector (DLC)
The data link connector (DLC) is a standardized 16-cavity connector. Connector design and location is dictated by an industry wide standard, and is required to provide the following:

• Pin 1 GMLAN low speed communications terminal

• Pin 4 Scan tool power ground terminal

• Pin 5 Common signal ground terminal

• Pin 6 High speed GMLAN serial data bus (+) terminal

• Pin 7 keyword 2000 serial data bus terminal

• Pin 14 High speed GMLAN serial data bus (-) terminal

• Pin 16 Scan tool power, battery positive voltage terminal

Serial Data Reference
The scan tool communicates over the various busses on the vehicle. When a scan tool is installed on a vehicle, the scan tool will try to communicate with every module that could be optioned into the vehicle. If an option is not installed on the vehicle, the scan tool will display No Comm for that options control module. In order to avert misdiagnoses of No Communication with a specific module, refer to Data Link References for a list of modules, the busses they communicate with, and the RPO codes for a specific module.



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #184, 12-20-2007 07:01 AM
      I am using my PK III bypass module on my LS1 PCM. Again I had to do both the Password Clear and set the PCM in Learn mode.
The Shelby used a Passlock system and a Class II message. My PK III bypass is set up for a VTD password via class II. Hmm and it still works. I think I have GM systems down

Oh and I guess I was wrong in my Email. You may have a Class II fuel enable password.

[This message has been edited by AJxtcman (edited 12-20-2007).]

AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #185, 12-20-2007 07:06 AM
      AT-IM06 PROGRAMMABLE PLATFORM#06: GM OVERRIDE INTERFACE
Weight: 1 Lbs $50.00



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #186, 12-20-2007 07:08 AM
      AT-PKG4 GM TRANSPONDER INTERFACE: PASSKEY 3 (PK3+)
Weight: 1 Lbs $50.00



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #187, 12-20-2007 07:11 AM
      AT-PKG5 GM TRANSPONDER INTERFACE: PASSKEY 3 (PK3+)
Weight: 1 Lbs $50.00



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #188, 12-20-2007 07:16 AM
      Take a look at this
http://www.xpresskit.com/index.aspx


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #189, 12-20-2007 07:18 AM
      This is what I use
555G for Cadilac, Buick, Mitsubishi, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Plymouth
Weight: 0.8 Lbs $35.00



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #190, 12-20-2007 08:00 AM
      This is GM training on a website I found

VATS http://www.pdqforensics.com/sec310010.html

Pass Lock http://www.pdqforensics.com/sec210010.html

PK3 & PK3+ http://www.pdqforensics.com/sec410010.html

Now for the best part


Learning Center http://www.pdqforensics.com/learning.htm

Multimedia presentations on the PassKey II (VATS), Pass Lock (MRD), and PassKey III & III+ (Transponder) systems can be accessed using the links above.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #191, 12-20-2007 01:03 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:


GMLAN Low Speed Circuit Description THIS IS NOT CLASS II


I know. There are different speeds for the GM LAN network. And there's only one speed for the Class 2 data network. Like you I have also read the GM Training documentation on data communications including GM LAN.


To boil down what I posted earlier (which was taken straight out of the GM Service Manual for the 2005 Pontiac Grand Prix GXP LS4):

 
quote


Data Link Communications Description and Operation
Circuit Description

There are 2 different communication networks on this vehicle: The class 2 network and the GMLAN network. The class 2 serial data circuit is the low speed link, and the GMLAN serial data circuit is the high speed link.

.................................

GMLAN Circuit Description

The data link connector (DLC) allows a scan tool to communicate with the GMLAN serial data circuit. On this vehicle, only GMLAN high speed is used. That means that the serial data is transmitted on 2 wires at an average of 500 Kbps.

.................................

GMLAN Serial Data Line

The GMLAN serial data communications circuit used on this vehicle is in a linear topology. The following modules are connected to the link, in order from the data link connector (DLC) to the end of the linear configuration:

The following modules communicate on the GMLAN serial data circuit:

• The transmission control module (TCM), (LS4) 5.3L V8

• The engine control module (ECM), (LS4) 5.3L V8

................................

Class 2 Serial Data Link

The class 2 serial data link allows the following modules to communicate and share data with each other:

• Body control module (BCM)

• Digital radio receiver (DRR) (U2K) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Drivers information center (DIC)

• Electronic brake control module (EBCM) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Instrument panel cluster (IPC) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Heads up display (HUD) (UV6) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• HVAC module (CJ8), (C67) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Powertrain control module (PCM) (L32), (L26) <-- Not applicable to the powertrain I am using

• Radio <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Inflatable restraint sensing and diagnostic module (SDM) <-- Not going to be present in this swap

• Vehicle control interface module (VCIM) (UE1) <-- Not going to be present in this swap


................................


Vehicle Theft Deterrent (VTD) Description and Operation

The vehicle theft deterrent (VTD) system functions are provided by the body control module (BCM)......If the value is correct the BCM sends the fuel continue password via the serial data (class 2) circuit to the powertrain control module (PCM). If the transponders value is incorrect the BCM will send the fuel disable password to the PCM via the serial data circuit.



From another section of the service manual for this vehicle: This vehicle is equipped with PASS-Key® III (Personalized Automotive Security System) theft deterrent system.



So again, this vehicle has a Pass-Key III VTD System. The BCM is responsible for looking at the transponder on the ignition key, determining whether or not it is valid, and then sends the "fuel enable password" to the ECM by means of the Class 2 data circuit. Will YOUR PK3 bypass modules work for this application?



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #192, 12-20-2007 01:23 PM
      ALSO according to the service manual, the Grand Prix GXP has the ignition lock cylinder located in the instrument panel; which means the Theft Deterrent Exciter Module is SEPERATE from the lock cylinder. Worse case scenario I could go to the junkyard and get myself one of these modules and matching key and just install it up under the dash or other location in this swap so the BCM will always have access to a key/transponder.

Of course this also sounds like the PK3 system could be added to the Fiero should someone want the added security that having the system would provide. The Exciter Module could be installed anywhere as long as it had a slot close to it that would hold a key with a transponder so the two pieces could communicate. I might try this out in this swap just to satisfy my own curiosity. Of course, in order for one to have a functioning PK3 system they would also need the BCM installed in the swap as well. So there will still need to be a solution available to disable the system for those not wanting the BCM installed in their swaps.

-ryan


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #193, 12-20-2007 03:17 PM
      Document ID# 905405
2005 Pontiac Grand Prix




AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #194, 12-20-2007 03:18 PM
      Do you have a BCM?

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #195, 12-21-2007 12:03 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:

Do you have a BCM?



For this swap, yes. Came from the original car I got the engine and trans out of.

For other LS4 swaps down the road; will probably elect not to use it unless the customer wants to.

-ryan


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #196, 12-21-2007 07:42 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
For this swap, yes. Came from the original car I got the engine and trans out of.

For other LS4 swaps down the road; will probably elect not to use it unless the customer wants to.

-ryan


The reason I ask is not to for installation.
The PCM and BCM match?
If they did not it would take a lot of steps to clear out everything and then put the PCM in learn mode. You need both the BCM and PCM to do this. If you had a Brand New PCM you would not need to do this.
Ok Back to your Scenario
I just typed a bunch and had to erase it, because I did not ask enough questions.
The PKIII+ key exciter has to match the one stored in the BCM also. Do you have the correct one? and the correct key?

#1 If this was me I would go to a car lot find a 05 5.3L FWD car. I would wire a 555GW to the DLC and steel the Password code.
#2 I would reprogram (via bench harness) the PCM - to clear the Stored Password
#3 I would now splice in the BCM to the Bench programing harness. Power, Ground, Switched Power, and Class II and or GMLAN if needed.
#4 I would perform the 10 minute learn procedure with Tis2Web and the Tech II.
#5 I would remove the Ignition power/switched power, wait 30 seconds and disconnect the PCM.
#6 I would install the PCM into the car and connect the 555GW.
#7 Turn the key and the car will run. 100% guaranteed


If you send me the PCM and BCM I can set it up to accept a new password. It takes both modules.
If you do not have access to a car to steel the code from with the 555GW. I have a 555GW and the dealership next to the Cadillac dealer that I work at is a Pontiac Dealership.

[This message has been edited by AJxtcman (edited 12-21-2007).]

ohio86se (rick44314@gmail.com) MSG #197, 12-21-2007 09:32 AM
      All I can say is WOW (not Women Of Wrestling). In reading this thread it doesn't take long to realize that there is tremendous amount of talent and knowledge here on the forum. My head is spinning at such a rate now that I think I am going to ride a horse from know on. After all if I want the horse to faster I just give a pock with the heel of my boot. But seriously, my first and only experience the having to by-pass/immobilize the pass key is with my 2003 Silverado. I had to buy a transponder/passlock interface. I have yet to do the remote start install yet and I am not looking forward to it.

This is a very good thread and I am glad it got back on track.



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #198, 12-21-2007 01:10 PM
      Back about 1000 posts ago I worked though some PK III with used PCM's


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #199, 12-21-2007 01:57 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:


The reason I ask is not to for installation.
The PCM and BCM match?
If they did not it would take a lot of steps to clear out everything and then put the PCM in learn mode. You need both the BCM and PCM to do this. If you had a Brand New PCM you would not need to do this.
Ok Back to your Scenario
I just typed a bunch and had to erase it, because I did not ask enough questions.
The PKIII+ key exciter has to match the one stored in the BCM also. Do you have the correct one? and the correct key?

#1 If this was me I would go to a car lot find a 05 5.3L FWD car. I would wire a 555GW to the DLC and steel the Password code.
#2 I would reprogram (via bench harness) the PCM - to clear the Stored Password
#3 I would now splice in the BCM to the Bench programing harness. Power, Ground, Switched Power, and Class II and or GMLAN if needed.
#4 I would perform the 10 minute learn procedure with Tis2Web and the Tech II.
#5 I would remove the Ignition power/switched power, wait 30 seconds and disconnect the PCM.
#6 I would install the PCM into the car and connect the 555GW.
#7 Turn the key and the car will run. 100% guaranteed


If you send me the PCM and BCM I can set it up to accept a new password. It takes both modules.
If you do not have access to a car to steel the code from with the 555GW. I have a 555GW and the dealership next to the Cadillac dealer that I work at is a Pontiac Dealership.



Ok first off there is no "PCM" that is going to be used in this swap. The LS4 has an ECM which is seperate from the computer that controls the transmission (TCM). But I know what you mean. Just want to make sure nobody on here gets confused with different terms being used.

From the donor 2005 Pontiac Grand Prx GXP, we got the engine, transmission, wiring, ECM, TCM, BCM, DIC, Compass Module, Antenna Module (for the remote keyless entry fobs), and other parts. Everything came from the same car. DO NOT have the PK3 master key nor transponder module from this car; if I get then they will have to come from another car. Now there is another issue; after I ordered the HP Tuners software for this platform and built a bench harness so I could read/flash the ECM and TCM off-car (BCM has been added too), I discovered the ECM had been locked by a previous tuner. I contacted that tuner and was told they reprogrammed it a couple of years ago using "beta test" bootloader/software and no longer had means of unlocking the ECM. I took that ECM to the dealer along with my TCM and BCM hooked up to my bench harness and tried to reflash with stock programming. Got all the way to the part in the SPS programming where it starts actually flashing the ECM and the SPS software locked up and wouldn't reprogram the ECM; as we suspected would happen. So basically the ECM is junk now. I ordered a replacement ECM off the internet which came out of an '06 Grand Prix GXP LS4 that has matching service numbers. As soon as the opportunity comes again I will be going to the dealer to get the stock programming reflashed back onto this replacement ECM for the '05 GXP so it matches the programming/VIN numbers programmed onto the other modules (TCM, BCM, etc) that will be used in this swap.

So to answer your questions above no, the ECM that is going to be used in this swap did not come from the same vehicle everything else did; and it is not new either. So it will have to be re-linked to the BCM/PK3 system. Now I have already read ALL of the VTD/VATS/PK3 articles in the service manual for this vehicle; so I understand what has to be done in order to relink/relearn the PK3 system to the BCM and ECM. The HP Tuners software I have also says it has a feature included in it that "relinks vats" between the ECM and BCM; so hopefully that will do what I need it to. If that doesn't work, I have access to a Tech II scanner so I can command a VATS relearn/relink in both the BCM and ECM.

At this point I would be willing to hear how much those 555GW bypass modules you have are selling for; just in case for some reason I can't get ahold of another PK3 transponder module and key. But I don't think I am going to need to send the ECM & BCM off to you because I should be able to get that relearn done here. But thanks for the offer anyway.

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #200, 12-21-2007 02:12 PM
      Just to clarify again...

ECM = Engine Control Module (ONLY controls the engine - used on the LS4)
TCM = Transmission Control Module (ONLY controls the transmission - used on this transmission when mated to a LS4)

PCM = Powertrain Control Module (controls BOTH the engine and transmission - used in 3800 applications and others)

BCM = Body Control Module (controls functions relating to the body of the car such as lighting, power distribution, secondary functions, etc)


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #201, 12-21-2007 07:07 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Just to clarify again...

ECM = Engine Control Module (ONLY controls the engine - used on the LS4)
TCM = Transmission Control Module (ONLY controls the transmission - used on this transmission when mated to a LS4)

PCM = Powertrain Control Module (controls BOTH the engine and transmission - used in 3800 applications and others)

BCM = Body Control Module (controls functions relating to the body of the car such as lighting, power distribution, secondary functions, etc)



I am a Cadillac Tech. I will be World Class certified in about 1 month.
I have over 350 training corses.
BCM is a BCM
TCM's have been more than just Trans controllers. The T can mean other modules
ECM can mean ANY Electronic Control Module. This is from GM
VCM's, PCM's, ECM's are similar, but not the same. I did call your ECM a PCM, but I have been doing this so long and they have been PCM's for so long it is habit.

A PZM, DIM, IPM are all BCM's
I work on cars with 20 to 30+ modules every day. It is hard to keep them straight.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #202, 12-21-2007 07:20 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:
I am a Cadillac Tech. I will be World Class certified in about 1 month.
I have over 350 training corses.
BCM is a BCM
TCM's have been more than just Trans controllers. The T can mean other modules
ECM can mean ANY Electronic Control Module. This is from GM
VCM's, PCM's, ECM's are similar, but not the same. I did call your ECM a PCM, but I have been doing this so long and they have been PCM's for so long it is habit.

A PZM, DIM, IPM are all BCM's
I work on cars with 20 to 30+ modules every day. It is hard to keep them straight.


The post I made concerning those acronyms was in context to the 2005 Grand Prix GXP and what GM is calling modules used in this car. I realize those acronyms can be used to describe other things but I just wanted to clarify what I was using them for in this thread to help cut down on the confusion. Nothing against you personally.

-ryan


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #203, 12-21-2007 07:26 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
So to answer your questions above no, the ECM that is going to be used in this swap did not come from the same vehicle everything else did; and it is not new either. So it will have to be re-linked to the BCM/PK3 system. Now I have already read ALL of the VTD/VATS/PK3 articles in the service manual for this vehicle; so I understand what has to be done in order to relink/relearn the PK3 system to the BCM and ECM. The HP Tuners software I have also says it has a feature included in it that "relinks vats" between the ECM and BCM; so hopefully that will do what I need it to. If that doesn't work, I have access to a Tech II scanner so I can command a VATS relearn/relink in both the BCM and ECM.

At this point I would be willing to hear how much those 555GW bypass modules you have are selling for; just in case for some reason I can't get ahold of another PK3 transponder module and key. But I don't think I am going to need to send the ECM & BCM off to you because I should be able to get that relearn done here. But thanks for the offer anyway.

-ryan


The 555GW cost $35. You will not need a BCM after that.

The Tech II will not allow you to overide or relink any VTD system.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just so you know how big this is and how much room you will need compared to the BCM

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
..
.

.
.
.
.

.
.

.
.

..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
Oh yeah it is a monster


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #204, 12-21-2007 07:28 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


The post I made concerning those acronyms was in context to the 2005 Grand Prix GXP and what GM is calling modules used in this car. I realize those acronyms can be used to describe other things but I just wanted to clarify what I was using them for in this thread to help cut down on the confusion. Nothing against you personally.

-ryan


I know. I was wrong. I made the mistake.


blkcofy MSG #205, 12-22-2007 02:35 PM
      Okay, then! I'd like to have a station break to allow a message from a paying sponsor!!

I don't know if I'm jealous because I have NO IDEA what you two are talking about, with all the electric engineer jargon, and PhD level electronics rewiring and reconfiguration slang...or impressed. Either or, as long as this "interesting" conversation is concluded with a twist of a small 3 inch metal fob, commonly known as a key that initiates the awakening and roar of +350 little eager ponies all tucked in the form of a new Fiero power source...I'm good!

SUSPENSION UPDATE
In between the time Ryan has spent lecturing with his cohort professor AJxtcman on the finer aspects of GM ECM/TCM/BCM/PZM/DIM He's also managed to somehow continue to assemble my rear suspension! I told you guys he was good!

Anyhow, here's the latest pictures of the rear 12" Corvette rotors installed (Compliments of Rockcrawl) with the rear sway bar and struts from The Fiero Store, and coilover springs from West Coast Fiero.
You can see the media blasted and powdercoated control arms and rear knuckles I did myself, as well as the poly bushings and new tie rods...also from The Fiero Store. I should really invest in stock in that place. I know I'm personally paying someone's salary over there. I don't know what we'd do without TFS. They have EVERYTHING.

The only thing I'm not happy with is the red paint I used on the 88' Fiero Calipers. I think it looks better in person, but we'll see when it's all installed. I may try to powder coat these at a later time. I would like to give a personal 4STAR rating to both the service and quality of brake kit from Rockcrawl. He's up there with Ryan in terms of someone who stands 100% behind their product and passion for what they do. I can't wait to see how the kit performs, but if it's any way near the level of craftsmanship and support from Rockcrawl, I know I won't be disappointed.

From all the pictures, you can also see the 4TE65hd transmission safely tucked away inside. Which means it's in there for good!! I haven't seen any final pictures of the engine installed in the bay, but I'm sure that's coming once Ryan makes his way from the underside of the car and back into all the HARD stuff.

Oh, I also had to make a tire/wheel purchase this week. Based on the size of the rotors and using the brake calipers from an 88' Fiero, there's no way my OEM 15s were going to fit. Ryan tried, but he would have had to drastically alter the rims. I'll have these up for sale somewhere, as I can't use them at all with the new 'vette rotors.

I ended up going with a 17/18 staggered wheel setup using the Motegi SP7 wheels and I read up on the pros of the new Nexen N3000 tires, and went with those as well. These are big in the UK and starting to get a fan club here in the US as well. As soon as their delivered, I'll ask for Ryan to take a few pictures to see how they look. In the meantime, here's the stock photos.


Okay, back to the Master lecture on the finer art and science of harness wiring! I'm not knocking it...it's just wayyyy over my head! I'm just glad they love it!!

BLKCOFY




Russ544 MSG #206, 12-22-2007 02:52 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


SUSPENSION UPDATE
In between the time Ryan has spent lecturing with his cohort professor AJxtcman on the finer aspects of GM ECM/TCM/BCM/PZM/DIM He's also managed to somehow continue to assemble my rear suspension! I told you guys he was good!



Ha ha. ya I hear ya. You're not the only one who's getting dizzy, but as long as they understand it, that's all that matters.

I don't know why, but I had been under the impression this was to be 88 suspension. now I see it's early suspension however. is there at least some anti bump steer correction in there somewhere?? It can make a HUGE difference in the handling of the early style suspension and sure will increase the fun factor for you.



blkcofy MSG #207, 12-22-2007 06:19 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Russ544:
I don't know why, but I had been under the impression this was to be 88 suspension. now I see it's early suspension however. is there at least some anti bump steer correction in there somewhere?? It can make a HUGE difference in the handling of the early style suspension and sure will increase the fun factor for you.


Say more. I've got all poly mounts and 400lb performance springs, with the rear sway bar. Do I still need an application for bump steer? What would that look like?



Russ544 MSG #208, 12-22-2007 06:44 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


Say more. I've got all poly mounts and 400lb performance springs, with the rear sway bar. Do I still need an application for bump steer? What would that look like?


I'm using the Held system myself, and there is another, cheeper, system (the name escapes me at the moment) available as well. I'm still trying to make my lightly modified, but fully rebuilt, 88 IMSA suspension work as well as the 86 with HD springs, sway bars, poly, and the Held anti bumpsteer kit. my 86 is sbc also, and the extra weight really likes the best suspension you can provide for it.
http://www.heldmotorsports....Fiero-bump-steer.htm

your ride is looking awsome, and it appears to me that Ryan has his part well in hand. he'd be my choice as well for the options you're going with power-wise.

cheers,
Russ544


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #209, 12-22-2007 07:23 PM
      This is not practical for a Fiero and off the topic, but it is a very cool setup.








In my opinion that is a better mouse trap.

[This message has been edited by AJxtcman (edited 12-23-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #210, 12-23-2007 12:42 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:


The Tech II will not allow you to overide or relink any VTD system.


Well I figured it wouldn't allow me to "override" or disable the VTD system because there is no reason why the factory would need to allow for such a function. But as far as a "relink" or "relearn"; this is what I have found in the GM service manual...

 
quote

Programming Theft Deterrent System

Important: When replacing a body control module (BCM) with an GM Service Parts Operation (SPO)
replacement part, set up the replacement BCM prior to the 10-Minute Relearn Procedure or the 30-
Minute Relearn Procedure. Refer to Body Control Module (BCM) Programming/RPO Configuration in
Programming and Setup.

Important:
10-Minute Relearn Procedure
Use this procedure after replacing the following components:

- The PASS-Key III (PK3) keys
- The BCM
- The PCM

Important: If replacing a BCM with a GM SPO replacement part, perform the procedure to setup a new BCM prior to the 10-Minute Relearn Procedure. Refer to Diagnostic System Check - Vehicle in Vehicle DTC Information.

1. Connect a scan tool to the vehicle.
2. Turn ON the ignition, with the engine OFF.
3. Insure that all power consuming devices are turned OFF on the vehicle.
4. With a scan tool, select Request Info. under Service Programming System and follow the scan
tool on-screen instructions.
5. Disconnect the scan tool from the vehicle and connect the scan tool to a Techline Terminal with
the current Service Programming System (SPS) software.
6. On the Techline Terminal, select Service Programming System and follow the Techline Terminal
on-screen instructions.
7. Disconnect the scan tool from the Techline Terminal and re-connect the scan tool to the vehicle.
8. With a master PASS-Key III key, turn ON the ignition with the engine OFF.
9. With a scan tool, select Program ECU under Service Programming System.
10. At this point the scan tool must remain connected for the duration of the 10-Minute Relearn
Procedure.
11. Observe the scan tool, after approximately 10 minutes the scan tool will display "Programming
Successful, Turn OFF Ignition". The vehicle is now ready to relearn the key information and/or
the passwords on the next ignition switch transition from OFF to ON.
12. Turn OFF the ignition and wait 5 seconds.
13. With a master PASS-Key III key, start the vehicle. The BCM has now learned the key transponder
information and the PCM has now learned the fuel continue password.
Important: Perform this step ONLY on vehicles with EXPORT configured BCMs.
14. Turn OFF the ignition and wait 15 seconds minimum.
Important: Perform this step ONLY on vehicles with EXPORT configured BCMs.
15. With a second master PASS-Key III key, start the vehicle. The BCM has now learned the second
master PASS-Key III key transponder information
16. With a scan tool, clear any DTCs.

- When replacing a BCM with an GM SPO replacement part, the module will learn the keys
immediately. The existing powertrain control module (PCM) must learn the new fuel continue
password when you replace the BCM.
- When replacing a PCM with a GM SPO replacement part, the new PCM will learn the incoming
fuel enable password immediately after programming and upon receipt of a password message. A
PCM which had been installed in another vehicle would have learned the fuel enable password of
the other vehicle's BCM. Perform either the 10-Minute Relearn Procedure or the 30-Minute
Relearn Procedure to learn the fuel enable password of the current vehicle's BCM.
- When performing either relearn procedure, all previously learned keys will be erased from the
BCM memory.

...............................................................

30-Minute Relearn Procedure
Use this procedure after replacing the following components:

- The PASS-Key III (PK3) keys
- The BCM
- The PCM

Important: This procedure is not available on vehicles equipped with option code (Z49).
If replacing a BCM with an GM SPO replacement part, perform the procedure to setup a new
BCM prior to the 30-Minute Relearn Procedure.
1. With a master PASS-Key III key, rotate the ignition to the CRANK position.
2. Observe the SECURITY telltale. After approximately 10 minutes, the telltale will turn OFF.
3. Turn OFF the ignition, and wait 5 seconds.
4. Repeat steps 1-3 two more times for a total of 3 cycles or 30 minutes.
Important: The vehicle learns the key transponder information and/or passwords on the ignition
switch transition from OFF to CRANK. You must turn the ignition OFF before attempting to start
the vehicle.
5. With a master PASS-Key III key, start the vehicle. The vehicle has now learned the key
transponder information and the PCM has now learned the fuel continue password.
6. With a scan tool, clear any DTCs.



Sounds like the 10min method requires a "Scan tool" (which I assume is the Tech II) and access to the GM SPS system in order to perform -- which I have thru a 3rd party. Sounds like the 30min procedure doesn't even require a scan tool.

Is this info incorrect?


wftb (danjesso@bmts.com) MSG #211, 12-23-2007 01:08 AM
      when i first did my ecotec swap i did it the simple way :

low tech at its best .later i installed a few relays and hid the cavalier switch under the consule and now the fiero key works everything .i just got HP tuners and for my drivetrain , it does allow me to turn off all the antitheft features of the 2004 cavalier drivetrain .but i dont feel like changing the wiring around so it stays the way it is .great looking build, i have been following from the start .hope it is running soon .


4-mulaGT (vettemanzo6@hotmail.com) MSG #212, 12-23-2007 01:35 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:

This is not practical for a Fiero, but it is a very cool setup.








In my opinion that is a better mouse trap.

http://www.daxcars.co.uk/








Video of the Rush model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBVY-MFgWZo



uh..... dont you want more negative camber in the corners.... to compensate for tire roll......


wftb (danjesso@bmts.com) MSG #213, 12-23-2007 09:33 AM
      i dont see any tire roll with that set up .but it would not fit in a fiero .now back to that LS4 swap .

AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #214, 12-23-2007 11:52 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by wftb:

i dont see any tire roll with that set up .but it would not fit in a fiero .now back to that LS4 swap .


I clicked on the link to Held's and it reminded me of DAX. I had to post it. I will start a new thread for ideas.


Now back to my point.

This is what I have at home today for programing. I have a stack of PCM's in the garage and at work.

Top row Left to right
96 to 99 Northstar PCM and programing harness
VDR Vehicle Data Recorder
93 to 95 Northstar PCM
Bottom row Left to right
00 to 03 Northstar PCM and stand alone programing adapter
PK3 programing adapter. Used to reset 00 to 03 Northstar PCM's
Tech II
LS1 PCM and jumper harness. This correctly fits 96 to 99 Northstars with manual trans. I have 5 wires left and it will run a 4T80E. I use this harness with the 96 to 99 programing harness to program the LS1 PCM.


blkcofy MSG #215, 12-23-2007 06:27 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Russ544:
I'm using the Held system myself, and there is another, cheeper, system (the name escapes me at the moment) available as well. I'm still trying to make my lightly modified, but fully rebuilt, 88 IMSA suspension work as well as the 86 with HD springs, sway bars, poly, and the Held anti bumpsteer kit. my 86 is sbc also, and the extra weight really likes the best suspension you can provide for it.
http://www.heldmotorsports....Fiero-bump-steer.htm
Russ544


Thanks Russ, but seeing that I've already invested in cleaning up my control arms and bought new tie rods, I'm pretty much past considering anything like the Held kit. I will keep searching to see if anyone offers anything that addresses the 'bump' by using OEM Fiero parts. At this point, I'm not at a point where I would consider changing my knuckles, control arms, bushings, and tie rods...as I just replaced them. I should probably just wait to drive the car to see if I really need to do anything at all.

The long post of the system that doesn't work on any car in this forum has me at a lost. It looked cool, but didn't really serve a purpose for the thread, swap, or the potential issue you've raised about bump steer. I'll keep looking, but I think I'm fine at this point.

As far as the bump steer issue. I've done a little homework. The best description I found was on the following link: http://ironduke7.tripod.com/bumpsteer.htm

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 12-23-2007).]

Russ544 MSG #216, 12-23-2007 06:55 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


Thanks Russ, but seeing that I've already invested in cleaning up my control arms and bought new tie rods, I'm pretty much past considering anything like the Held kit. I will keep searching to see if anyone offers anything that addresses the 'bump' by using OEM Fiero parts. At this point, I'm not at a point where I would consider changing my knuckles, control arms, bushings, and tie rods...as I just replaced them. I should probably just wait to drive the car to see if I really need to do anything at all.

The long post of the system that doesn't work on any car in this forum has me at a lost. It looked cool, but didn't really serve a purpose for the thread, swap, or the potential issue you've raised about bump steer. I'll keep looking, but I think I'm fine at this point.


whoooooo. back up the bus there blkcofy. I didn't post that crap about the oddball suspension. I would not do that to your thread, and was just trying to give the thread some new dirrection, after the train wreak, when I mentioned the bumpsteer issue previous to that...... but I see that didn't happen.
hope it all works out for you.

[This message has been edited by Russ544 (edited 12-23-2007).]

Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #217, 12-23-2007 08:45 PM
      This is the other bump steer option:

http://www.rccspecialty.com/fiero.html

I have one and it needs a good bit of work to actually be right...


blkcofy MSG #218, 12-24-2007 04:39 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Russ544:
whoooooo. back up the bus there blkcofy. I didn't post that crap about the oddball suspension. I would not do that to your thread, and was just trying to give the thread some new dirrection, after the train wreak, when I mentioned the bumpsteer issue previous to that...... but I see that didn't happen.
hope it all works out for you.




I'm sorry Russ544. You took my comments wrong. I appreciated your input on bumpsteer alot, as its led me to figure out what other options I have to think about. I can't/won't go the held route, but that's because I'm too far gone in one direction. My reference to the other...what did you call it? Was NOT directed to you. It was just my way of attempting to nicely say "WTF?"! Sorry if you thought that was directed to you...it was not.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #219, 12-24-2007 06:16 PM
      Just a quick bump to wish everyone a MERRY CHRISTMAS!



-ryan

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 12-24-2007).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #220, 01-04-2008 05:16 PM
      Installed the APP (accel pedal position) sensor and gas pedal assy...




The ECM on this engine also wants to see a BVB (brake vacuum booster) pressure sensor. I presume it is primarily used for the flight recorder function present in these newer GM vehicles. The brake booster had to be removed from the car so I could drill the hole for it and make sure the metal shavings didn't fall down inside the booster.




The ECM and TCM receive a stop lamp switch signal directly from the BCM. The BCM activates the stop lamp switch output to turn on the brake lights when a certain signal is seen coming from a sensor mounted on the brake pedal assy. The brake pedal position (BPP) sensor works much the same as a throttle position sensor in that it has a lever actuated by movement of the brake pedal. Mating the BPP sensor to the Fiero brake pedal is easy as long as you can find a location where it won't interfere with the brake linkage or steering column which passes very close to the brake pedal hardware. I found such as location as noted in the pictures below...







Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #221, 01-04-2008 05:33 PM
      The OE exhaust crossover pipe used on this engine is routed very close to the transmission gear shifter shaft and lever; similar to 3800 Series 2 applications. The Pontiac Fiero uses a reverse actuating shifter and cable vs. what is normally found in GM front-drive cars. On the LS4's 4T65-E, the OE shift lever arm faces away from the exhaust crossover pipe. But in the Fiero application, this arrangement will work in reverse due to the inverted shifter workings.

There is not enough room to use a shift lever arm on the opposite side of the shifter shaft (facing the exhaust). The OE Fiero shifter cable is not long enough to loop it around and make it come in behind the shifter shaft so it would work properly with the OE shift arm. So the solution would be to revert the shift cable actuation by building a pivot plate as seen below...



The major components used to build this pivot plate are 5/16" thick aluminum plate, pivot material (I used 3/16" steel), and some items from a local hardware store (as shown below):



What's pictured above are 2x 1/4" turnbuckles (only used one end out of each turnbuckle; has 1/4-20 thread), 2x 1/2" ID x 3/8" L spacers, 1x 3/8" ID x 1" L brass bushing sleeve, 1x 1/4-20 coupler, 4x 1/4-20 bolts (only needed 2 for my application), 1x 3/8-16 x 2" stainless bolt, and 2x 1/4-20 "end lugs". The end lugs are probably going to be the hardest part to find but my ACE Hardware had them. Basically what they are is a threaded sleeve with a shoulder on one end. It is very important that you get something like this that fits nicely in the end of your turnbuckle eyelets as shown below:



You don't want the lug end fitting tight into the eyelet because it needs to be able to turn in there; but you don't want a lot of slop either. These eyelets aren't welded so I was able to bend them to fit my needs. Make sure you lube up these connections on final assembly to reduce wear. What isn't pictured above is some of the other hardware I had to use assembling this pivot bracket; of which were some 6mm and 8mm bolts used for mounting, some washers used for spacing the pivot arm and eyelet connections, a locking nut used to tighten down the 3/8 stainless bolt used as the pivot shaft, and the shift cable bracket I used for this application.

The shift cable bracket I used for this application came from the donor GXP. It's cable opening is too small for the Fiero shifter cable I'm using in this swap which means I had to open up the existing hole to 1" diameter and cut a slot in the top so it matches up to the cable correctly.

Stock:



Modified:



When placing the cable bracket and pivot bolt on the baseplate, the key is to keep your geometry of the shifter arm's arc of motion correct so the full range of gear selections can be made. I used the trial and error method of placement using cardboard mock-ups until I found something that worked. Once finished and installed, it looks like this:



The above design I came up with allows for all ranges of gear selections (P-R-N-D-M) to be accessed using the stock Fiero shifter. I also installed a limiting plate on the Fiero shifter (not shown) to prevent the driver from selecting any gear below the "M" range; which can be done without such a limiter. There are no other lower gear ranges that exist in this TAPShift transmission even though the shifter can be moved there (the transmission will just will remain in "M" range). So the limiter was installed to prevent shifter movement into those other gear selections.


pavo_roddy MSG #222, 01-04-2008 09:58 PM
      HI all

Sorry to go off topic, but Darth, can you check your pms, please?.....



bonzo (llaaragon@cs.com) MSG #223, 01-04-2008 10:34 PM
      Darth,

This is inovation in the Xtreeme. + for you for a well documented Mod


RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #224, 01-06-2008 04:00 PM
      I see you have axles installed. Would you mind sharing the combination that you used with us? I have the original gxp axles and a bunch of fiero axles but, i'm not sure if any of those combo,s will work. By the way,, Great thread! Good info. Keep up the great work. Excellent quality!

blkcofy MSG #225, 01-07-2008 08:14 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

From all the pictures, you can also see the 4TE65hd transmission safely tucked away inside. Which means it's in there for good!! I haven't seen any final pictures of the engine installed in the bay, but I'm sure that's coming once Ryan makes his way from the underside of the car and back into all the HARD stuff.

Oh, I also had to make a tire/wheel purchase this week. Based on the size of the rotors and using the brake calipers from an 88' Fiero, there's no way my OEM 15s were going to fit. Ryan tried, but he would have had to drastically alter the rims. I'll have these up for sale somewhere, as I can't use them at all with the new 'vette rotors.

I ended up going with a 17/18 staggered wheel setup using the Motegi SP7 wheels and I read up on the pros of the new Nexen N3000 tires, and went with those as well.

BLKCOFY



While Ryan continues to display both his high attention to detail and ridiculous skill level with this swap, I will continue to share the 'easy stuff' that I've asked/persuaded him to do as part of the build...


As you can see above, the 2005 LS4 engine has finally found it's permanent home in the newly tagged Fiero GXP. Ryan still needs to complete the complicated wiring and tuning work and install a custom air induction system before he attempts it's first start, but has managed to keep my anxious nature at bay by squeezing in time to complete Rockcrawl's (Fiero Addiction) 12" Corvette Brake Kit and steel braided brake lines from The Fiero Store and my rim & tire setup...


I ended up going with the staggered 17x8/18x9 setup, using 225/17s up front and 265/18s in back, both using 40mm offset rims. Ryan reports that the back tires have plenty of clearance with my coilover springs and struts...which is making me wonder if I should have gone with 275s instead! The following two pictures show the wheels on the car, but still up on jacks as Ryan still has the exhaust system to complete, where he is doing a custom setup using C5 Corvette exhaust tips. With the lowering springs installed, my expectation is that there will little to no tire/fender gap once the car is lowered.



I was a bit worried about my rim choice at first, but seeing them on the car behind those huge rotors, I'm actually quite pleased...quite pleased indeed!



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #226, 01-07-2008 08:27 PM
     

Looks great! Glad those brakes worked out for you. Should be finishing up mine in a few weeks also. Love the rim choice.


blkcofy MSG #227, 01-08-2008 10:41 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fieroseverywhere:



Looks great! Glad those brakes worked out for you. Should be finishing up mine in a few weeks also. Love the rim choice.


Yep, your advice on the 12" Corvette kit was perfect! I can't imagine how small the OEMs would look with these wheels. I just hope they perform as well as they look!


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #228, 01-09-2008 03:31 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


Yep, your advice on the 12" Corvette kit was perfect! I can't imagine how small the OEMs would look with these wheels. I just hope they perform as well as they look!


If they perform half as good as they look you will be very happy I'm sure. Glad I could help point you in another direction. Even while building my own car I'm very jealous of yours.

I way I figure it even if nothing else they will eliminate any brake fade. That and the the better 88 calipers make it all worth while IMO. What kind of pads are you going to use?

EDIT: I just realized what size and offset wheels you have. That helped me a bunch in making my decisioin. I had been trying to figure out if a 17x8 would fit on the front without a problem. Guess it does.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 01-09-2008).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #229, 01-09-2008 11:51 PM
      Finished up the cooling system hookup yesterday. Had to use two molded heater hoses, AutoZone p/n's L-4103 and L-4447. These hoses came longer than needed but had the bends molded into them that I needed; so I just cut them to fit. The main coolant feed and return were a little more complicated.

Basically what you will need to do is use the stock Fiero 2.8 coolant crossover pipe that connects the engine to the left side coolant tube. What you will need to do is cut off the 90 deg bend about 2 inches from where the mounting bracket is welded to it so you have just the 90 deg bend and nothing else. Make sure the end you cut is cleaned of sharp edges because a hose will need to be connected to it. Then you will need a GATES brand radiator hose p/n 21758 and cut off the 90 deg section that has the flared end; this flared end will connect to the t-stat housing (inlet) and the other end will connect to the 90 deg portion of the crossover pipe you just cut off. Then all you will need is another 90 deg section of radiator hose to connect the 90 deg section of pipe to the right side coolant tube coming from the radiator as shown in the pictures below...





That takes care of the right side coolant tube hookup to the LS4's coolant inlet (t-stat housing). Now what's left is connecting the coolant outlet to the left side coolant tube in the Fiero. What you will need to do is use the remaining section of Fiero crossover coolant pipe you cut the 90deg bend off of and cut about another 3" or so of tubing off the end you cut on previously. The goal is to remove the section with the welded on bracket so you have a clean surface to clamp a hose onto. I found the perfect radiator hose for this application, it's for a 97 Chevy Pickup C1500 4.3L V6; AutoZone p/n: XL-183. Once you get this hose you are going to cut off about 3" from each end. Then you are going to cut it into two pieces a couple of inches from the 45deg bend at the one end of the hose. If you are doing this swap for yourself you might want to mock the pieces up on the engine in the car before you cut the hose to make sure your fitment is right. Once done, you should have something that looks like this:





I feel it is necessary to support the metal section of the coolant crossover tube to the cradle or other surface to help keep it from swinging around while the car is driven. I used the remaining bracket on the coolant tube and fashioned a strip of stainless steel that allowed me to bolt the coolant tube to the trans mount bracket; which you can kind of see in one of the above pics. The left over piece you cut off of the XL-183 hose can be used to connect the coolant crossover tube to the left side coolant tube going up to the radiator.


Finished the air induction system and air filter mounting...





Used K&N filter p/n: RU3130 and part of some GM air induction tube p/n: 25176891 as well as the original MAF sensor from the LS4 and the air induction piece that connected it to the throttle body.


blkcofy MSG #230, 01-10-2008 01:48 AM
     


FieroFanatic13 (gcrasmu@yahoo.com) MSG #231, 01-10-2008 01:38 PM
      Awesome build! Once it's running PLEASE let us know how the brakes are! I am considering this kit as well but there is little if any info out here on it!

-Gary


blkcofy MSG #232, 01-10-2008 08:26 PM
      Fierofanatic13.... go check out www.fieroaddiction.com where Rockcrawl provides alot of detailed information about the brake kit. You should also be able to find info on his ebay store.

blkcofy


blkcofy MSG #233, 01-17-2008 12:11 AM
     

IT STARTED, IT STARTED...THE ENGINE STARTED!!!! It's only a matter of time now before Ryan puts it on the road!!



stickpony MSG #234, 01-17-2008 01:09 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:
IT STARTED, IT STARTED...THE ENGINE STARTED!!!! It's only a matter of time now before Ryan puts it on the road!!


did it run smooth or were there issues?


blkcofy MSG #235, 01-17-2008 01:40 AM
      No issues! Great oil pressure and no noises/ticks/knocks, etc. Ryan just hasn't gotten the BCM wired up yet but the engine does start and run, but shuts off after 5 sec because of the missing security system. He's supposed to be getting to the dealership sometime this week to get the correct factory programming put onto the ECM so he can then make changes using the HP Tuners software.

I just wanted to celebrate the good news that the engine runs and from Ryan's reports...sounds awesome!


Edaw 0 MSG #236, 01-17-2008 10:47 AM
      Congrats!

darkhorizon MSG #237, 01-17-2008 12:19 PM
      I shall say this is the ultimate moment of faith here getting the security system worked around.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #238, 01-18-2008 05:11 PM
      As Maurice said earlier, I started the engine up the other day -- without reprogramming the ECM. While the engine ran but shut off after 2 sec because of the missing security system/BCM, this confirmed one important thing I was wondering about... The starter crank signal comes from the key and goes only to the BCM. The BCM sends the crank signal out to the ECM via the Class 2 Serial Data link. The ECM activates a starter relay directly to enable engine cranking. There is no direct connection between the ignition switch and the starter on the Grand Prix GXP. I didn't know whether or not the engine would run if it was cranked without BCM intervention. Well now we know.

Another thing I wasn't sure about was the charging system. The alternator is controlled directly by the ECM. But there is a battery current sensor (inductive pickup sensor that goes around the negative battery cable) that connects directly to the BCM. When I started the engine, before it shut off due to the theft system the charging system wasn't working. So the question came up: Will the charging system work without the BCM being present?

Today I was able to go to the dealership to get the correct factory programming flashed onto this replacement ECM. Once I got back to the shop, I used the HP Tuners software to disable the VATS functions within the ECM. Then it was time to confirm another unknown that was debated in this thread....

IT RUNS!!! No theft shutoff or other issues! The HP Tuners software WORKS AS ADVERTISED for this application (in being able to disable the VATS). The BCM isn't even installed in the car yet. Also, the charging system came to life after the engine ran for about 4 seconds and maintained a 14.4 volt charge while the engine ran. The car is not drivable yet due to a missing wheel and tire (supplier/vendor) which I hope shows up early next week. I am going to see if I can get an audio recording posted to the internet of the exhaust note later.

Now, moving on there is still a lot left to do on the interior. The tach doesn't work but there are some different settings for the tach output in this ECM that I am going to try before I try some things electronically at the tach. I also want to get the paddleshifters installed and hooked up to the TCM so I can see if those work as intended. Then there's still much more BCM wiring. But at least it runs.

In the meantime, I got some items from Ed Morad...



Pictured above is a PK3 module taken off an ignition cylinder, a PK3 master key, and a remote entry/start fob which is supposed to be compatible with the BCM I am installing in this application. As you can see, the PK3 module is quite small in size which means it could be mounted virtually anywhere in a Fiero. As I said earlier I am going to research the option of installing this module in a swap should someone wish to have this security feature.

Here is a picture of the finished exhaust system before I installed it into the car...



I will try to get some more pictures posted soon.

-ryan



darkhorizon MSG #239, 01-18-2008 07:19 PM
      video > pictures

MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #240, 01-18-2008 07:28 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Today I was able to go to the dealership to get the correct factory programming flashed onto this replacement ECM. Once I got back to the shop, I used the HP Tuners software to disable the VATS functions within the ECM. Then it was time to confirm another unknown that was debated in this thread....

IT RUNS!!! No theft shutoff or other issues! The HP Tuners software WORKS AS ADVERTISED for this application (in being able to disable the VATS). The BCM isn't even installed in the car yet.


This is what I have been waiting to hear and it is what I was wanting to hear. This makes the swap even better for those not using all the extra parts and the wiring alot less of a hazzle.



stickpony MSG #241, 01-18-2008 07:33 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Now, moving on there is still a lot left to do on the interior. The tach doesn't work but there are some different settings for the tach output in this ECM that I am going to try before I try some things electronically at the tach. I also want to get the paddleshifters installed and hooked up to the TCM so I can see if those work as intended. Then there's still much more BCM wiring. But at least it runs.


so wait a second.. if the BCM is not needed to run the car, then why are you still installing it? I must ve missed something


MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #242, 01-18-2008 07:46 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


so wait a second.. if the BCM is not needed to run the car, then why are you still installing it? I must ve missed something


He is installing alot of the GXP options in the car also(keyless entry, DIC, ect.)


stickpony MSG #243, 01-18-2008 08:52 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MstangsBware:


He is installing alot of the GXP options in the car also(keyless entry, DIC, ect.)


i see...why not go aftermarket though, they usually work better anyways...


blkcofy MSG #244, 01-18-2008 09:52 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


i see...why not go aftermarket though, they usually work better anyways...



Ohhh, that's an idea. In fact, why not just buy a Solstice GXP, they usually work better too!

I'M JUST KIDDING!! Really, I am. Please no flames!! Just a joke!

Seriously, though...I really wanted to see how many OEM options from the Grand Prix GXP Ryan could
install into my Fiero. So, while it's all swapped in parts to bring a bit of whamo into a 20 year old unofficial American Icon,
one could still argue it will still be a 100% GM car. A V-8 mid engine monster with +340 hp and +30 mpg!! That's gotta
set a record in somebody's books!! Ryan is going to provide a new option to bring the Fiero into modern times and I applaud his effort!!

Blkcofy


RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #245, 01-18-2008 09:54 PM
      So does this mean that the engine can be started and run off of the fiero ignition without the aid of the bcm? (with the help of hp tuners of coarse) This is a major hurdle. As i didn't get a bcm with my drive train and they are a little hard to get separately this is really good news. Congrads!

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #246, 01-18-2008 10:46 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:

So does this mean that the engine can be started and run off of the fiero ignition without the aid of the bcm?


Yes.


Now, as promised; here is the sound file of the engine starting and running with a few short revs thrown in...

http://home.att.net/~darthfiero/LS4_running1.wav


AkursedX (akursedx@aol.com) MSG #247, 01-18-2008 11:02 PM
      Ohh man! That sounds awesome! This swap is the best of both worlds. The trans and gas mileage that 3800's get and the sound and recognition the V8 gets.

I hope get this dynoed Blkcofy!



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #248, 01-18-2008 11:38 PM
     

Bravo! Well done! Sounds freaking great! That is going to be one nice car when it is complete. My hats off to both of you.
Blkcofy : You must just be thrilled with that sound.

:sigh: My V8 fiero is still a little ways off.


blkcofy MSG #249, 01-19-2008 12:51 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Yes.


Now, as promised; here is the sound file of the engine starting and running with a few short revs thrown in...

http://home.att.net/~darthfiero/LS4_running1.wav


My new ringtone!!



stickpony MSG #250, 01-19-2008 01:20 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:
Ohhh, that's an idea. In fact, why not just buy a Solstice GXP, they usually work better too!

I'M JUST KIDDING!! Really, I am. Please no flames!! Just a joke!

Seriously, though...I really wanted to see how many OEM options from the Grand Prix GXP Ryan could
install into my Fiero. So, while it's all swapped in parts to bring a bit of whamo into a 20 year old unofficial American Icon,
one could still argue it will still be a 100% GM car. A V-8 mid engine monster with +340 hp and +30 mpg!! That's gotta
set a record in somebody's books!! Ryan is going to provide a new option to bring the Fiero into modern times and I applaud his effort!!

Blkcofy


hahaha, no worries man, im not a hater, i was just curious as to the reasoning, and it definately makes sense to me, so go for it. We are all very pleased just to be reading this thread, it is a pleasure to see the work being done.

Question: The stock rating is 303 HP.. where are you getting the extra 37 horses from? you think you will get that much of a gain just from dyno tuning? inquiring minds want to know


blkcofy MSG #251, 01-19-2008 02:12 AM
     
 
quote


Question: The stock rating is 303 HP.. where are you getting the extra 37 horses from? you think you will get that much of a gain just from dyno tuning? inquiring minds want to know



Ryan did a complete porting process, including the heads, a multi-angle seat and valve grind/cut job, as well as the manifold exhaust inlets. This plus the dyno tuning should get me pretty close to 340hp based on Ryan's early estimates. Only the dyno will tell though.

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 01-19-2008).]

Shad0wguy MSG #252, 01-19-2008 10:42 AM
      I am so jealous!

stickpony MSG #253, 01-20-2008 05:51 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:
Ryan did a complete porting process, including the heads, a multi-angle seat and valve grind/cut job, as well as the manifold exhaust inlets. This plus the dyno tuning should get me pretty close to 340hp based on Ryan's early estimates. Only the dyno will tell though.



very coool. how much material was a removed? was there alot to work with or did they come fairly well optimized from the factory?



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #254, 01-21-2008 03:16 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by stickpony:


very coool. how much material was a removed? was there alot to work with or did they come fairly well optimized from the factory?


As-cast (from the factory) most of the port area in both the intake and exhaust isn't bad. But they did need quite a bit of help around the area where the valve guides protrude down into the ports. I removed quite a bit of material from these areas and reshaped the casting around the guides to promote the best flow possible with this type of porting job.


AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #255, 01-22-2008 07:53 PM
      I had a customer come in today with an 06 GXP 5.3L. I test drove it around. It was fun, but the traction control kicked in all the time. We had about 11" of snow last night. Anyway you will be happy with it. I like the way the starter is attached. How did they disable the torque management? As soon as the PCM does not see the ABS messages it goes into a torque management mode. Not second gear starts. It just runs a different profile. I will look for a graph.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #256, 01-22-2008 09:03 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by AJxtcman:

I had a customer come in today with an 06 GXP 5.3L. I test drove it around. It was fun, but the traction control kicked in all the time. We had about 11" of snow last night. Anyway you will be happy with it. I like the way the starter is attached. How did they disable the torque management? As soon as the PCM does not see the ABS messages it goes into a torque management mode. Not second gear starts. It just runs a different profile. I will look for a graph.


I assume you are talking about the desired and requested torque circuits coming from the ECM that are supposed to go to the ABS computer, correct?

For now all I did was turn off the des and req torque I/O circuit trouble codes in the programming. I don't want to mess with adjusting the torque management tables until I can drive the car and see how it feels. What I will probably end up doing is reducing the amount of torque management that gets implemented by the computer but will still leave some in there so it functions to be easier on the trans. Again, I will have to get some seat time in this thing to see how it feels and find a nice balance of performance and durability.

I did shut off the traction control functions in the programming since that can't work without ABS data.



AJxtcman (ajjodie@comporium.net) MSG #257, 01-23-2008 06:46 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


I assume you are talking about the desired and requested torque circuits coming from the ECM that are supposed to go to the ABS computer, correct?

For now all I did was turn off the des and req torque I/O circuit trouble codes in the programming. I don't want to mess with adjusting the torque management tables until I can drive the car and see how it feels. What I will probably end up doing is reducing the amount of torque management that gets implemented by the computer but will still leave some in there so it functions to be easier on the trans. Again, I will have to get some seat time in this thing to see how it feels and find a nice balance of performance and durability.

I did shut off the traction control functions in the programming since that can't work without ABS data.



After I posted this I was on the phone for hours talking to people all night. I had an email to call Wester's. I talked to Lyndon for awhile and discussed this and as soon as I hung up the phone rang again had three customers for the Northstar with the LS1 call me one after the next. I will look for the graph and try to explain it better when I get the graph.


blkcofy MSG #258, 01-29-2008 07:46 PM
      Build update:

Ryan's got the car on all four tires and has taken it's maiden test drive! The weather's been pretty crappy, so he's not been able to open him up yet...but he reports that the power is evident, especially mid-range and top end. And he's happy to report the paddle shifter is working perfectly and is a match made in heaven to the performance upgrade we had done to the 4T65-E transmission. Most of the DIC functionality is working, especially the gear indicators that is linked to the paddle shift when in TAPShift mode. I think he's got some playing to do with the remote start and deleting some of the error codes like ABS and Steer Assist, but most of the DIC is reading correctly. Oh, there's an issue with getting the speedometer to read correctly, but he's got a solution for this as well. I'm telling you guys, Ryan is fricken amazing. I've never been more excited!!

He's scheduled to get everything professionally aligned this week and once the weather breaks, he'll be able to put the car through his pacing to determine how to fine tune everything. I'm sure he'll provide more visuals and better explain than I can on what's been done thus far!

In the meantime, I wanted to share a photo of the finished engine bay (with dual deck lid strut kit from Rodney Dickman) and a sticker I found on ebay that I'm going to try to alter (change to Fiero GXP and increase the horsepower!!) and have it planted somewhere either under the hood, behind the visor, or dare I in the window!! I'm still gased about what my 0-60 time will be with more HP and less weight than a Monte Carlo SS! Any educated guesses??



Blkcofy



Mr.PBody (paniccia008@aol.com) MSG #259, 01-29-2008 07:53 PM
      Well blkofy coming time for our 2.8L V6 vs. LS4 race..... actually this spring it would be fun to get together and shoot some video of stock vs modded to see how much better the LS4 really is.

blkcofy MSG #260, 01-29-2008 07:58 PM
      Oh, and yes I am going to address that black engine cover! I found some LS4 Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix GXP owners who have painted their covers. I haven't decided the color as I'm debating a few options, here's what they've done...





TiredGXP MSG #261, 01-29-2008 10:25 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


In the meantime, I wanted to share a photo of the finished engine bay (with dual deck lid strut kit from Rodney Dickman) and a sticker I found on ebay that I'm going to try to alter (change to Fiero GXP and increase the horsepower!!) and have it planted somewhere either under the hood, behind the visor, or dare I in the window!! I'm still gased about what my 0-60 time will be with more HP and less weight than a Monte Carlo SS! Any educated guesses??


Blkcofy



Newbie post here

Cool build.

I'm looking for a project car so I can attempt the same swap.

WAG on your 0-60 is 4.8 seconds.

Best 0-60 so far in my GP GXP was a traction limited 5.4 (have to ease into the throttle for the first couple of seconds) on a 3,700 pound car. Since you are probably close to 1000 pounds lighter, and may have better weight transfer and traction than the FWD's, sub 5 seconds should be there.

cheers!


Mr.PBody (paniccia008@aol.com) MSG #262, 01-29-2008 11:42 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

Oh, and yes I am going to address that black engine cover! I found some LS4 Monte Carlo SS and Grand Prix GXP owners who have painted their covers. I haven't decided the color as I'm debating a few options, here's what they've done...



Color match it to the car, and then to the middle in the interior color unless the car itself is two tone then do it in those colors.


Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #263, 01-30-2008 12:26 AM
      My vote (not that there is such a thing. ) would be for fiero red, silver center and black writing.

I have to say that engine bay looks great with that motor in it. Looks like a perfect fit. The suspense has got to be killing you.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 01-30-2008).]

stickpony MSG #264, 01-30-2008 12:32 AM
      Darth, you have a PM



RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #265, 01-31-2008 12:57 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:

I see you have axles installed. Would you mind sharing the combination that you used with us? I have the original gxp axles and a bunch of fiero axles but, i'm not sure if any of those combo,s will work. By the way,, Great thread! Good info. Keep up the great work. Excellent quality!


Would still like to have info on the axle set-up. If you don't mind. Also, interested how the fuel pump control is working (without the tank pressure sensor ) and the alternator control without the load shed issues from the bcm. I'm hoping that i won't HAVE to run a bcm. Any help would be appreciated .
Thanks in advance.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #266, 01-31-2008 01:37 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:


Would still like to have info on the axle set-up. If you don't mind. Also, interested how the fuel pump control is working (without the tank pressure sensor ) and the alternator control without the load shed issues from the bcm. I'm hoping that i won't HAVE to run a bcm. Any help would be appreciated .
Thanks in advance.


The fuel tank pressure sensor is only used for the EVAP emissions system and has no bearing on the fuel pump operation. The fuel pump operates on this powertrain just like stock Fiero; nothing fancy.

As mentioned before, the charging system works fine without the BCM even being hooked up to the car. I suppose the ECM just reverts to the old school method of charging system voltage in the absence of the BCM and battery current sensor.

As far as the axles are concerned, I used most of the guts from a 94 Beretta 3100 4T60-E driver's side axle for the driver's side in this swap. The passenger side used the inner axle shaft from the driver's side of the GXP, the inner tripod from the pass side of the GXP, and an outer tripod shell from a manual trans equipped Fiero (used GXP tripod guts). More information on axles can be found here: http://dtcc.cz28.com/swap/axles.htm

I must make it VERY CLEAR that my solution for axles may or may not work for you. The length of axles you need to run will depend on where your engine/transmission is positioned on the cradle in relation to left-right.


As blkcofy mentioned earlier, there are some issues with the speedo signal. The GXP ECM sends out a vehicle speed signal to the instrument cluster over the data line in the GXP, so there is no dedicated VSS output signal. I thought there was one when I found there was a VSS output wire to the radio but all attempts to get the Fiero speedo to read this signal failed. Turns out the TCM sends a vehicle speed signal on a dedicated wire to the ECM. I was able to get the Fiero speedo to pick up this signal but it was reading about 6.5x faster than actual. So I have ordered a signal converter box from dakota digital which is supposed to step this signal down to something I can use. I will advise on what I find there.

There is an issue with the tach. Again, the ECM communicates the tach signal to the instrument cluster over the data line; but there is a tach signal output that goes to the ABS computer. When I originally tried to hook the Fiero's tach up to this wire, it didn't work. So I did some checking and it turns out I was able to make the Fiero tach work with this signal by running a 22k ohm resistor into this circuit with the other side of the resistor running to ignition 12v + power. The tach is reading slow (like it's hooked up to a 4cyl engine) and I have attempted to correct this in the ECM programming, but that didn't work. So I will probably just change out the calibration capacitor on the tach's circuit board to make it read correctly.

I would like to go into more detail about recent driving experiences I've had with this car but I have to get up early tomorrow to meet an alignment appointment.

-ryan



RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #267, 01-31-2008 05:20 PM
      ryan, Thanks for the reply. fantastic info, that was a huge help. Anxious to here how this thing performs. I'm thinking this should be one really quick little Fiero! (and a great DD)

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #268, 01-31-2008 08:38 PM
      The car got an alignment today and now it is sitting safely inside the A/C shop where they will make up some custom lines to connect the LS4's A/C compressor to the Fiero.

Now about the BCM and DIC. The main reason why the BCM was installed into this car was because the customer wanted the factory GXP remote keyless entry, remote start, and alarm functions as well as the DIC to work. The DIC will not work without the BCM.

As mentioned earlier, pretty much the ENTIRE electrical system of the GXP runs thru the BCM. Everything from interior and exterior lights to windshield wipers. The BCM also is responsible for telling the ECM, TCM, and other devices in the car when the ignition key is in off, assy, on, or crank positions. On the GXP and other modern GM cars with BCMs there are only a few small wires that actually connect to the ignition switch. The bulk of current switching is done by the BCM. The BCM also monitors several inputs and outputs to determine when to turn on lights, activate output functions, display warning/error messages on the DIC, etc.

Before I hooked up the BCM, it was unclear just how many circuits that go to it could be omitted before it would suspend functioning of the keyless entry/start and alarm options. Basically I found out a lot of stuff didn't need to be hooked up for those functions to work; and below is a basic list of the inputs/outputs that I ended up using...


INPUTS:

Battery Power
Ground
Fiero Ignition switch output: assy, on, crank
Ignition key "in cylinder" monitor
Door, hood, and trunk ajar switches
Brake Pedal Position Sensor
Battery Current Sensor
Remote Keyless Receiver Module
DIC and Compass Module
PassKey 3 (PK3) exciter/receiver module
Dimmer potentiometer for DIC dimming control (OE Fiero dimmer is incompatible)


OUTPUTS:

Dome, interior, and trunk lights power supply
RAP (retained assy power) relay - (used to keep power flowing to the radio when the key is turned off, will shut down when door is opened or preset time limit expires)
Main Ignition Power supply relay (powers up ECM, TCM, TwistMachine TAPshift receiver module)
Vehicle Content Theft Deterrent (alarm) indicator LED
Parking lamps relay
Backup lights
Door lock/unlock relays
Horn
Trunk release solenoid

I think that pretty much covers it. I used my GM TECH 2 scanner to program the key fob remote to the BCM and everything functions great. In the GXP, the keyless remote receiver module was wired up to an antenna grid on the back window of the car. Since the Fiero had no such grid, I had to come up with something else. As it turns out, this car had one of those old school cell phone antennas mounted to the back window that we ended up using as the antenna for the remote keyless system and the range seems to be pretty good.

Now about the PK3 system... The PK3 system had to be wired up to prevent a theft system warning message from being constantly displayed on the DIC (there was no way to get this warning message off the DIC by hitting buttons). I consulted the customer about how he wanted this system installed and it was decided that a slot be cut in the center console ALDL and cig lighter cover plate so the PK3 key could be inserted to bypass the system (the PK3 exciter/receiver module is mounted under the center console just behind the cover plate). This key doesn't have to be turned or anything fancy in order for the PK3 system to read it; in fact, it doesn't even have to be in the slot I cut for it. Just has to lay near the exciter/receiver module in order for the system to "see" it. The key can be removed from the slot or the area of the module to render the car inoperable for theft deterrent purposes.

Concerning the DIC, it does display some warning messages for the ABS and Stability control systems when the key is turned on. There is no way I can get around this unless I install the ABS computer and satisfy it's inputs so it won't set any trouble codes (which would end up triggering these same warning messages on the DIC anyway). But the good news is these warning messages can be cycled thru by hitting a button a couple of times on the DIC and they go away for the continuation of vehicle operation. The DIC displays transmission temp, oil life, mileage, trip odometer, compass info, transmission gear position (or current gear if in TAPShift mode) as well as a host of warning messages for such things is hot engine temp, engine oil pressure low, engine oil level low, etc. Unfortunately one of the functions I was not able to make work is the G-force readouts. The sensor for these functions is part of the stability control system which connects directly to the ABS computer; and there's no way to hook it up to the BCM without having the ABS computer hooked up as well. The other thing I can't make work right is the fuel economy computer readout on the DIC. The ECM monitors fuel level in the tank directly, and then sends out a fuel level signal to the BCM, DIC, and GXP instrument cluster over the data line. The type of sender (and it's resistance values) used in the GXP is different than what the OE Fiero sending unit uses; and my attempts to merge the two systems using resistors didn't work without altering the fuel gauge reading on the Fiero's instrument cluster significantly. I suppose the GXP fuel level sensor could be installed in the Fiero tank alongside the OE sender (if there's enough room), but even if it was, the ECM is programmed for a bigger capacity fuel tank than what the Fiero has so it's doubtful the fuel econ computer would give accurate data to the driver anyway. Furthermore, I'm sure vehicle weight is a factor in making fuel economy calculations and I don't know where the values for these are stored and if they can be changed (might be stored in the BCM or DIC, neither of which can be custom programmed at this time).

One of the neat features alotted for by having the BCM wired up is the interior/trunk lights is even if you accidently leave any of these on, the BCM will shut them down after a preset time limit. So no worries about leaving the doors or trunk lid open at car shows because the BCM will make sure the battery doesn't go dead.

Now if you had fun reading all of this, imagine how much fun it was to wire it up!

-ryan


LS1swap (aswanson60098@sbcglobal.net) MSG #269, 01-31-2008 10:57 PM
      looks sharp.... great build and write up



blkcofy MSG #270, 02-05-2008 12:21 AM
      Welp...Ryan got the car back from the Alignment Shop and the A/C shop! The weather is still pretty crappy, but I refuse to believe Ryan didn't have a little fun with the car on the drive back!! You can see how the 17/18 staggered wheel setup looks. I think Ryan is going to lower the back coil overs a smidgen to reduce that gap a bit. Really glad I went with the 12" Corvette rotors. Ryan reports that their working really well, noticeably better than the Grand AM rear upgrade from The Fiero Store. And I think I'm happy with the rim choice.



He's still got a few gremlins he has to work through on some of the electronics...I sent him a new MOMO steering wheel that better matches with the TAPShift's paddles.


And, wouldn't cha know...Ryan found a leak in my heater core, which answers why the windshield was fogging up so quickly, so he's replacing that with a part I got from The Fiero Store. Oh, I found a perfect paint example for the engine cover! I think one of you might have suggested this combo, actually... According the the owner, he painted the whole cover in 4 to 5 coats of clear, and then taped off the center and painted the sides in red. Looks hot.


So...I patiently wait for Ryan to do the appropriate tuning and tweaks, and will have him find a place to put it on a dyno to see the fruits of all his mastery and labor. Hell, I get excited about 303hp stock, so anything closer to my estimated 340hp is gravy! Nooooo, I lie...I want 350hp sooooo bad!! It just sounds bad ass! We'll see, we'll see!

Blkcofy



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #271, 02-05-2008 03:48 PM
      Everything looks great! Love the choice on the engine cover. Thats gonna look hot!


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #272, 02-08-2008 02:08 AM
      Ok, it's been a while but there's a lot to talk about. First off the reason for the long delay in updates to this thread was because of a couple of things: bad weather, time the car spent at the alignment and a/c shops, other repairs the car needed (heater core), waiting on parts to come in, etc. But I'm pretty much to the point of being done with this car other than putting it thru its road trials, which is difficult to do around here with the bad weather we've been having. But lets cover a few things to get this thread up-to-date...


SPEEDO:

As mentioned before, I was not able to use the VSS output to radio the ECM has because it wasn't a signal I could get the Fiero speedo to recognize. I was able to get the Fiero speedo to recognize the VSS signal coming out of the TCM going into the ECM, but it was reading about 6.5x too fast. I contacted Dakota Digital and ordered their SGI-5 speedo signal interface module. This unit is fully programmable on-the-fly and ended up working great for this application. I did have to run the Fiero speedo off the SGI-5's "2000ppm oc" output (usually used for older ECMs and cruise controls) in order for it to work tho. Also had to run the output signal from the SGI-5 thru the Fiero speedo conversion circuit I have shown on my website here: http://dtcc.cz28.com/fiero/fmods.htm


TACH:

As mentioned earlier, the ECM has a tach output. At first, I was unable to get the Fiero's tach to recognize this signal; but then I realized it is used to seeing a signal that has a 12v bias (because it is coming off the ignition coil and gets pulled to ground when the ign module commands the coil to fire). Appearantly, the ECM only puts out a ground pulse with no compatible positive power bias, and the Fiero's tach couldn't recognize this. All I had to do to get it to work was run a wire from an IGN 12v + source thru a 22k ohm resistor, then tied that into the existing tach wire. With this done the tach was registering engine RPM, but appeared to be 1/3 too slow reading vs. actual engine RPM. Back in the day I had the reverse problem when I wanted to get a 4cyl tach to work with a V6. All I had to do to resolve that issue was to replace the calibration capacitor with one that had a lower uF rating than stock (stock = 0.009uF and I replaced it with 0.006uF to correct the reading). Turns out this stock V6 tach had the same 0.009uF capacitor in the same location on the curcuit board as that 4cyl unit had. I had a tough time finding the correct capacitor I needed so I ran two in a parallel curcuit to get the 0.0114uF rating I needed and it seems to be dead on with the scan tool says the actual engine RPM is doing. A picture showing the location of the capacitor in question can be seen here: http://dtcc.cz28.com/fiero/tach.jpg


DIC MOUNTING:

I took the liberty of fab'ing up a mounting bracket so I could put the DIC up on the dash (using existing OE dash trim mounting screws) temporarily. BLKCOFY informs me that he plans on doing a custom dash sometime in the future, but until then I still want him to be able to use (and see) the DIC. Below is a picture of where I put the DIC and you can also see the new MOMO steering wheel and paddle shifter setup...




DRIVING IMPRESSIONS (so far):

I still have some tuning to do. For one thing the DoD seems to want to kick in at speeds as slow as 25mph and during light-moderate accelleration which is kind of annoying. There is a constant in HP Tuners that is supposed to allow me to set the MPH qualifier for DoD to kick in but I've tried many different settings here and nothing has had an effect so for. So I am going to contact HP Tuners and see what can be done. I did find min/max RPM qualifiers for DoD operation and those do work, so I can at least somewhat work around this for now in case HP Tuners can't resolve the issue.

Transmission shift points and firmness still need some tweaking but it's getting close. As with many aspects of tuning, things like this can only be ironed out on the road and require some driving time to get right. A dyno is pretty much useless for this aspect of the tuning.

Idle, part throttle cruising, and light-moderate accelleration fuel and spark seem to be very close to where they need to be. Haven't been able to do many WOT blasts around here with the slick conditions. But those I have been able to do showed the engine is right at home in a (roughly) 700lb less body than it is used to. This engine has more than enough power to spin the tires upon request at low speeds or from a dead stop and it has pretty long legs for the big end. I don't think blkcofy is going to be disappointed. The exhaust note this engine makes at full song is possibily the best I've heard coming from an exhaust system running only cats and resonated tips (thanks to the LSx's revised firing order vs. conventional SBC); despite the fact it is a tad on the loud side. The interior drone on the highway isn't any worse (might even be less so) than what 3800's put out with the same exhaust system. To be quite honest this thing really doesn't make its presence known until you get into it a bit. But when you do, it will definately turn heads.

That's pretty much it. I'm contacting the chassis dyno shop tomorrow to get rates and schedule info so blkcofy can decide if he wants to get this thing dyno'ed here or not. I'm also hoping for some dry weather so I can get some more seat time to tweak the programming in the ECM and TCM.

-ryan




lou_dias (loudfiero@gmail.com) MSG #273, 02-08-2008 07:37 AM
      Is that capacitor swap doable on the speedo as well to get kilometers to read MPH?
One of my 3 Fieros came from Canada...the yellow turbo 3.1...


TiredGXP MSG #274, 02-08-2008 08:46 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:

Is that capacitor swap doable on the speedo as well to get kilometers to read MPH?
One of my 3 Fieros came from Canada...the yellow turbo 3.1...


You can use the DIC to select either MPH or KPH for the speedo, at least on the 2005 GXP that was the donor for this swap. (max indicated speed either 220kmh or 220 mph).

Darth, did you end up using the ECM VSS signal through the translator unit or the TCM signal? Was the ability to switch between the two scales retained?

If not, does it look like the translator be able to scale the MPH output to match the metric scale on some vehicles?


Cheers


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #275, 02-08-2008 12:15 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:

Is that capacitor swap doable on the speedo as well to get kilometers to read MPH?
One of my 3 Fieros came from Canada...the yellow turbo 3.1...


I believe the speedo needle can only be calibrated by changing the crystal. (This has to be done in order to install the 180mph speedo face overlay and have it read correctly). But as long as you could find the correct value crystal you need, I don't see why you couldn't do what you are asking.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #276, 02-08-2008 12:21 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by TiredGXP:


You can use the DIC to select either MPH or KPH for the speedo, at least on the 2005 GXP that was the donor for this swap. (max indicated speed either 220kmh or 220 mph).


I think lou is using stock Fiero speedometers from canada that have the primary (larger) numbers in km/h. So the DIC from the GXP cannot change from english to metric units on the Fiero speedo.

 
quote


Darth, did you end up using the ECM VSS signal through the translator unit or the TCM signal? Was the ability to switch between the two scales retained?

If not, does it look like the translator be able to scale the MPH output to match the metric scale on some vehicles?


In the original GXP, the VSS signal for the speedometer, DIC, and BCM travels along the Class 2 data line, and thus no module exists that can read the data and spit out a Fiero-compatible VSS signal. The LS4's ECM does have what the wiring diagrams call a "VSS output" that goes to certain radio models, but I was unable to use this signal. Even if I was, switching from english to metric thru the DIC would probably have no effect on this signal.

Since I was unable to use the ECM's VSS output signal I had to use the one coming out of the TCM.

I don't know if the SGI-5 can do what you are asking (concerning scale the MPH output to match the metric scale on some vehicles).

-ryan

[This message has been edited by Darth Fiero (edited 02-08-2008).]

blkcofy MSG #277, 02-21-2008 07:48 PM
      gratuitous bump...

unfortunately, bad weather and nothing to report...


TiredGXP MSG #278, 02-21-2008 09:28 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

gratuitous bump...

unfortunately, bad weather and nothing to report...


Damn, got all excited about news

So how about answering a question instead?

Do the paddle shifters go through the BCM, or are they wired directly to the TCM?

Cheers

ps, when I have enough posts, you and Darth both get a + for me on this build


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #279, 02-22-2008 01:38 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by TiredGXP:


Damn, got all excited about news

So how about answering a question instead?

Do the paddle shifters go through the BCM, or are they wired directly to the TCM?

Cheers

ps, when I have enough posts, you and Darth both get a + for me on this build


THanks for the pos feedback. To answer your question, no the paddleshifters don't go thru the BCM at all; they connect directly to the TCM. So you don't need the BCM if you want to utilize the TAPShift function.

-ryan


darkhorizon MSG #280, 02-22-2008 01:46 AM
      no "archie style" burnout videos? I mean it is a V8....


Erik (hardkandiboi@hotmail.com) MSG #281, 02-22-2008 01:50 AM
      Can you describe the sound of the exhaust any better? Maybe a sound clip would better do that

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #282, 02-22-2008 02:35 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by darkhorizon:

no "archie style" burnout videos? I mean it is a V8....



I don't think the customer would appreciate me burning up his new tires. Besides, what's the point? 4cyl-powered cars can do burnouts. I honestly don't understand why some people get so excited over burnouts. It doesn't prove anything nor does it show how powerful the engine is; rather it can be destructive on not only the tires but also the transmission. I'm more interested in the car hooking and darting away from a stop as quickly as possible.

 
quote
Originally posted by Erik:
Can you describe the sound of the exhaust any better? Maybe a sound clip would better do that


There is a link to a sound clip of the engine running on page 7 of this thread.


SAFASTRO MSG #283, 02-26-2008 12:18 PM
      WOW......alot of good info here.
I just skimmed throught this thread, and will have to go back an reread it more thoroughly!!
I have a great opportunity here, that I just can't pass up on. A friend of mine purchased a 2006 Malibu with the 3.5 V6 and the 4T65-E tranny. He only has 3500km on it now, and in about a month or 2, he is swapping in a 3.9 setup from a malibu SS. This comes to my chance of a lifetime. He is GIVING me his current setup for FREE!!!! I asked what parts I would need to get, since he works at a parts counter at a local dealer, such as alternator, belts, pulleys, etc.......he said, "NOTHING, it all comes with it!".......what the heck, did I hear him right?? He says, yeah, everything comes with it including the tranny!!!
I'm still in a bit of shock , since at first I thought I was only getting the main block and intake and minor stuff, but when he told me I get "THE WORKS", I almost lost it.
I hope you guys will be able to talk me through a few things.....I'm no electronics genious.........I have rebuilt and installed many carbed V8's, but am I getting in over my head here???



FieroWannaBe (patond@alumni.msoe.edu) MSG #284, 02-26-2008 05:20 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Erik:

Can you describe the sound of the exhaust any better? Maybe a sound clip would better do that


http://home.att.net/~darthfiero/LS4_running1.wav


darkhorizon MSG #285, 02-26-2008 05:33 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Why do a burnout and waste good tires.


it was a sad attempt at an archie bash... o well.

I have yet to do a burnout with my fiero, really because I have never had tires that would let it burn out before the fronts pushed on the ground.


Amida (robert.kusakabe@comcast.net) MSG #286, 02-27-2008 12:22 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


I will try to get some more pictures posted soon.


Where's the muffler?


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #287, 02-27-2008 02:59 AM
      Love the Vette tips



SAFASTRO MSG #288, 02-27-2008 11:12 AM
      Hey Rickady.....any pics of your setup?
I would love to see some pics of your 3.5. Do you have a build thread?



Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #289, 02-27-2008 12:40 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by SAFASTRO:

Hey Rickady.....any pics of your setup?
I would love to see some pics of your 3.5. Do you have a build thread?




http://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...070315-1-035053.html

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...050410-1-044587.html

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 02-27-2008).]

blkcofy MSG #290, 02-27-2008 02:09 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Amida:


Where's the muffler?


Huh?

Oh, that thing?

Well, uhmmm, see...what had happened was...

Because the 5.3 L4 is kinda big, Ryan gave me three options...1) Install a complete system with the dual cats and mufflers, but this would require him cutting into the bottom of the trunk space because of the amount of room left and angle based on the girth of the LS4, 2) Don't alter the trunk at all, but would have to choose to install a partial system and use one of those flexible steel weave joint connectors?, or 3) Build (and pay for) two sets of exhaust systems that can be interchanged based on need.

As you can see from the picture, I chose option 2. I think I only have one more e-check with Ohio DMV before the car is grandfathered and won't require it at all. So I went with using the Cat exhaust. I've had those old straight pipe racing exhausts from wayy back in the day for the longest time on the car, so I'm hoping the engine isn't too loud w/out the mufflers. Ryan seems to think it's not too bad. It definitely growls, but not the wake the neighborhood roar. We'll see!

Once I get past any more e-checks, I may revert to the mufflers, but if the sound isn't rude, I'll keep it as is. I thought of intalling muffler tips, but I fell in love with the Corvette tips, and well...the rest is history!



Amida (robert.kusakabe@comcast.net) MSG #291, 02-27-2008 03:13 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


Huh?
Oh, that thing?



Your neighbors will definitely know when you leave for work. Fantastic looking project !



blkcofy MSG #292, 02-27-2008 07:08 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Amida:


Your neighbors will definitely know when you leave for work. Fantastic looking project !


Thanks Amida! It's going to look even better with your Fi355 nose installed!

Now if only the weather would break so Ryan can do some more road testing and tuning!


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #293, 02-28-2008 04:02 PM
      Sorry I haven't posted in a while. The weather around here has gotten pretty bad lately and I don't really want to drive a customer's car in such conditions (nor when the roads are wet with slush and salt). So there hasn't been much else I have been able to do to the car. Plus I came down with that nasty head cold that is going around and I really haven't been feeling well enough to do too much out in the shop.

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #294, 03-04-2008 07:45 PM
      I have been asked a couple of times about how exactly the DoD system functions to save fuel. So I will explain it here. Below is a portion of GM's explaination...

 
quote


To provide maximum fuel economy under light load driving conditions, the engine control module (ECM) will command the displacement on demand (DoD) system to deactivate engine cylinders 1 and 7 on the left bank, and cylinders 4 and 6 on the right bank, switching to a V4 mode. The engine will
operate on 8 cylinders, or V8 mode, during engine starting, engine idling, and medium to heavy throttle applications.

When commanded ON, the ECM will determine what cylinder is firing, and begin deactivation on the next closest DoD cylinder in firing order sequence. The Gen IV engine has a firing order of 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3. If cylinder number 1 is on its combustion event when DoD is commanded ON, the next cylinder in the firing order sequence that can be deactivated is cylinder number 7. If cylinder number 5 is on its combustion event when DoD is commanded.

Cylinder deactivation is accomplished by not allowing the intake and exhaust valves to open on the selected cylinders by using special valve lifters. The deactivation lifters contain spring loaded locking pins that connect the internal pin housing of the lifter to the outer housing. The pin housing contains the lifter plunger and pushrod seat which interfaces with the pushrod. The outer housing contacts the camshaft lobe through a roller. During V8 mode, the locking pins are pushed outward by spring force, locking the pin housing and outer housing together causing the lifter to function as a normal lifter. When V4 mode is commanded ON, the locking pins are pushed inward with engine oil pressure directed from the valve lifter oil manifold (VLOM) assembly solenoids. When the lifter pin housing is unlocked from the outer housing, the internal pin housing will remain stationary, while the outer housing will move with the profile of the camshaft lobe, which results in the valve remaining closed. One VLOM solenoid controls both the intake and exhaust valves for each deactivating cylinder. There are 2 distinct oil passages going to each DoD lifter bore, one for the hydraulic lash-adjusting feature of the lifter, and one for controlling the locking pins used for cylinder deactivation.

Although both intake and exhaust valve lifters are controlled by the same solenoid in the VLOM, the intake and exhaust valves do not become deactivated at the same time. Cylinder deactivation is timed so that the cylinder is on an intake event. During an intake event, the intake cam lobe is pushing the valve lifter upwards to open the intake valve against the force of the valve spring. The force exerted by the valve spring is acting on the side of the lifter locking pins, preventing them from moving until the intake valve has closed. When the intake valve lifter reaches the base circle of the camshaft lobe, the valve spring force is reduced, allowing the locking pins to move, deactivating the intake valve. However, when DoD is commanded ON, the exhaust valve for the deactivated cylinder is in the closed position, allowing the locking pins on the valve lifter to move immediately, and deactivate the exhaust valve.

By deactivating the exhaust valve first, this allows the capture of a burnt air/fuel charge or exhaust gas charge in the combustion chamber. The capture of exhaust gases in the combustion chamber will contribute to a reduction in oil consumption, noise and vibration levels, and exhaust emissions when operating in V4 mode. During the transition from V8 to V4 mode, the fuel injectors will be turned OFF on the deactivated cylinders. The ignition system secondary voltage or spark is still present across the spark plug electrodes on the deactivated cylinders. If all enabling conditions are met and maintained for DoD operation, the ECM calibrations will limit cylinder deactivation to a cycle time of 10 minutes in V4 mode, and then return to V8 mode for 1 minute.

Switching between V8 and V4 mode is accomplished in less than 250 milliseconds, making the transitions seamless and transparent to the vehicle operator. The 250 milliseconds includes the time for the ECM to sequence the transitions, the response time for the VLOM solenoids to energize, and the time for the DoD valve lifters to deactivate, all within 2 revolutions of the engine crankshaft.


So what you can take from this is GM decided they had to leave something in those deactivated cylinders to prevent oil from being sucked into them if they were just allowed to pull a vacuum on every down stroke (which is what you would have if the intake valve was the first to get shut off when entering DoD mode). Appearantly they found that the pumping loss (from having to pump spent exhaust gases) outweighed the side-effects from having cylinders filled with nothing.

As far as real-world trials are concerned, you need to keep in mind that in order for this system to function, there must be a relatively light load on the engine. This means that you can't be blazing down the interstate at 80+ MPH and expect the engine to drop into V4 mode. In fact I found in my road tests that heading into a 10-15mph wind on a level grade, 73mph is about as fast as you could go before the system would need to drop back into V8 mode. And if you started going up any hills, the system would be quicker to go back into V8 mode as well.

As mentioned before, according to the DIC fuel mileage computer readout, there is quite a bit of difference in fuel economy in V4 mode vs. V8 mode. At steady 55mph highway speeds, I'm typically seeing about 22-25mpg in V8 mode and that increases to over 30mpg once then engine enters V4 mode. These figures do decrease slightly as the vehicle nears that speed threshold where the DoD system will no longer be able to function due to wind resistance. At that point, I'm seeing about 28mpg in V4 mode and less than 20mpg in V8 mode. Again all these readings are taken right off the DIC so I don't know how accurate they are. But after you factor everything in (depending on driving habits) I would say this LS4 probably gets the same fuel economy as a L67.

Now concerning long-term durability of the engine (especially since you will only ever have the same 4 cylinders deactivating); appearantly there isn't an issue. I, myself was concerned of such an issue but my friends at the GM dealers haven't reported any instances of such irregular wear issues and there are some of these cars nearing 100,000 miles on them by now. GM has and is offering these engines in cars which are being sold with 100,000 mile powertrain warranties. So it stands to reason that they wouldn't be putting such a warranty on this engine if it can't last. The better news is that putting this engine into a lighter car would seem to reduce the load on the engine; which means over its lifetime it won't have to work as hard (depending on driving habits). Which should translate to the engine lasting longer.

My opinion on this subject is this: everybody is concerned with gas prices. As prices continue to skyrocket at the pump, more and more people are having to make that decision between engine power output and fuel economy. I think the LS4 brings a nice balance to the equation; based on today's technology. Hybrids (gas engines w/ electric assist) seem to work better for city driving and haven't really shown marked improvement on the highway. I think that's where the cylinder-deactivation technology has an edge. I'm sure the point will come in the future where I will end up doing a hybrid swap to a Fiero; but for now the DoD technology seems to work pretty good.

-ryan


blkcofy MSG #295, 03-12-2008 09:07 PM
      Update...West Coast Fiero Performance Springs & Coil Over Kit

As you may remember, I purchased the Performance Spring and Rear Coilover kit from WCF. This kit drops the front stance of the 87' Fiero about 1.5 inches. Rear height is adjustable up to 2.0 inches lower, but Ryan recommended keeping the rear slightly higher than the front for better stability in lieu of the increased power of the LS4 swap. I think he's got it dropped about 1.0 inch.

According to WCF, the springs were developed to be used for the race track, and I chose 400 lb/in travel which is significantly stiffer than the 200 lb/in springs of the stock 87' Fiero. I also opted for a staggered wheel/tire setup going with 17x7 w/ 40 os (225/40) in the front and 18x8 w/ 40 os (265/30) in the rear. Rims are Motegi SP7s.

Verdict: The first go round, the rear setup was perfect. Plenty of room for the wider 265 tires and the coilover springs. I could probably go 275 if I relocated the spring perches and changed offset, but 265 is plenty wide unless I wanted to go wide body. I've prioritized going for a track ready street car over spectacular looks and gawks that a wide body or chop top would give me. Maybe next car project I'll get visually inventive like some of the beautiful cars of some of the PFF members!

The front was much more challenging! The basic 1.5 inch drop, paired with the 17x225x40 was too much. While the look was kinda hot, as it seemed like the car was slammed, Ryan could barely get two fingers in between the tire and the inside fender! Even though Ryan moved the bump stop and shaved it back a bit, any major bump caused the car to ride hard on the stop, and on aggressive test runs he felt that it was just too harsh of a ride on severely bumpy roads. It would probably be okay for track surfaces, but he felt I would soon grow tired of the harshness as a daily driver. I contacted Chris at WCF and explained the issue and he and Ryan got on a conference call. Chris was extremely cooperative and helpful. I call this out, as I've read that some folks have reported issues when dealing with WCF. I have always had good experiences with them, especially with this kit. The solution was to install 5/8" spacers for the front setup, which WCF cut for me and sent out directly to Ryan. The spacers raised the front end up by about 1/2 - 3/4 of an inch. Ryan says the ride quality IS SO MUCH BETTER now that it's not riding hard on the the bump stops. He test drove it down a bumpy concrete road and it seems to ride nicely now -- no problems.



So now I think Ryan just needs to program a few more Key Fobs for the remote start and keyless entry function, find a place to locate the compass module, and schedule time on a Dyno machine to get some ball park spec numbers. He'll then HPTune the engine based on the results and if the weather cooperates, I should be able to pickup my baby this month! I CAN'T FRIKEN WAIT!!



Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #296, 03-12-2008 09:41 PM
      Nice.



Fieroseverywhere (caalon777@hotmail.com) MSG #297, 03-13-2008 02:38 PM
      Congrats! Sounds like it coming along nicely. Itching to drive it a little?

I think I have the same springs on mine. Right now with 205/45-16's it seems fine but I am going up to a 225/45-17 in the front so I figure some spacers will be needed also. I was a bit worried about the 400lb springs being too rough but it sounds like they will work. Only time will tell. Congrats again on it all coming together.

[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 03-13-2008).]

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #298, 03-13-2008 03:05 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


The front was much more challenging! The basic 1.5 inch drop, paired with the 17x225x40 was too much. While the look was kinda hot, as it seemed like the car was slammed, Ryan could barely get two fingers in between the tire and the inside fender!



Correction: I couldn't even get 1 finger half way in between the tire and the fender! Therefore I was hesitant to trim the bumpstops any more for fear the tire could come in contact with the fender if you hit a big bump. The spring spacers I just installed seemed to give us enough of a ride height increase to correct this issue but no soo much that it ruined the looks of a "lowered car" that blkcofy was wanting.

Since the weather has FINALLY decided to cooperate around here, I am taking the opportunity to get some much needed road testing and tuning done.

-ryan


OHNIKO (nikolaki69@hotmail.com) MSG #299, 03-13-2008 03:10 PM
      just amazing build, awesome & great work.

Keep us posted on the car feel & tuning!


blkcofy MSG #300, 03-28-2008 10:47 AM
      UPDATE: DYNOJET RESULT JUST IN...

There's been alot of arguing and debating over folks posting real numbers of their swaps, so I started another thread to "celebrate" everyone's efforts versus the ongoing pissing match we've often gotten ourselves into. So far, not so bad in terms of everyone playing nice. Ryan's posted the results on that thread, but wanted to keep folks updated who've followed this original thread as well...







We executed 3 pulls:



As you can see from the results above, all three pulls were pretty consistant. I had them remove two of the pulls from the graph and just print out the best (HP) one:



Max WHP: 271.20
Max WTQ: 277.07

You can see on the dyno charts that the weather conditions were better than SAE ideal, thus the correction factor was less than 100% (meaning the engine was actually putting down more power to the dyno than these SAE corrected graphs show). Also you can see the AFR's didn't look bad at all (dashed line on the AFR graph represents 13.0:1). The beginning of the dyno pull did start out a little lean because they were easing into the throttle; but by about 4500rpm, the AFR's were near-perfect for what I wanted to see.

TiredGXP mentioned that people taking their stock LS4-powered Grand Prix GXP's to the dyno were getting anywhere from 230whp (a 24% loss thru the drivetrain) to 252whp (a 17% loss thru the drivetrain). If you apply the same loss % factor to the dyno runs I did today, then we can figure blkcofy's engine is producing:

317.3 ~ 336.3 @crank hp
324.2 ~ 343.6 @crank tq

Assuming a 24% drivetrain loss, that means the mods done to this engine have gained about 33hp and 20tq at the crank. Of course there's no way to measure the actual loss thru blkcofy's drivetrain unless we pull the engine and put it on a dyno by itself. Also we have to assume the dyno numbers I got today aren't going to exactly match the dyno numbers other people are getting.

Hopefully today's dyno test puts blkcofy's mind at ease. I knew the mustang dyno's conflicting dyno / simulated 1/4 mile sprint test just didn't sound right. I think today's results prove that point.

-ryan

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 03-28-2008).]

Oreif (kopielski1714@wowway.com) MSG #301, 03-28-2008 10:55 AM
      My question is:

When do you pick it up?



Erik (hardkandiboi@hotmail.com) MSG #302, 03-28-2008 12:21 PM
      I wanna hear it on the dyno but I suppose I can wait till you get out on the road and post a vid of it acceleratiing

darkhorizon MSG #303, 03-28-2008 04:04 PM
      regarding the sleeves you made for the bushings, what about are the dimensions of the recess, length, and most importantly the dimensions of the raw tube stock you purchased for it?

[This message has been edited by darkhorizon (edited 03-28-2008).]

Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #304, 04-07-2008 02:27 PM
      How hard would it be to add the Tap Shift and remote start to the LS4 drive train if the entire wire harness and BCM are used? Are the options that are already programed into the TCM, BCM and just need the to be plugged in?



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #305, 04-07-2008 09:30 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

How hard would it be to add the Tap Shift and remote start to the LS4 drive train if the entire wire harness and BCM are used? Are the options that are already programed into the TCM, BCM and just need the to be plugged in?



The TAPShift function doesn't go thru the BCM at all. In fact, it's controlled by only one wire that comes out of the TCM (the tapshift buttons have a series of different value resistors wired to them, that's how the TCM can determine which button you push using only one signal wire).

The remote start requires the BCM. In order for the remote start to function, the BCM needs to see a host of signals (hood/door pin switches, igntion switch, brake pedal position sensor, etc etc). I don't think you are going to be able to just grab an entire interior harness out of a GXP for the BCM and install that into a Fiero either. Nor would you want to. There are about 100 wires/circuits I eliminated from the BCM install I did during this LS4 swap because I just didn't see the point of having every circuit in the car (yes even the windshield wipers) going thru the BCM.


Fierobsessed (nstarfiero@aol.com) MSG #306, 04-08-2008 01:56 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


The TAPShift function doesn't go thru the BCM at all. In fact, it's controlled by only one wire that comes out of the TCM (the tapshift buttons have a series of different value resistors wired to them, that's how the TCM can determine which button you push using only one signal wire).


Thats funny, I just found that the radio's from the mid 90's with steering controls operate the same way. I am currently trying to get my ECM to talk to my radio using a PWM to mimic the voltage levels the resistors in the steering controls produce... I guess I am a geek? I am trying to featurize my car a little.

I found that the resistors create voltages ranging from 1-5V in approximatly half volt increments. Fun


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #307, 04-08-2008 02:02 AM
      So are the TCM's all capable of a Tap Shift option, do they all have the same programming for it? Can I just use a Solstice or Malibu steering wheel and column that has the buttons on it?
I do plan to swap an entire wire harness into the Fiero so the circuits will be there anyway. I plan to do this for the dash and its related Heater and A/C system as well as the other "modern" conveniences. So I just wonder if the remote start could be added to the car as if it were still in the Montecarlo?


Thanks, Rick


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #308, 04-08-2008 02:38 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

So are the TCM's all capable of a Tap Shift option, do they all have the same programming for it? Can I just use a Solstice or Malibu steering wheel and column that has the buttons on it?


Not exactly. The TCM you are using must have the same service number as one that came with the TAPShift option. Then it must be programmed with the correct OS that supports TAPShift. Then finally, your transmission must be set up for TAPShift. Mechanically, the TAPShift and Non-TAPShift auto transmissions are different.

 
quote


I do plan to swap an entire wire harness into the Fiero so the circuits will be there anyway. I plan to do this for the dash and its related Heater and A/C system as well as the other "modern" conveniences. So I just wonder if the remote start could be added to the car as if it were still in the Montecarlo?


Thanks, Rick


The remote start function is part of the keyless entry and factory alarm systems; at least they share many of the same sensors and components. In fact, a lot of new GM cars and trucks being sold today are remote-start capable, even if they don't come off the showroom floor with remote start enabled. You can buy the remote fobs from GM Parts as a kit that comes with a remote start activation code which you can use to have your vehicle's computers reprogrammed to enable remote start.

But as I said before, the BCM is going to need to see several inputs in order to allow for remote start operation.


FIEROPHREK MSG #309, 04-08-2008 05:25 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

. . . . Mechanically, the TAPShift and Non-TAPShift auto transmissions are different.



Darth, would you happen to know the mechanical differances between the 2 trannies?



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #310, 04-08-2008 06:00 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FIEROPHREK:


Darth, would you happen to know the mechanical differances between the 2 trannies?


Yes, but not in great detail. IIRC, in manual mode, fluid gets routed to the 1-2 band and 3rd clutch circuits at various times for engine braking. My trans guy told me there is a difference concerning the way fluid pressure is modulated in these manual modes vs. a normal 65-E trans. Basically he said you don't want to put a TAPShift computer onto a standard 65-E trans because the manual shifting of it could result in violent shifts and such which could obviously shorten its life. If you want more detailed information, you can contact him via his website: http://www.tripleedgeperformance.com/


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #311, 04-09-2008 02:17 AM
      Now this is getting good

I noticed that the inner CV joint on my 06 65E has the same exact shape as the F40 inner CV and they use three huge roller bearings inside instead of the typical Fiero style needle bearing. The rollers used inside the inner joint (tripot) looks like sealed bearings that may not use the CV grease for lubrication of it's internal rollers. The grease looks like it lubes the outer surface of the rollers that contacts the try pot inner walls. The inner joint seems larger than the Manual Fiero CV's? I will try to get the male inner CV and slide it in the F40 to see if it has the same splines.

Is there any way to tell if the tranny is tap shift compatible. Or what will it take to convert on to tap shift?


Darth do you have any wire diagrams that I could Use?

Thanks, Rick



RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #312, 04-10-2008 01:31 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

Now this is getting good

I noticed that the inner CV joint on my 06 65E has the same exact shape as the F40 inner CV and they use three huge roller bearings inside instead of the typical Fiero style needle bearing. The rollers used inside the inner joint (tripot) looks like sealed bearings that may not use the CV grease for lubrication of it's internal rollers. The grease looks like it lubes the outer surface of the rollers that contacts the try pot inner walls. The inner joint seems larger than the Manual Fiero CV's? I will try to get the male inner CV and slide it in the F40 to see if it has the same splines.

Is there any way to tell if the tranny is tap shift compatible. Or what will it take to convert on to tap shift?


Darth do you have any wire diagrams that I could Use?

Thanks, Rick




I had the same problem with my 06 axles. My solution was: Dr. side = tripot and guts from 98/99 lumina n/a 3800. Shaft from 94 berretta. Outer cv from manual fiero.
Pass. side = p/s tripot and guts from 97 Riviera 3800sc. Axle shaft from d/s of same Riviera. Outer cv housing from fiero with the cage and balls from the Riviera. ( of coarse it depends on whare you mount your engine) Mine is in a 88 coupe. Hope this helps.
Bye the way, the 06 gxp manuals show some different valves in the tap shift trans.


FIEROPHREK MSG #313, 04-10-2008 10:16 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Yes, but not in great detail. IIRC, in manual mode, fluid gets routed to the 1-2 band and 3rd clutch circuits at various times for engine braking. My trans guy told me there is a difference concerning the way fluid pressure is modulated in these manual modes vs. a normal 65-E trans. Basically he said you don't want to put a TAPShift computer onto a standard 65-E trans because the manual shifting of it could result in violent shifts and such which could obviously shorten its life. If you want more detailed information, you can contact him via his website: http://www.tripleedgeperformance.com/


Thanks for link !



Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #314, 04-10-2008 11:26 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:



I had the same problem with my 06 axles. My solution was: Dr. side = tripot and guts from 98/99 lumina n/a 3800. Shaft from 94 berretta. Outer cv from manual fiero.
Pass. side = p/s tripot and guts from 97 Riviera 3800sc. Axle shaft from d/s of same Riviera. Outer cv housing from fiero with the cage and balls from the Riviera. ( of coarse it depends on whare you mount your engine) Mine is in a 88 coupe. Hope this helps.
Bye the way, the 06 gxp manuals show some different valves in the tap shift trans.


So on the inner CV joint, the splines are the same on the 06 65HD as they are in the Lumina and Riviera nonHD and the outer shell of the tri pot are different?



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #315, 04-10-2008 01:04 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

Darth do you have any wire diagrams that I could Use?

Thanks, Rick



Email me direct with year/make/model wiring diagrams you need and I will see about getting those to you.

-ryan


RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #316, 04-10-2008 05:11 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


So on the inner CV joint, the splines are the same on the 06 65HD as they are in the Lumina and Riviera nonHD and the outer shell of the tri pot are different?


That's correct, the lumina 3800 (non hd) and the Riviera with hd are both 34 splines. The 06gxp has 34 splines. However, if you take apart the outer cv (next to the wheel) on the 06 gxp axle you will find it has 8 balls instead of 6 and the axle end is different. I found that the gxp axle shaft would not interchange with ANYTHING.
Good Luck


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #317, 04-10-2008 07:29 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by RONT4.9:


That's correct, the lumina 3800 (non hd) and the Riviera with hd are both 34 splines. The 06gxp has 34 splines. However, if you take apart the outer cv (next to the wheel) on the 06 gxp axle you will find it has 8 balls instead of 6 and the axle end is different. I found that the gxp axle shaft would not interchange with ANYTHING.
Good Luck


OK, thanks. Are the LS4 axle shafts larger in diameter than the Fiero manual axles or is it just a different spline on the outer end? How much longer are the axles from the LS4 than are needed? Can you swap left for right and get a better match for the Fiero?



RONT4.9 (rrthoeny@gmail.com) MSG #318, 04-11-2008 12:57 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


OK, thanks. Are the LS4 axle shafts larger in diameter than the Fiero manual axles or is it just a different spline on the outer end? How much longer are the axles from the LS4 than are needed? Can you swap left for right and get a better match for the Fiero?


Yes, the diameter of the splines is bigger. I couldn't get it to fit into any of the housings that would fit the Fiero spindle. It also attaches to the housing differently. (no visable snap ring) I also found that neither axle length would work with my install.


Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #319, 04-11-2008 08:16 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Yes, but not in great detail. IIRC, in manual mode, fluid gets routed to the 1-2 band and 3rd clutch circuits at various times for engine braking. My trans guy told me there is a difference concerning the way fluid pressure is modulated in these manual modes vs. a normal 65-E trans. Basically he said you don't want to put a TAPShift computer onto a standard 65-E trans because the manual shifting of it could result in violent shifts and such which could obviously shorten its life. If you want more detailed information, you can contact him via his website: http://www.tripleedgeperformance.com/


In a conventional transmission, with the shifter in D, but the transmission currently in 1st, there is no engine braking because the sprag is holding the output rather than the L/R clutch. There's probably something similar going on in 2nd, but I haven't looked at it in a while.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #320, 04-11-2008 12:24 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:


In a conventional transmission, with the shifter in D, but the transmission currently in 1st, there is no engine braking because the sprag is holding the output rather than the L/R clutch. There's probably something similar going on in 2nd, but I haven't looked at it in a while.


Right, without some kind of "overrun" clutch to hold the component the sprag (one-way roller clutch) is attached to, that component can overrun and thus there will be no engine braking. But in that same transmission, if you pull the shifter back into low range, then your low/overrun clutches will come on and provide for engine braking. But conventional transmissions were never designed to be "manually" shifted on a regular basis.

Now, lets say you are running an aftermarket trans controller on a standard auto transmission. And lets say this aftermarket controller allows for some sort of TAPShift type control of the trans. The problem you are going to run into here is if you leave the gear selector in OD and downshift to low gears while moving at significant road speed but then let off the gas, the engine is going to be allowed to return to idle speeds because of the sprags overrunning. If you immediately jump back on the gas, the engine is going to rev up quickly until the engine RPM reaches the point in which it would be at in that current trans gear at that road speed. At that point the sprag will lock up and then transfer power again. The trouble is what just happened here can put great stress on the sprag. I have seen cases where the sprag can actually explode inside the trans because of something like this happening to it. In the actual TAPShift trans, certain bands and/or overrun clutches are engaged to help take some of the load off the sprags during these situations.

IIRC, the all-new 6-speed auto FWD transmissions have done away with sprags and bands altogether and all they are running now are direct clutches. What's got me wondering is will one of the computers that is in these new 6-speed auto trannys communicate properly with an LS4 ECM???

-ryan



Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #321, 04-11-2008 05:52 PM
      I've been wondering why they don't offer the 6 speed (auto OR manual) with the LS4...

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #322, 04-11-2008 06:40 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

I've been wondering why they don't offer the 6 speed (auto OR manual) with the LS4...


GM has dropped the F40 6-speed manual transaxle from all domestic carlines. It is now only offered in Saab vehicles. Specs for the Saab F40 6-speed can be seen here: http://www.media.gm.com/us/...s/08_GME_F40_MU9.xls - It only has a maximum engine torque rating of 245 ft/lbs.

As far as the 6-speed auto is concerned, according to the GM media powertrain website the 6T70 is only rated for a maximum engine torque of 280 ft/lbs. Specs for the 6T70 6-speed auto trans can be seen here: http://www.media.gm.com/us/...tics/08_6T70_MH2.xls

But looking at a 1998 GM powertrain book I have here, I can see back in 1998 the 4T65-E was only rated for 280 ft.lbs. maximum engine torque.

But to answer your question, Will, I think the main reason why GM hasn't brought a better auto or even a manual transmission together with the LS4 is because they don't plan on keeping that engine very long. Word in the auto magazines says GM is going to be switching most of their cars over to rear-drive (except for the econo-boxes) and will be doing away with the hi-powered FWD cars soon.



Will (william.lucke@gmail.com) MSG #323, 04-11-2008 08:12 PM
      I thought the F40 was rated at 300 ftlbs? Oh well... another poor market assesment on GM's part. Honda can offer TWO models of the Accord with manual transmission... why can I not buy a Malibu with a manual AT ALL?

I thought the transmission load rating was based loosely on GVW or GCW... IE, a 70 series transmission could be used up to 7,000 lbs... and yet it has a torque rating of less than 300 ftlbs? GM is strange.


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #324, 04-22-2008 01:12 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will:

I thought the F40 was rated at 300 ftlbs? Oh well... another poor market assesment on GM's part. Honda can offer TWO models of the Accord with manual transmission... why can I not buy a Malibu with a manual AT ALL?

I thought the transmission load rating was based loosely on GVW or GCW... IE, a 70 series transmission could be used up to 7,000 lbs... and yet it has a torque rating of less than 300 ftlbs? GM is strange.



In first gear, what is the highest out put tq at the highest rated input tq? Maybe the tq at the wheels is closer to 7,000 lbs?


TRiAD MSG #325, 04-22-2008 04:48 PM
      Just found this thread, and I must say, what an incredible project! Some beautiful work there!
I love the color combo and options chosen, too!
If this car were a Notch, it'd be almost perfect, lol!

Nice job, guys!



blkcofy MSG #326, 04-24-2008 10:20 PM
      FINAL CHAPTER

OKAY, Okay, okay....I've had my car back from Ryan for a little over 2 weeks now! I've gotten over the sheer thrill of having it back and can now provide an appropriately balanced report on Ryan's work and the performance of one of the first stock LS4 swaps into Fiero (now officially known as the 87'/05' Pontiac Fiero GXP!).

Ryan is the mutha-phukin' man! This swap looks like it rolled off the assembly line...probably even better!


Once I finally decide on what paint scheme I'm going with this fall, I will color match the engine cover to the paint job. But hell, one might argue to leave the engine cover off all together as tight and neat as it looks!


But there's something to be said, when people open up the rear deck lid and see the 5.3L V8 glaring at them and the "Ohhhh Sh*%!!" comments it creates. So the cover stays!

As a recap, beyond the engine swap which included the 4T65eHD TapShift tranny and custom paddle shifters, Ryan and I completely re-built the suspension down to the tie rods, springs, coil-overs, reconditioned control arms, control bars, polys, pretty much everything. Also installed rebuilt '88 Fiero calipers and 12" Corvette rotors, steel braided brake lines, and a custom cat back only exhaust with Corvette exhaust tips. A staggered 17/18 inch rim setup with 225/40 in front and 265/30 in the back with a lowered stance.








I drove it from Indiana back to Cincinnati, with a 102 degree fever sick as a dog, but with a smile on my face from ear to ear. My wife was following me and my 6 year old daughter was riding with me, so I didn't really open it up. Got alot of looks from passers by, especially whenever I zipped pass them at XX mph. No races or imaginary challenges that first road trip...thank goodness. With no mufflers, it's a bit loud but not ignorant loud. The only time its an issue is when I hear it clearly shift from 4 cylinders to 8 cylinders via the DoD setup and whenever I go from a point of acceleration to a coast...you clearly hear the gurgle-gurgle from the exhaust. If you've every gone boating, and witness some fancy cat put in his Twin V8 Cigarette Race Boat in the water...that's what it sounds like. One last Ohio e-check, at it's off w/ the cats and on with performance mufflers!! I can't be a "sleeper" car with the thunder of Thor crashing under the hood!!

Automatic shifts are deliberate and crisp. Using the paddles is actually kind of fun, but it kills my gas mileage as I tend to let the rpms run up to 3500-4000 before I shift versus it never goes above 2500 in auto unless I'm gunning it on the freeway, and even then at 80 mph (on roads with 75mph speed limits mind you) it's cruises just under 2000 rpm.

The only changes that probably needs to be fine tuned is to have the DoD shift much later in the power band, as I think it shifts a bit too soon. The other improvement is that while Ryan was able to turn off all the computer signals like ABS brakes, traction control, etc. the engine code has a default setting that whenever the tires have excessive spin, it throws the car in neutral, until you get back into it. So I've learned (learning) to ease into the launches with a slight tire chirp instead of stomping on it. Ryan is working with HP Tuners to fix both issues.

Brake power is awesome, much improved from the Grand Am kit that I had on the car originally...and the car comes alive like a bat out of hell. Mind you, my reference points are the previous 2.8L V6 that was in the car, and my 2000 Dinan 540 BMW 6 speed. This car out guns my big sedan with NO PROBLEM! Handling is very tight. I was expecting a really rock hard ride, but it's not bad at all unless I hit a pot hole. The one thing I must do before I put it on the track at Mid Ohio this summer is fix the play I'm feeling in the steering. I think it's about a 1/4 to 1/2 inch play in the steering, which is very noticeable at about 110 mph during a semi-aggressive evasive maneuver on the freeway. (Hypothetically speaking of course!). I've been searching this site to see if others have had issues with the rack and pinion steering (21 years old!!) and what the fixes could be, short of a total replacement...which might not be a bad idea given my "hypothetical" intended speeds.

At this point, I actually have been challenged once so far, by a 2006 Corvette, by the looks of the headlights. I pulled up on him. He gave me the "yeah, right dude" look. I threw the car in neutral and revved the engine (did I say I was challenged? I meant I challenged someone! ) He did the ole grip the steering wheel move and revved his vette' with the type of confidence that would soon be shattered. It was only a light to light thing, but I had to have put at least 1 1/2 car lengths between us and pulled in front of him, before he could recover. After he pulled up beside me, his dropped jaws told the whole story! My first kill! He probably didn't give it 100%, but a kill is a kill!!

So, you know I just had to get this car to a 1/4 mile drag strip, especially with all the controversy and debate we've had on my initial dyno results.

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/090184.html

This past Friday, I took my Fiero GXP to Edge Water Sports Park just outside of Cincinnati for it's Test and Tune Night. http://www.edgewaterrace.com

While I've been on closed tracks with my BMW at least 7 times in the last 2 years, I have NEVER been to a drag strip. I'm nervous as hell, but excited about seeing what this car can do. I try to lower my expectations, as I don't want to set my expectations up too high as I knew I would have to deal with my street tires, not being able to hard launch the car, and trying to figure out how to respond to a light tree for the first time. I've watched PINKS on TV and blew a few brain cells on video games, but that's about it! I wasn't sure what to expect. I convince myself that if I an post low 13's I'd be content, and with practice and luck, maybe I could break into the 12's one day. I was probably more nervous about crashing the drag racing community, more than anything else! I won't go into the details here, but the community is awesome! Interesting....but awesome!! All walks of life, all ages, all levels of education, income, and levels of soberness...but all in love with cars. It was great!!

So....how did we do?

I was able to get three runs in. The first run matched me up against a 2006 Mercedes Benz CL500 Coupe. I was freaking out, until I saw that it wasn't an AMG car so I figured I had a decent chance of keeping up with him. His confidence level and that of his friends when they saw he was matched up with my white wolf in sheep's clothing was at an all time high! It took me a while to figure out how to stage the car so that the two white lights engaged on the tree (this only gave the Benz that much more reason to stick his chest out) but I finally figured it out, and settled into the start. Results? Kicked his ASS!!!!

R/T: .539 (he had a .442 R/T as a comparison)
60' : n/a my side wasn't working, but he had a 2.432
330: 5.510
1/8: 8.470 @ 83.76 mph
1000: 10.980
1/4: 13.128 @ 104.90 (the CL500 posted a 14.907 @ 96.88)

Recall, because of the code thing, I had to feather the start to avoid the shut down. But once it hooked, this car practically lept down the track! I'd do anything to run a 1/2 mile run, cause the car had plenty left and kept pulling the whole way. The sweet roar of the engine was only out gunned by the pounding of my heart against my chest! As I pulled back into line, my former nervousness quickly transformed into one cocky S.O.B.! As people walked by, I fielded all kind of questions regarding what the heck I had in this 21 year old "sheep"!

Race Two pitted me up against a 2005 BMW M3!! I won't lie, I was feeling a bit cocky still but the M3 driver and his crew actually had nerve to try to hide their giggling!! Oh, hell no! He gave his many friends high fives, and we pulled up into the start. Since I now knew I had a 13 second car, I had to wear my helmet. This actually gave the M3 a moment of pause! Of course, after the first run I immediately called Ryan to seek some coaching and driving tips, and report my results. He was very pleased, and was actually suprised I did so well for my first time at drag racing. We agreed to try to get aggressive with the next start to see if the track would hold my spin to a minimum and allow me to have a better launch. The M3 driver was smoking his tires like crazy. He was clearly no amateur, or so it appeared! I stomped...tires spun...car shut down! DAMMIT! I quickly got back into it, and to my disbelief...I was starting to quickly gain on the M3! Results? Caught his ass and beat him by .0618 seconds!!

R/T: 1.037
60: still racing on the side that's not working (he posted a 2.207)
330: 6.080
1/8: 9.037 @ 84.04 mph
1000: 11.537
1/4: 13.676 @ 105.33 (the M3 posted a 13.806 @ 102.59)

So, while I almost ran off the track cause I'm laughing so damn hard that despite a jacked up start, I still caught the M3 and beat him! But now I'm starting to get a little annoyed that I can't launch the car without fear of it shutting down on me. But before I could even get into feeling bad, as I get back in line for my final run, I'm met by crowds of people now even more curious than ever of what the hell I have as a power plant! They tell me the engine sounded awesome, and how the race announcer made a special point to call attention to the "little white Fiero with an attitude!". I spend the next 40 minutes answering questions and was even propositioned to sell my car twice. Of course there is NO AMOUNT of money that could get this car from me...at least not that night!! I thought to myself..I could get use to this!

My third and final run pitted me up against a late model Ford Thunderbird. It was an older guy, with race slicks in the rear and clearly something monsterous under the hood. At this point, I was happy to get away with two wins, so I was more focused on trying to launch without having the car shut down on me versus thinking I had a chance winning this one. The crowd was pretty thick at this point in the night, and I could easily see all the fingers pointing at my car as we pulled up. I think I was starting to get a bit of a fan club. This could really get addictive!! As I pulled up, I drove around the water to keep my tires dry, to see if that would do anything. Of course, the Thunderbird was laying all kinds of smoke and rubber. I tried not to focus on that, as I knew my goose was cooked on this race. Results? The Fiero GXP leaves it's first drag race UNDEFEATED!! About a 1/3 of the way down the track, he disappeared. I'd guess engine trouble or something. He finished, but well after the GXP!

R/T: .539 (the Thunderbird had a .233 R/T)
60: 1.895 ( I finally got on the side where the 60 ft worked!)
330: 5.442
1/8: 8.336 @ 84.80 mph
1000: 10.829
1/4: 12.961 @ 105.53 mph

Nearly 6 days later, and my voice is still hoarse from yelling and laughing so hard that I was able to break into the 12's at my first time at the track, with crappy R/Ts and having to feather my launches! That ride home was the best EVER!! I don't think I drove any faster than 60 mph the whole way home, but all windows and sunroof was open, just so I could hear the engine purrrr (or roar actually!).

So based on the 1/4 times, the calculators I've plugged the data into put the car at 272 HP at the wheels, and about 354 HP at the flywheel. This is consistent with the last Dyno reading Ryan made on the car. With a bit more experience, and fixing the wheel spin issue, there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get into the mid 12's on this car. I am one happy customer. It's not the fastest Fiero on the road...but it's a daily driver 1987 Fiero GT with one of the very first stock LS4s and it's all mine!!! [Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-haaaaa!]

Blkcofy

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 04-25-2008).]

TiredGXP MSG #327, 04-24-2008 11:23 PM
      Well that's awesome, glad you're happy!

I've never heard of the LS4 4T65e-HD popping into neutral, I suspect your launch issue is traction control kicking in. The stock tune controls wheelspin by both retarding timing and slamming the electronic throttle closed - it's even more severe when you are going around a corner and the differential score protection kicks in. Feels like something broke in the drivetrain, or you hit a brick wall .

Here's a shot of the TCS settings disabled in a 05 GXP; these settings might help your launch issues.



Due to the strong torque at low RPM of the LS4, the W-bodies have to launch at only part throttle - Load up the torque converter to 2000 RPM and slowly roll into the throttle. In a W-body it takes nearly 2 seconds to go WOT or the tires just light up, should be a bit better in a RWD application. The best 60' I've heard of in a LS4 W-body is 1.8 with drag radials and a sticky track, you're already there with street tires.

When you've had it long enough that you're not constantly mashing the loud pedal, you'll have to tell us what your mileage is like.

Cheers

[This message has been edited by TiredGXP (edited 04-24-2008).]

Oreif (kopielski1714@wowway.com) MSG #328, 04-25-2008 07:42 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

FINAL CHAPTER



EXCELLENT!
The install does look like a factory install. Very clean. My compliments to Darth on the install and testing.

Great runs for your first time out. Sounds like once the traction control issue is resolved, You should be able to get into the mid 12's.

The important thing is that you enjoy it. Congrat's.



kwagner MSG #329, 04-25-2008 09:46 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

Nearly 6 days later, and my voice is still hoarse from yelling and laughing so hard that I was able to break into the 12's at my first time at the track, with crappy R/Ts and having to feather my launches! That ride home was the best EVER!! I don't think I drove any faster than 60 mph the whole way home, but all windows and sunroof was open, just so I could hear the engine purrrr (or roar actually!).



Sounds like the swap was completely worth the price of admission to me


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #330, 04-25-2008 10:51 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by TiredGXP:

Well that's awesome, glad you're happy!

I've never heard of the LS4 4T65e-HD popping into neutral, I suspect your launch issue is traction control kicking in. The stock tune controls wheelspin by both retarding timing and slamming the electronic throttle closed - it's even more severe when you are going around a corner and the differential score protection kicks in. Feels like something broke in the drivetrain, or you hit a brick wall .

Here's a shot of the TCS settings disabled in a 05 GXP; these settings might help your launch issues.

Due to the strong torque at low RPM of the LS4, the W-bodies have to launch at only part throttle - Load up the torque converter to 2000 RPM and slowly roll into the throttle. In a W-body it takes nearly 2 seconds to go WOT or the tires just light up, should be a bit better in a RWD application. The best 60' I've heard of in a LS4 W-body is 1.8 with drag radials and a sticky track, you're already there with street tires.

When you've had it long enough that you're not constantly mashing the loud pedal, you'll have to tell us what your mileage is like.

Cheers



First I would just like to clarify, It is not kicking into neutral when this "limiter" is active. It's just closing the throttle momentarily when it sees exceesive wheel spin. ALL Traction Control parameters have been SHUT OFF in the programming via HP Tuners software. But I don't think this problem is related to traction control, because it acts much different than the '06 GXP I drove with traction control on. When the typical traction control system cuts in, it limits engine power but will still allow the car to accelerate (although at a greatly reduced rate). What blkcofy's car is doing is basically cutting ALL power, not just limiting it (effectively returning the engine to idle) for a moment and the car just seems to hang there in current speed and not accelerate at all. If you stay on the gas, after this second expires it lets the throttle open full again. However, if you lift off the gas and then get immediately back in it, then it will go without delay. (if the wheels spin again the limiter will kick in again) NOTE: If you are on a very grippy surface and the tires don't break traction, this limiter will NOT kick in. However, if you are on a very slick surface such as a smooth asphalt road in wet conditions, and the tires spin at will, then the system will kick in more quickly (as soon as tire spin is detected).

I believe what is going on here is some kind of abuse mode is kicking in. Now I will admit I didn't think to try adjusting the diff score parameter as you suggested, TiredGXP, -- I will have to get with blkcofy and try that.

Now there are some things I tried and HP Tuners suggested we try in the programming that did have some effect on what is going on with this "limiter". I went in and maxed out the ETC (electronic throttle control) opening limits in the programming myself and also tried some HP Tuners' suggestions for this same table. The abuse mode still kicked in after making these changes, however instead of closing the throttle to cut engine power, it LEANED OUT the fuel to very dangerous levels while the throttle blade stayed wide open. I didn't care for this happening because it could obviously hurt the engine, so I put the ETC limit tables back to stock for the time being. Looking thru the rest of the tables HP Tuners has to offer, I did find a limiter function that was "acceleration" based. I tried all sorts of different settings in these tables but nothing seemed to have any impact. (Keep in mind this is still a relatively new system in the aftermarket tuning community, so it may take a little bit of time before all necessary tables are found and defined in the tuning software).

Rest assurred I will find a solution to this problem; even if that means hooking the ABS computer up in some kind of limited capacity just to satisfy the needs of the ECM. In the meantime (while I am waiting on HP Tuners to come up with something), I have called on some of my contacts in the GM community to see if I can get any answers there. So I am still working on this problem outside of what HP Tuners is doing. And I do have a couple more things I would like to try, not only changing the diff score values as TiredGXP suggested, but also some other things that I thought of while staring endlessly at the tuning software. So I will have to get with blkcofy in the coming week or weeks to give these changes a shot.

Now that we got that out of the way, I have to congradulate blkcofy for his outstanding performance at the dragstip. That's a pretty big improvement to make during only 3 runs and his first time at a dragstrip ever. A best of 12.9sec @ 105mph is certainly no bad showing. And I'm sure with better traction on the launchpad, ie: some good prep work on the track surface (to prevent wheelspin), better numbers will come out of this car yet.

-ryan



Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #331, 04-25-2008 11:15 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

The only changes that probably needs to be fine tuned is to have the DoD shift much later in the power band, as I think it shifts a bit too soon. The other improvement is that while Ryan was able to turn off all the computer signals like ABS brakes, traction control, etc. the engine code has a default setting that whenever the tires have excessive spin, it throws the car in neutral, until you get back into it. So I've learned (learning) to ease into the launches with a slight tire chirp instead of stomping on it. Ryan is working with HP Tuners to fix both issues.




So is this because of the modified computer, or do the stock LS4's have a permanent traction control that cant be turned off? With the electronic throttle, why does the ECM put the tranny in neutral instead of backing off the throttle? Does the shift from drive to neutral back to drive take less that .5 sec or was your run that much better with the exception of the "traction control"



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #332, 04-25-2008 11:17 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
So is this because of the modified computer, or do the stock LS4's have a permanent traction control that cant be turned off? With the electronic throttle, why does the ECM put the tranny in neutral instead of backing off the throttle? Does the shift from drive to neutral back to drive take less that .5 sec or was your run that much better with the exception of the "traction control"




The transmission is NOT kicking into neutral. Read my prev post to yours about what is happening.


Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #333, 04-25-2008 11:45 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


The transmission is NOT kicking into neutral. Read my prev post to yours about what is happening.


Cool, I saw that after I posted. We must have been typing at the same time. I take forever to make a post

But that does bring up some more questions.
You don't have the anti-lock brake module in the car do you? If not how would the ECM see the difference in wheel speed with out the wheel sensors? So traction control would seem not to be the problem because of the lack of inputs. More likely is the system is failing because of the missing components?
I hooked up the anti-lock module in my S* swap and even had the four wheel speed sensors hooked up just to see if it made a difference (the four W body wheel bearings just plugged in). The car did not change that I could tel accept that with the wheel speed sensors disconnected the BRAKE light stays on permanently. Then one night the anti-lock module shorted out. It had water inside of it that had to of been there from the wrecking yard. I took out the module and the car ran exactly the same without it as it did with it.

I found a way to modify the front wheel bearings on my 88 to accept the wheel speed sensors. But the rear I have not figured out yet. I will at least have the front wheel speed sensors on my 5.3 swap. Then try to put the rear sensors in some how.



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #334, 04-25-2008 01:32 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


Cool, I saw that after I posted. We must have been typing at the same time. I take forever to make a post

But that does bring up some more questions.
You don't have the anti-lock brake module in the car do you? If not how would the ECM see the difference in wheel speed with out the wheel sensors? So traction control would seem not to be the problem because of the lack of inputs. More likely is the system is failing because of the missing components?
I hooked up the anti-lock module in my S* swap and even had the four wheel speed sensors hooked up just to see if it made a difference (the four W body wheel bearings just plugged in). The car did not change that I could tel accept that with the wheel speed sensors disconnected the BRAKE light stays on permanently. Then one night the anti-lock module shorted out. It had water inside of it that had to of been there from the wrecking yard. I took out the module and the car ran exactly the same without it as it did with it.

I found a way to modify the front wheel bearings on my 88 to accept the wheel speed sensors. But the rear I have not figured out yet. I will at least have the front wheel speed sensors on my 5.3 swap. Then try to put the rear sensors in some how.


No I don't have the ABS module in the car; didn't have the opportunity to get that from the donor car either.

As far as inputs are concerned I can pull up some data on my GM Tech 2 scan tool that the ECM gives that actually displays non-driven wheel speed, and this always says "0mph" because no ABS module nor wheel speed sensors are present (there is no wheel speed sensor input to the ECM but rather the ECM gets that info over the Class 2 data circuit from the ABS module). But this doesn't seem to impact driving or engine power output as long as traction is good. I don't think the problem we are having has anything to do with the ABS system or Traction control. But rather I believe it has something to do with what TiredGXP brought up about the diff score or something else that is some kind of abuse mode or transmission protection that is acceleration-based.


TiredGXP MSG #335, 04-25-2008 08:30 PM
      Darth,

I haven't experienced what blkcofy reported except when differretial score protection kicked in with tire spin around a corner.

I was thinking about your comments about wheel speed, and noticed that all my wheel speed DTC's (C1207 to C1256) are set to "3-no error reported" from the factory. Whether that means that differences in wheel speed are actually ignored is another question that I don't have an answer to.

Just downloaded Version 2.22 of HPT yesterday, and noticed that transmission abuse mode tables have now appeared for the LS4, wonder what zeroing out the duration table will do for this issue, or have you already been there?



Since I still have a long-term plan to transplant a LS4 into a Fiero, I hope you lick this issue. Keep up the excellent work!

Cheers


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #336, 04-25-2008 10:20 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by TiredGXP:

Darth,


Just downloaded Version 2.22 of HPT yesterday, and noticed that transmission abuse mode tables have now appeared for the LS4, wonder what zeroing out the duration table will do for this issue, or have you already been there?

Since I still have a long-term plan to transplant a LS4 into a Fiero, I hope you lick this issue. Keep up the excellent work!

Cheers


Yea I just noticed that update as well and am downloading it now. Will see what more can be done with it.

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #337, 05-03-2008 09:10 PM
      Just a quick update before I head up to the lake... I met with blkcofy today to try the new tune (with some changes per advice from TiredGXP) and that took care of the power cut issue. He can now burn all the tires he wants =P (at his own risk, of course!). I will go into greater detail exactly what was changed later when I have more time...

-ryan


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #338, 05-05-2008 01:34 PM
      Ok, now that I'm back from the lake I have some time to explain what was done to blkcofy's tune.

TiredGXP suggested I disable the "Diff Score" function. According to most people I have talked to and many threads I have seen on the internet, this function serves to limit engine power if one drive wheel starts spinning much faster than the other wheel (like what you have on a 1-legged burnout). If this were allowed to happen, the pinion shaft that the differential gears ride on inside the differential could begin to score due to high loads and lubrication breakdown. One of the many flaws a front-drive/transverse transmission suffers from is the type of fluid it uses to lubricate internal parts. ATF has poor lubrication properties comparied to your standard 80-90w gear oil used in most rear axles (in RWD cars). And ATF doesn't hold up well when subjected to high loads or stress. Therefore GM built this function into many of their newer computers in an attempt to "save" the transmission. In this swap, the ECM shoudn't be able to determine if one drive wheel is spinning faster than the other because no individual ABS wheel speed sensors (nor the ABS computer) are installed. But I just went ahead and disabled it because it was easy to do.

I also went into the programming and disabled ALL of the Transmission Abuse Mode torque reduction functions. This is the function I believe was kicking in when the ECM saw the VSS output climb at very fast rates (IE what would happen when the tires were spinning). All of this seemed to do the trick in blkcofy's car.

Now with that problem solved I was also able to go in to the programming and max out the ETC (electronic throttle control) opening limit tables. The stock tables only allow the ETC to open to a certain point depending on engine RPM and desired engine TQ. Maxing out the values in this table made the engine seem more responsive off-the-line. I was not able to max these table values out before with the trans abuse mode kicking in because it caused the ECM to lean the fuel out severely instead of closing the throttle in an attempt to limit engine power (and that was very bad on the engine).

So needless to say the car does feel more responsive off the line now. Hopefully next time blkcofy goes to the track he can get some better traction on the launchpad which should allow him to post some better times.

-ryan




Rickady88GT (rjkmfam@sbcglobal.net) MSG #339, 05-28-2008 02:03 AM
      Any new news?



D2inDFW (daviddean@tx.rr.com) MSG #340, 05-28-2008 03:09 PM
      Fantastic thread and results.

Regards,

David


Fog MSG #341, 05-30-2008 05:20 PM
      Darth, the way ECM detects it is by checking the speedo vs rpm. If that don't divide by the gear ratio, then one of the wheels are slipping, since the VSS sensor is actually on the pass side half-shaft. It also sees this, while cornering at low speeds (1mph drivers side, 5mph pass side, VSS sees 5mph but actually the wheels should rotate 3mph both, so +66% diff.)

There's also the tc that affects the ratio, but there is code to detect that somehow. I think it is by assuming on the TCC lock % that the HD box has.

Fog.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #342, 06-01-2008 02:39 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Fog:

Darth, the way ECM detects it is by checking the speedo vs rpm. If that don't divide by the gear ratio, then one of the wheels are slipping, since the VSS sensor is actually on the pass side half-shaft. It also sees this, while cornering at low speeds (1mph drivers side, 5mph pass side, VSS sees 5mph but actually the wheels should rotate 3mph both, so +66% diff.)

There's also the tc that affects the ratio, but there is code to detect that somehow. I think it is by assuming on the TCC lock % that the HD box has.

Fog.



No, the VSS reads the reluctor wheel that is attached to the differential housing. So it has no idea which wheel is spinning faster in a one-wheel slip condition - for that it would need individual wheel speed sensors. But like I said in a previous post this "power cut" problem when excessive wheel spin was detected has already been solved -- it was the trans abuse mode kicking in and I disabled all of that in the programming and it took care of it.


Dennis LaGrua (dlagrua@comcast.net) MSG #343, 06-01-2008 09:26 AM
      Great post and super neat install. Since the 3800SC will go out of production this year the LS4 seems like the engine that may take its place as the "in production" engine for a Fiero swap. I always favored the V6 in a Fiero but the light, compact state-of-the-art small LS4 V8 has changed my thinking. Only thing that might be difficult to live with though is the gas mileage. The engine has the DOD feature and mileage may be decent.
How do you like the overall feel of the ETC?



BV MotorSports (sbvincent@yahoo.com) MSG #344, 06-01-2008 09:49 AM
      I am really interested in doing this swap as well!



TiredGXP MSG #345, 06-01-2008 10:05 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:

Great post and super neat install. Since the 3800SC will go out of production this year the LS4 seems like the engine that may take its place as the "in production" engine for a Fiero swap. I always favored the V6 in a Fiero but the light, compact state-of-the-art small LS4 V8 has changed my thinking. Only thing that might be difficult to live with though is the gas mileage. The engine has the DOD feature and mileage may be decent.
How do you like the overall feel of the ETC?



I've been driving one for three years now. The electronic throttle body works just fine. I know some people make a big deal out of it not being the same as a cable operated throttle, but I think that's BS. Tune the torque management properly and the throttle will do what your right foot commands. One plus for decluttering the engine bay is that cruise control on these engines is integrated into the ETC, so no add-on hardware is required.

The engine has an incredibly broad torque curve. According to GM, it delivers 90% of maximum torque between 1500 and 5600 RPM, so overall dirveability is excellent. My only beef is with the gearing GM chose for the 4T65E-HD. First is low enough that you light up the tires with any kind of aggressive throttle off the line; there's a big gap to second gear, which somewhat limits full throttle acceleration over 50 mph.

I'm waiting to hear what mileage BLKCOFY is getting in the Fiero. In a GP, at nearly 4000lb with driver, mileage is 16 in town and 27-28 (using US gallons) on the highway. I average around 22-23 in the summer and 20-21 in the winter. DOD makes 1-2 mpg difference on the highway, and adds virtually nothing in town as it does not operate in first or second gear or below 35 mph.

Cheers


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #346, 06-02-2008 01:01 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by TiredGXP:


I've been driving one for three years now. The electronic throttle body works just fine. I know some people make a big deal out of it not being the same as a cable operated throttle, but I think that's BS. Tune the torque management properly and the throttle will do what your right foot commands. One plus for decluttering the engine bay is that cruise control on these engines is integrated into the ETC, so no add-on hardware is required.

The engine has an incredibly broad torque curve. According to GM, it delivers 90% of maximum torque between 1500 and 5600 RPM, so overall dirveability is excellent. My only beef is with the gearing GM chose for the 4T65E-HD. First is low enough that you light up the tires with any kind of aggressive throttle off the line; there's a big gap to second gear, which somewhat limits full throttle acceleration over 50 mph.

I'm waiting to hear what mileage BLKCOFY is getting in the Fiero. In a GP, at nearly 4000lb with driver, mileage is 16 in town and 27-28 (using US gallons) on the highway. I average around 22-23 in the summer and 20-21 in the winter. DOD makes 1-2 mpg difference on the highway, and adds virtually nothing in town as it does not operate in first or second gear or below 35 mph.

Cheers


I've driven many ford and chrysler vehicles using their versions of ETC and I can understand why people don't like it. Just drove a 2008 Chrysler 300 with the V6 and ETC and it was VERY LAZY to respond to throttle changes commanded by my right foot. The Lincoln LS I drove a few years ago was almost as bad (haven't driven anything brand new from ford yet so they may have improved since then). But GM has done their homework when it comes to ETC on their engines. The engine response vs. your actions upon the gas pedal are phenominally quick. 95% of the people out there won't be able to tell a difference between a cable-op throttle system vs. the ETC used on the LS4. And after proper adjustments are made to the TQ MGMT and ETC tables in the computer programming as TiredGXP explained, I would say the remaining 5% wouldn't be able to tell a difference either.

As far as fuel economy is concerned, when I still had the car it seemed as though the DIC / trip computer was reporting the best instant fuel economy when I was driving down the highway at 50-55mph. But higher speeds effected a fuel economy penalty, and the DoD system disengaged after you surpassed about 80-85mph because the wind resistance load was too great on the car for the engine to stay in 4cyl mode and maintain that speed.

But in truth there are very few vehicles out there (DoD equipped or not) that are going to get as good fuel economy at 80mph speeds vs. that same vehicle at slower speeds. The 5.3 DoD engine has the potential to surpass 3800 SC fuel economy numbers as long as you can keep the speed in-check on the highway. But regardless, this 300+ HP LS4 engine still gets better fuel economy in a Fiero than ANY other GM V8 engine I have seen stuffed in a Fiero (at least according to owner reported MPG numbers). So I think the LS4 is probably your best bet for an engine swap if you want a V8, 300+ HP, and "good" highway fuel economy.

-ryan


BMTFIERO (bmtfiero@outlook.com) MSG #347, 06-02-2008 06:34 PM
      Hey Ryan

You got got mail!!


FieroBobo (rryans@kean.edu) MSG #348, 06-24-2008 01:47 AM
      FINAL CHAPTER, Encore performance?

So, Blkcofy, now that you've had the car for a few months, how about a status report.

Are you still in love with the car?
Have you had any problems?
What sort of gas mileage are you getting?
Do you have any regrets or is ther anything that you would do differently knowing what you know now?

Do you think that your LS4 swap will replace the 3800 S/C as the new engine swap of choice?

Thanks for doing such a good job on documenting your build and including so many pictures.

Good luck with the new setup. I hope it gives you years of pleasure and reliable service.

~Bob



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #349, 06-24-2008 02:18 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by FieroBobo:

FINAL CHAPTER, Encore performance?

So, Blkcofy, now that you've had the car for a few months, how about a status report.

Are you still in love with the car?
Have you had any problems?
What sort of gas mileage are you getting?
Do you have any regrets or is ther anything that you would do differently knowing what you know now?

Do you think that your LS4 swap will replace the 3800 S/C as the new engine swap of choice?

Thanks for doing such a good job on documenting your build and including so many pictures.

Good luck with the new setup. I hope it gives you years of pleasure and reliable service.

~Bob



Not to speak for blkcofy, but here's what he has told me thus far. We had a problem come up where some trouble codes set for BOTH O2 sensor heater circuits. The presence of these codes disabled the remote start system (this also happens on the stock vehicles). I suspect that one of the heater circuits in one of the O2 sensors has gone bad and shorted out and is causing the problem (I've had this happen to me before). But I have not had time to get to the car to check it out myself because of pending projects. However, blkcofy discovered that his car no longer needs to be e-checked and he wants the get rid of the cats and install a muffler because it is a little loud for him. So within the next couple of weeks blkcofy is going to bring his car up to me to have the exhaust redone and at that time I will see what is going on with the O2 sensors (in the process of redoing the exhaust one of the O2 sensors will be getting deleted). So I will advise how everything works out when the exhaust gets redone.

-ryan


madcurl (madcurl@fiero-performance.com) MSG #350, 06-24-2008 03:27 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

FINAL CHAPTER


Excellent write-up.



Will-Martin MSG #351, 06-24-2008 04:30 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

FINAL CHAPTER

OKAY, Okay, okay....I've had my car back from Ryan for a little over 2 weeks now! I've gotten over the sheer thrill of having it back and can now provide an appropriately balanced report on Ryan's work and the performance of one of the first stock LS4 swaps into Fiero (now officially known as the 87'/05' Pontiac Fiero GXP!).

Ryan is the mutha-phukin' man! This swap looks like it rolled off the assembly line...probably even better!


...



DANG!!! That is AWESOME!! That install looks fantastic Darth Fiero and your car is amazing blkcofy. I guess I won't be the first with an LS engine and a 4T65 tranny functional on the road after all - what a bummer.

--Will


MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #352, 06-24-2008 06:42 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Will-Martin:


DANG!!! That is AWESOME!! That install looks fantastic Darth Fiero and your car is amazing blkcofy. I guess I won't be the first with an LS engine and a 4T65 tranny functional on the road after all - what a bummer.

--Will


If things go as planned you want even be the first in Texas. I am trying to get my LS4 swap finished up in the next 2-4 months and have it on the road. But the wait will be worth it for you in the long run.



Will-Martin MSG #353, 06-24-2008 10:24 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MstangsBware:


If things go as planned you want even be the first in Texas. I am trying to get my LS4 swap finished up in the next 2-4 months and have it on the road. But the wait will be worth it for you in the long run.


I hear you man, I can't wait to see yours in action. I REALLY can't wait to ride in it... ><HINT HINT>< haha!

I guess I will just have to settle for the first Chop Top LS 4T65E.


pavo_roddy MSG #354, 07-15-2008 07:27 AM
      HI all

Great install, superb job done guys! Jus a couple quick questions for ya, hehe... Your paddle shifters are they mounted to the column or the wheel? In essence, do the shifters turn with the wheel? If so, does anyone know if they make column mounted paddles? Do they even make paddles that won't turn with the wheel?


edit to fix message.......


FierOmar (davidcordier@sbcglobal.net) MSG #355, 07-15-2008 10:08 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by pavo_roddy:
HI all

Great install, superb job done guys! Jus a couple quick questions for ya, hehe... Your paddle shifters are they mounted to the column or the wheel? In essence, do the shifters turn with the wheel? If not, does anyone know if they make column mounted paddles?


The paddles should turn with the wheel. If they don't, here is an alternative:
http://www.grantproducts.co...-performance-gt.aspx

FierOmar


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #356, 07-15-2008 11:34 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by pavo_roddy:

HI all

Great install, superb job done guys! Jus a couple quick questions for ya, hehe... Your paddle shifters are they mounted to the column or the wheel? In essence, do the shifters turn with the wheel? If so, does anyone know if they make column mounted paddles? Do they even make paddles that won't turn with the wheel?


edit to fix message.......


The paddle shifter setup purchased for this project is actually a machined housing that installs onto the steering column and then the wheel mounts directly to the housing. So yes the paddle shifters turn with the wheel.


Hudini (hudini@tds.net) MSG #357, 08-22-2008 05:58 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:

Finished the fuel pump install (Walbro 255lph) and hooked up the fuel pressure regulator...



-ryan


Ryan, can any adjustable fuel pressure regulator be used for this setup? Also, would it be possible to use this type setup with the 7730 ECM? (Since fuel pressure does not vary as in the vacuum regulator type system)

Hugh


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #358, 08-22-2008 06:07 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:


Ryan, can any adjustable fuel pressure regulator be used for this setup? Also, would it be possible to use this type setup with the 7730 ECM? (Since fuel pressure does not vary as in the vacuum regulator type system)

Hugh


Sure, any aftermarket adj. FPR can be used in this system. In fact you can probably just buy a stand-alone adj. FPR with AN fittings on it already so you don't need to fool around with butchering one from a factory application.

You should be able to tune any ECM to work with a non-varying fuel system. The reason why GM used varying pressure fuel systems so many years was because it kept the pressure difference between the rail and manifold constant over the engine operating range; which made tuning easier. But you could just use a fixed pressure system and tune for it.

Will the 7730 ECM work with the LS4? I'm sure with enough work you could get it running -- but something will need to be worked out for the ignition system to get that to interface with the 7730 ECM. But why? The LS4 ECM is tunable now and is far more capable than the 7730 ECM.




Joseph Upson (j.j.upson@worldnet.att.net) MSG #359, 08-22-2008 06:59 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:


Sure, any aftermarket adj. FPR can be used in this system. In fact you can probably just buy a stand-alone adj. FPR with AN fittings on it already so you don't need to fool around with butchering one from a factory application.

You should be able to tune any ECM to work with a non-varying fuel system. The reason why GM used varying pressure fuel systems so many years was because it kept the pressure difference between the rail and manifold constant over the engine operating range; which made tuning easier. But you could just use a fixed pressure system and tune for it.

Will the 7730 ECM work with the LS4? I'm sure with enough work you could get it running -- but something will need to be worked out for the ignition system to get that to interface with the 7730 ECM. But why? The LS4 ECM is tunable now and is far more capable than the 7730 ECM.




If the top of the regulator already installed is held in place by a snap ring then you may be able to use the adjustable regulator cover from the 8100 V8 regulator like the one I'm using. The regulators look similar from what I can tell in the picture. It would save the added effort of changing what is already a nice setup.


kawana (shawnyb@ymail.com) MSG #360, 11-20-2008 10:23 PM
     


[This message has been edited by kawana (edited 11-20-2008).]

Dennis LaGrua (dlagrua@comcast.net) MSG #361, 11-21-2008 11:11 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Hudini:


Ryan, can any adjustable fuel pressure regulator be used for this setup? Also, would it be possible to use this type setup with the 7730 ECM? (Since fuel pressure does not vary as in the vacuum regulator type system)

Hugh


I have a concern that splicing in the Fuel pressure regulator to the returnless single line fuel rail line won't provide as much fuel pressure as if the regulator was on the end of the rail as on a standard return type rail. . I adapted a similar system on my 3800SC series III and it seems like the fuel presure gauge at idle hovers around 40 psi instead of 43 psi. It may work fine but I'm just not certain about doing it this way. As for adjustablility, I'm all for it but it would require taking off the o ring and changing the internals (cover and mechanism) .
or adding an aftermarket unit. BTW, GREAT job on this installation...neat clean, uncluttered and very well done.

As for the comment that was made on the ETC my observaton agrees. My daily driver is a Chrysler 300 and the ETC is sluggish and soft. GM's ETC system is far better but since I didn't know what to expect, my 3800SC uses a cable operated N* TB w an LS1 MAF (with thanks to Ryan for supplying the LS1 MAF table that we inserted into the program) Runs great now.



MstangsBware (stephen_p38@yahoo.com) MSG #362, 11-21-2008 12:41 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:

I have a concern that splicing in the Fuel pressure regulator to the returnless single line fuel rail line won't provide as much fuel pressure as if the regulator was on the end of the rail as on a standard return type rail. . I adapted a similar system on my 3800SC series III and it seems like the fuel presure gauge at idle hovers around 40 psi instead of 43 psi. It may work fine but I'm just not certain about doing it this way. .



I run a returnless fuel setup on my 3800SC swap and have been for about 6 months with no issues. I used the stock FPR cut off the stock rails and adapted it with the correct fittings. I ran a on board FPG on the rail for about a month to keep an eye on the fuel pressure. I have been to the track twice since installing this setup and ran the car all out with no fueling issues. The setup works and has been proven many times.


Dennis LaGrua (dlagrua@comcast.net) MSG #363, 11-21-2008 02:02 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by MstangsBware:
I run a returnless fuel setup on my 3800SC swap and have been for about 6 months with no issues. I used the stock FPR cut off the stock rails and adapted it with the correct fittings. I ran a on board FPG on the rail for about a month to keep an eye on the fuel pressure. I have been to the track twice since installing this setup and ran the car all out with no fueling issues. The setup works and has been proven many times.


You describe my setup perfectly. I guess that my concerns were unfounded, but whenever you deviate from stock the new approach must be tested. You have apparently done this. I have had no fueling problems so far either but haven't had the car on the track as you have. Now I can enter the 2009 season with some peace of mind. .



Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #364, 11-21-2008 04:06 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua:


I have a concern that splicing in the Fuel pressure regulator to the returnless single line fuel rail line won't provide as much fuel pressure as if the regulator was on the end of the rail as on a standard return type rail. . I adapted a similar system on my 3800SC series III and it seems like the fuel presure gauge at idle hovers around 40 psi instead of 43 psi. It may work fine but I'm just not certain about doing it this way. As for adjustablility, I'm all for it but it would require taking off the o ring and changing the internals (cover and mechanism) .
or adding an aftermarket unit. BTW, GREAT job on this installation...neat clean, uncluttered and very well done.

As for the comment that was made on the ETC my observaton agrees. My daily driver is a Chrysler 300 and the ETC is sluggish and soft. GM's ETC system is far better but since I didn't know what to expect, my 3800SC uses a cable operated N* TB w an LS1 MAF (with thanks to Ryan for supplying the LS1 MAF table that we inserted into the program) Runs great now.



It does not matter where the fuel pressure regulator is mounted in the fuel system AS LONG AS you don't have any restrictions between the point where the regulator ties into the pressure line and the fuel injectors. If you had a restriction say in the fuel rail inlet, then yes you could have a fuel pressure drop in the rail compared to the rest of the system.

-ryan


blkcofy MSG #365, 05-02-2010 02:02 PM
      Thought I'd provide a bit of an update. Almost 15 months since the last post, and the LS4 swap is doing great. I've not had any major issues till recently, where it looks like I've got to replace my high pressure intank fuel pump. I've run the car near empty a few times, and apparently these pumps don't appreciate my frugality. I've ordered a new one, and will likely take it to a shop to do the work since the gas tank has to be dropped and I just filled it.

Most of my time has been spent on the interior of the car. I've installed the subwoofer, new amp, and component speaker install many of you have done with guidance from this forum...replacing the fronts and side rears. I've also been changing a lot of the screws, bolts, seals, and other bits and parts from The Fiero Store to reduce as much rattles and shakes as possible. I tried to reseal my windshield as it was leaking...ended up cracking the darn thing and had to replace the whole window...but got a good deal on the work.

I finally decided what to do with the exterior. I've been sitting on Dietmar's side scoops and Amida's F355 nose for over a year, and finally got them installed. It's amazing the difference it really makes.



So with that much momentum, I've decided to vinyl wrap the Fiero, based on the Ferrari F430 Novitec Rosso. I've read all the hype on vinyl wrapping and decided after much research to do it, as I wanted to do something different than just paint the car. Besides, painting the car at the level I wanted was looking like it was going to cost me $5000 and that was a deal killer. So with a budget of half that, I set out to see how things would turn out.

I'll start a new post as to not take an engine build thread into a vinyl thread. If interested, look for something like "LS4 GXP Fiero goes Vinyl Wrap"

blkcofy

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 05-02-2010).]

blkcofy MSG #366, 05-02-2010 02:29 PM
      Well, it looks like I need special privileges to start a new thread, which I obviously don't have.

So I'll continue to use this one, and apologize to those who will be upset about my changing topics.

Here was my visual benchmark...the white w/ black body stripes on the Ferrari F430 Novitec Rosso.







I wanted to go with a Matte color, so I did quite a bit of searching on the net to find examples of paints, vinyl...anything that could provide a matte color. I've spent more than a few weekends waxing and buffing, and liked the look of matte cars and wasn't too upset about not needing to wax again.


blkcofy MSG #367, 05-02-2010 03:56 PM
      I've spent the last 4 months researching companies and manufacturers of vinyl wraps. Read hundreds of threads about the pros and cons, and even thought about matte paint instead of wrap. Wrap just continued to intrigue me. Most folks have been going black or satin black matte, but of course, I have to be different. Plus, having had my car since 1990 I was rather use to keeping the car white.





I finally went with a company in California called StickerCity, who was able to talk me through the process as well as provide me guidance on what to look for in terms of finding someone who could do the work. I probably ordered 30% too much product, but I do have extra for any mistakes or damages. I also probably could have paid less if I allowed a dealer to order the product (3M vinyl), as I'm sure I paid a bit of a mark up. I wasn't going to ship my car from Ohio to California, so I was forced to look for someone who had experience vinyl wrapping vehicles commercially (buses, trucks, ect.) locally.

I made a deal with a local and trusted shop (Audio Explosion) who could provide the space and clearance for doing the work here in Cincinnati, as I found the person to wrap the car from Columbus. Yes, very complicated, but I was able to stick to my budget and get my car done locally.


blkcofy MSG #368, 05-02-2010 05:22 PM
      Before the vinyl:




During the process. Shop worked on car across 3 days:




Final pictures after stripes added. I had them do a 30% window tint. First tint I've ever done on this car since I've owned it. Looks cool. I still have some little details to improve. You can't really tell from the photos, but the molding trim needs more detail as they didn't do inside the door seams. Looks awesome from 10 feet away, but under the eyes of a perfectionist, it needs a bit more work. The area of most concern are the seams at the corner of the rear bumper. This is the only place that has visible seams, due to the funky shape of the rear bumper. They couldn't do one piece without splitting it because of the lights, and my wanting them to take it all the way under the car. The shops agreed to redo the bumper and try to hide the seams behind the stripe. Other than that...I think they did an awesome job.







I found some interesting 3.5 inch fog lights that not only have angel eye functionality, but can change colors (white, blue, green, red, purple) with a flip of a switch. Found them on ebay. It came with bluelight bulbs, but I forgot to switch them out. I'd have to remove the nose to get to them, which I'll do eventually to match the LED color. Also added some LED lights in the grill to serve as daytime running lights. I thought about changing these square headlights, but I've not been a big fan of the current options.

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 05-02-2010).]

Amida (robert.kusakabe@comcast.net) MSG #369, 05-06-2010 10:50 PM
      Wow! nice job. Almost missed this post...sort of buried in this thread.

blkcofy MSG #370, 05-09-2010 09:34 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Amida:

Wow! nice job. Almost missed this post...sort of buried in this thread.


Thank you sir. I wanted to start a new thread about Vinyl Wrapping Fieros, but I don't have the capability to start new threads.

With your nose on, the car looks amazing. The looks I get on the road now are fun! People honking, gawking, asking what it is. The looks finally match the engine. I washed it today by hand, and as usual that's when you can tell what type of job (wrapping) was done. I'll give it a B+. If I had the skills, I would have taken every body part off and wrapped separately. I would have also made sure the car was 100% clean, even underneath, as I can see where the vinyl is not holding 100%...which must be due to grease. I've got enough to do at least 70% of the car again, and I might do some of the panels over. I still haven't put my rear wing back on. I'm kinda liking it w/out it.

My only enemy is tar and grease smudges, but so far they wash right off with a bit of effort. Dry's fast...no waxing. So far, I'm happy. We'll see what happens when it gets hot this summer...



[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 05-09-2010).]

AkursedX (akursedx@aol.com) MSG #371, 05-09-2010 10:39 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:


Thank you sir. I wanted to start a new thread about Vinyl Wrapping Fieros, but I don't have the capability to start new threads.


No one can start new threads in the Construction Zone section. All the threads in here were moved here by Cliff. You should have no problems starting threads in any of the other sections.

BTW, it looks great! I really like what you have been doing!


JPH87 (jphofeldt@msn.com) MSG #372, 05-10-2010 03:25 AM
      Great thread and car 1 question what kind of fuel mileage are you getting

Amida (robert.kusakabe@comcast.net) MSG #373, 05-12-2010 08:54 PM
      I used silver vinyl during the fi355 design review...soft stuff...not too abrasion resistant.



ghost187x MSG #374, 05-12-2010 09:26 PM
      wow... i was going to do those stripes on my car. i might still do it

very very very nice fiero! this might be my new favorite! you and car-2-lo's fieros...

great job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


blkcofy MSG #375, 05-13-2010 09:55 PM
      Thanks guys. I would have never had the inspiration, nor the confidence to get it where it's at today without Pennock's and many of the brilliant enthusiasts on this forum. This has to seriously be the best car forum on the web. I mean, really...are there any more dedicated (or broke) car enthusiasts than Fiero owners?

[This message has been edited by blkcofy (edited 05-13-2010).]

Dennis LaGrua (dlagrua@comcast.net) MSG #376, 06-03-2010 08:59 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

Thanks guys. I would have never had the inspiration, nor the confidence to get it where it's at today without Pennock's and many of the brilliant enthusiasts on this forum. This has to seriously be the best car forum on the web. I mean, really...are there any more dedicated (or broke) car enthusiasts than Fiero owners?



I've been following this swap from the beginning and must say that it is a "work of art" that appears to look like a OEM installation. My hat is off to Ryan for completing what I consider to be one of the most difficult Fiero swaps around. Now when is the turbo being installed?



blkcofy MSG #377, 06-20-2010 03:41 PM
      Finally got around to painting the LS4 engine cover. I sanded everything down with 800 grit, then painted (can) with grey primer for plastics, several coats (5) of red, then a few coats (4) of gloss. I tapped the lettering using a knife tool. Came out pretty good and really sets off the engine bay.



Also finally put some Pontiac GXP badges on the front side markers. Got them pretty cheap off e-bay. Looks like it just belongs there! I like the OEM but not really OEM look the car has taken on.




And for the final touches, I decided after much debate, to put the spoiler back on the car. I bought the Fiero Stealth Wing Stands for TLG and painted them flat black. It took a bit of effort to get the holes aligned...but a few curse words later, it was bolted on and looks fantastic.






UPDATE: The vinyl wrap is OKAY. I think it's really about how perfect (clean) the installer puts the wrap on. I'm seeing peel back in some of the edges of the car. Nothing major, but I don't see this being a multiple year application like I thought. I was told 5 years if I took care of it. Maybe 2 years, before I get fed up with some of the peeling. I've got plenty of material left, and may try to find a better installer. From afar, it tools like a $10,000 paint job, but under the close inspection at the corners, undercarriage, and bumper edges, you can see the imperfections. Would I do it again? Yes, but I'd take all the parts OFF the car and do it slowly and properly instead of the quick and easy way. I only paid $1000 to have the guy put it on. I'd now probably pay $1700 or more to have it done with the right way.

Next stop...Mid-Ohio track w/ a BMW club and the local drag strip (Edgewater Park).

Again, thanks for all the good feedback and advice along the way. I now have visions of Supercharger's in my head...hmmmm.


dobey MSG #378, 06-20-2010 06:13 PM
      Nice. I can't wait to get my LS4 built and in. Going to be a lot of work though. But it will be lots of fun with the 6 speed behind it.

Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #379, 06-21-2010 01:43 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by blkcofy:

Finally got around to painting the LS4 engine cover. I sanded everything down with 800 grit, then painted (can) with grey primer for plastics, several coats (5) of red, then a few coats (4) of gloss. I tapped the lettering using a knife tool. Came out pretty good and really sets off the engine bay.





Looks good! Keep us posted on how that paint holds up. My paint guy tells me he has been unable to find any plastic adhesion promoter that is rated for engine compartment temperatures so he has hesitated to paint any plastic engine components for fear the paint will eventually begin to chip or peel due to the heat.

The GXP badges look awesome on the car! Good thinking!

 
quote
I now have visions of Supercharger's in my head...hmmmm.


....built motor and INTERCOOLED TURBO!!!


dobey MSG #380, 06-21-2010 02:10 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
Looks good! Keep us posted on how that paint holds up. My paint guy tells me he has been unable to find any plastic adhesion promoter that is rated for engine compartment temperatures so he has hesitated to paint any plastic engine components for fear the paint will eventually begin to chip or peel due to the heat.


I used a red VHT paint made for brake calipers, to paint the runners on my LS2 intake. I didn't use any primer or anything under it. Just prepped the intake with some 320 scotch sanding sponge, taped off the parts i didn't want painted, and sprayed it. It seems to stick really well. I don't know if the LS4 engine cover is a different composite than the intake though.


Darth Fiero (sinister1880@gmail.com) MSG #381, 06-21-2010 02:22 PM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by dobey:


I used a red VHT paint made for brake calipers, to paint the runners on my LS2 intake. I didn't use any primer or anything under it. Just prepped the intake with some 320 scotch sanding sponge, taped off the parts i didn't want painted, and sprayed it. It seems to stick really well. I don't know if the LS4 engine cover is a different composite than the intake though.


How long has the paint been on your intake? How many miles have you put on it since you painted it?


Gokart Mozart MSG #382, 09-10-2010 07:41 PM
      how's the wrap and engine cover holding up?

dobey MSG #383, 09-11-2010 12:33 AM
     
 
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero:
How long has the paint been on your intake? How many miles have you put on it since you painted it?


Didn't see this until now. But it's been on the intake for about 6 months now I think. And still 0 miles, since I don't have the build done yet. It's just been sitting in the garage. But I don't forsee any issues with it, once I do get it in.


madcurl (madcurl@fiero-performance.com) MSG #384, 01-22-2011 08:48 PM
     

blkcofy MSG #385, 09-02-2011 10:21 PM
      Sorry guys. Been a LOOOOOONG time since I've been on the Fiero post. Those that are interested...the wrap was a bit of a disappointment. From a distance it still looks awesome, but under close inspection, it's starting to separate from tough angles. It's kept in a garage, but still. It's probably as much the fault of the applicator (the guy who did it, this was their first time doing it) and just the fact that wraps are nice, but it's not a paint job. Is it drivable? Yes. Is it good for a show....absolutely not. It lasted what, two years so I can't complain too much.

The paint on the engine cover is still 100% perfect. I'll get it out this summer (I've been distracted from my new ride I get this March) and take some current photos.


Amida (robert.kusakabe@comcast.net) MSG #386, 09-04-2011 01:37 PM
      Hey Maurice, the valance panel looks a little low at the hood centerline. Is it jus the camera angle? You can use a spacer to prop it up if needed.

Greenmeansgo MSG #387, 09-25-2011 11:34 PM
      Can anyone explain better to me how you get the tap shift to work, Like every part needed

exoticse (exoticse@netzero.com) MSG #388, 09-26-2011 02:18 PM
     
Blkcofy check this out.

http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/087104.html


Fiero Owner Wannabe (scott.cooper@century21.com) MSG #389, 06-09-2012 11:57 PM
      So what kinda of gas mileage are you getting out of that LS4 now adays?

Dogcreek (dogcreek60@comcast.net) MSG #390, 06-23-2012 12:11 AM
      Hi,

Can't answer for blkcofy but after 3800 miles on mine I get 32 on the freeway at 72.... 27+ putting my foot in it a bit... (70 to 80 mph) Full tank measured from topped to refill.... with around town and freeway I average 20.... Which is 4mpg more than I used to get with the stock V6 auto.

For the record, I have made no major mods. DoD is on.... which helps... Just shorter cat-back exhaust with Cats only... And a better designed air intake designed by FieroKing. Who did my swap.

Better mileage than my wife's V6 stock formula by far... Power? ABSOLUTELY no comparison. None whatsoever... No not even....

Jeff