GVR-4 GM 3 inch MAF question how to wire it to ECU running ECMLink?

[Elpizer2]

I'm trying to wire 3'' GM MAF to ECMLink in 1G, how do I wire it? Do you know how?

I haven't found the ECMTuning cable, so I am trying to see to how wire it directly to OEM ECU to run it with ECMLink.

I am currently running MAFT but gotta delete it in order to run ECMLink.

Who can help me with this?

thanks

 

[1990TSIAWDTALON]

GM MAF with ECMlink V3

Just so I get this right and clear in my mind. If I am just going to run a 3" GM MAF and not speed density, I can buy the ECMlink cable and its just a plug and play affair? I dont have to use any of the break-out wiring for IAT and BARO correct?

www.dsmtuners.com

 

[Elpizer2]

GM MAF with ECMlink V3

Just so I get this right and clear in my mind. If I am just going to run a 3" GM MAF and not speed density, I can buy the ECMlink cable and its just a plug and play affair? I dont have to use any of the break-out wiring for IAT and BARO correct?

www.dsmtuners.com

That link means ECMLink cable adapter, they do not produce it anymore. Currently they sell speed density cable adapter that is very different.

Some posts said that if you tried to use the Speed Density cable you will damage the board, so I would like to know how can I wire directly 3'' GM MAFT to ECU ECMLink.

The proven way is to use the GM MAF adapter from ECMTuning, but they do not produce it anymore. It has resistors and things to make it work directly.

 

[steve]

I am currently running MAFT but gotta delete it in order to run ECMLink.

While using the ECMTuning cable would be the best way it's not accurate that you can't use the MAFT with ECMLink. You would configure the MAFT to behave as much like a stock MAF (1G or 2G) as it can (which is questionable) and then tell ECMLink you're using one of those stock MAFs.

As far as I know without providing your own version of the special hardware that's inside the ECMTuning cable you can't directly wire a GM MAF to a DSM ECU.

 

[JG63]

Besides going with a 2g or Stock MAF, Have you thought about just switching to speed density?

The 4 Bar Sensor and IAT kit is like $115 for the 1G style. $125 for the IAT and 2g style MAP sensor that fits on the manifold. Then you can either directly wire it in or pay the $65 for the plug and play cable.

I am strongly considering doing that switch on my Galant so then I can add a Flex fuel sensor later and Run E85 or whatever fuel mix I want.

 

[1990TSIAWDTALON]

It is probably a little outdated, as far as equipment goes then. But if there is a will there is a way. @steve , can you be of any help?

 

[steve]

Posting the same question in multiple threads never works well...

 

[jed344]

I have a 1g ecm link gm maf to stock plug cable. I do not want to sell it but i wonder if i could ohm it out or figure out what they did so in future guys could themselves make one. I also will say now we all just go to speed density.

 

[We're on Boost]

I am currently running MAFT but gotta delete it in order to run ECMLink.

If your MAFT actually works and looks to be in good shape, I'd say don't delete it. Just have it wired up to the car the same way you would if you were using it with the stock ECU. Tell ECMlink you have a stock MAF. At that point if there are some little adjustments needed, or if you want to tune for more power, just do all that in ECMlink the same way you would anyway, instead of trying to do tuning with the MAFT.
From the question mark help in View, ECU Config, MAF Comp:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You'd have your 1g IAT and Baro inputs on the ecu open and available to use for other things, as I remember, because the GM MAF doesn't need them.
That all should be pretty easy. Then if you don't like the result, switch to Speed Density.

People seemed to always put their MAF Translators in the engine bay where they have a hard lousy life and end up looking very corroded after 15 years or so. I'd be surprised if very many of them still work the same as new.

I have a 1g ecm link gm maf to stock plug cable. I do not want to sell it but i wonder if i could ohm it out or figure out what they did so in future guys could themselves make one. I also will say now we all just go to speed density.

I've been wanting to find somebody who ever used the ECMlink GM MAF cable to find out if it worked ok or not. I have to wonder because it didn't seem to catch on and they quit making them.
When I read the Help for it, sounds to me like they are saying the frequencies are in a whole different universe practically, and the stuff they had for it in ECMlink did not translate it to anything we would be familiar with. Was not a translator. You had to somehow figure out how to use the different frequencies and they had a reference thing to help with that.

Can you tell me, did you use it, and did it work ok? Did you ever get frequency logs of it?

 

[jed344]

If your MAFT actually works and looks to be in good shape, I'd say don't delete it. Just have it wired up to the car the same way you would if you were using it with the stock ECU. Tell ECMlink you have a stock MAF. At that point if there are some little adjustments needed, or if you want to tune for more power, just do all that in ECMlink the same way you would anyway, instead of trying to do tuning with the MAFT.
From the question mark help in View, ECU Config, MAF Comp:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You'd have your 1g IAT and Baro inputs on the ecu open and available to use for other things, as I remember, because the GM MAF doesn't need them.
That all should be pretty easy. Then if you don't like the result, switch to Speed Density.

People seemed to always put their MAF Translators in the engine bay where they have a hard lousy life and end up looking very corroded after 15 years or so. I'd be surprised if very many of them still work the same as new.


I've been wanting to find somebody who ever used the ECMlink GM MAF cable to find out if it worked ok or not. I have to wonder because it didn't seem to catch on and they quit making them.
When I read the Help for it, sounds to me like they are saying the frequencies are in a whole different universe practically, and the stuff they had for it in ECMlink did not translate it to anything we would be familiar with. Was not a translator. You had to somehow figure out how to use the different frequencies and they had a reference thing to help with that.

Can you tell me, did you use it, and did it work ok? Did you ever get frequency logs of it?

Yes it worked just fine. Plug and play and then just log Raw frequency as it is much higher at points. We used one on a 2g as well back in the day and worked just fine too. Just have to watch the raw HZ as the HZ ecm link shows default will still say 50 something at idle and move around but raw says 500+ at idle. Then just tune it like a factory mas using the raw hz as the points. Doing it this way using RAW data and having it set for the gm maf used worked as stock. Look at log see at xxxx hertz wideband vs target. Then see what the comp % is then add or subtract that at the exact hertz point in maf comp table and boom, right on track. Yes though the values you see are much higher frequency then the factory mas and i think many didn't know to ignore the stock hertz and instead log and watch the raw hertz.

 

[We're on Boost]

Yes it worked just fine. Plug and play and then just log Raw frequency as it is much higher at points. We used one on a 2g as well back in the day and worked just fine too. Just have to watch the raw HZ as the HZ ecm link shows default will still say 50 something at idle and move around but raw says 500+ at idle. Then just tune it like a factory mas using the raw hz as the points. Doing it this way using RAW data and having it set for the gm maf used worked as stock. Look at log see at xxxx hertz wideband vs target. Then see what the comp % is then add or subtract that at the exact hertz point in maf comp table and boom, right on track. Yes though the values you see are much higher frequency then the factory mas and i think many didn't know to ignore the stock hertz and instead log and watch the raw hertz.

That sounds OK! Man I'm glad to hear that.
You know, since ECMtuning doesn't want to make that cable anymore, maybe they'd be willing to tell us exactly what's inside of one and how it's put together (circuit diagram). And let people make or try to make their own.

 

[steve]

The ECMTuning cable has to do what a MAFT does, take one set of frequency pulses and shift them to a lower frequency set. If I remember correctly the GM MAF outputs a voltage waveform that swings between 0 and 5V and whose frequency is proportional to the airflow. The problem is the range of frequency for the GM MAF is much higher than the Karmen MAFs the ECU reads and isn't linear.

I like the ease of tuning a well functioning MAF provides but running SD on ECMLink is easier than building building a new version of a GM MAF interface if you really have to vent your BOV.

Otherwise a 2G or EVO 8 MAF provides enough range for most and doesn't really create a big restriction.

 

[jed344]

The ECMTuning cable has to do what a MAFT does, take one set of frequency pulses and shift them to a lower frequency set. If I remember correctly the GM MAF outputs a voltage waveform that swings between 0 and 5V and whose frequency is proportional to the airflow. The problem is the range of frequency for the GM MAF is much higher than the Karmen MAFs the ECU reads and isn't linear.

I like the ease of tuning a well functioning MAF provides but running SD on ECMLink is easier than building building a new version of a GM MAF interface if you really have to vent your BOV.

Otherwise a 2G or EVO 8 MAF provides enough range for most and doesn't really create a big restriction.

I agree now days almost all the cars I tune are on SD and I recommend it. I do still have a 1g and 2g cable though and they did work. I do recall some weird quirks at time as the GM MAF was meant to be pull threw and not blow threw but nothing that was ever a issue.

Now that I think of it we may have 2 2g MAF cables, not sure how I would even go about dissecting one though.

 

[We're on Boost]

I agree now days almost all the cars I tune are on SD and I recommend it. I do still have a 1g and 2g cable though and they did work. I do recall some weird quirks at time as the GM MAF was meant to be pull threw and not blow threw but nothing that was ever a issue.

Now that I think of it we may have 2 2g MAF cables, not sure how I would even go about dissecting one though.

Did you run them blow through? Or pull through?
Do you have any logs still from any of the cars that were running with the cable? I'd be interested in seeing one, just to see what the MAFRaw frequencies were at different power levels from idle, cruise, and higher power levels.
In the in-app Help for example it says "You will be idling in the 500 hz range, rather than 50 hz."

 

[jed344]

I would have to check, these cars where all over 6 years ago but i might. We ran them as blow threw after the BOV so that way the air it metered was after the bov venting so car would not stall. Yes at idle i do remember the RAW was 500+ hz. Then as say air flow went up per say it would increase at a slower rate. So say 40lb/min vs 50lb/min is a large swing on stock mas but on gm maf it was not nearly as much of a increase in the hz. I have my old laptop from that time period yet so i may dig it up see if i can find a log. We are putting a 1g back together to sell we planned to use the gm maf and cable on before i knew apparently they are rare . I could put it on the car and tune it as to have that data before swapping it to SD. But yes the HZ would say 50-55 but RAW was 500-550 at idle. I don't know why the stock hz ecm link logs would keep showing the stock hz based off airflow yet the raw would show the real hz. The fact it lined up as only another zero at the end at idle is coincidence though.

 

[bastarddsm]

There is a divide by 4 chip in the cable. Not too hard to make really. I made one a while back to try and run a hitachi slot MAF on a hacked 1g bin. The trouble I had was as steve mentioned, the lack of linearity. The stock 1 byte table did not have enough range to make it work well. I suspect ECMLink has changed that in their version of the code.

I wish they would revisit that as the new MAF stuff is killer. I run a stock Coyote MAF on my all motor car and it's awesome. I doubt it'll ever happen, all the "experts" with cars that barely run tell everyone SD is the only way, so no one ever tries this stuff.

From the man himself

You must be logged in to view this image or video.