Putting a Caprice engine (L05-7) into a 92 g30 van (has L80e trans)

[L31MaxExpress]

Even with re-pinning and running two computers, I found EBL much easier to use than reprogramming a chip.

My EBL was the classic, I was a Beta tester on it back in the day. I have owned an AutoProm for about 20 years. Those emulate a chip and allow realtime tuning changes. Once the tune is done, burn the chip and done. In reality the AutoProm stayed connected a lot in my old G20, making slight adjustments.

 

[SNCTMPL]

My EBL was the classic, I was a Beta tester on it back in the day. I have owned an AutoProm for about 20 years. Those emulate a chip and allow realtime tuning changes. Once the tune is done, burn the chip and done. In reality the AutoProm stayed connected a lot in my old G20, making slight adjustments.

I switched to the EBL around 2011 or 12 after trying, I think Harris tuning, to datalog and burn a chip. Then I tried the Autoprom and just couldn’t get the hang of it.
I just sold the Autoprom and few other Moates pieces on Thirdgen.

 

[L31MaxExpress]

I switched to the EBL around 2011 or 12 after trying, I think Harris tuning, to datalog and burn a chip. Then I tried the Autoprom and just couldn’t get the hang of it.
I just sold the Autoprom and few other Moates pieces on Thirdgen.

That is unfortunate. Did you actually end up making transmission adjustments? Being able to adjust the shift points, lockup points and shift firmness are a big part in how I tune those 4L80E and 4L60E setups to hold up and be fun to drive.

That being said I love my emulators and still use it occasionally. I have a buddy that gave me his Ostrich when he decided he was never going to tune another OBD1 and converted his 1995 to a L31 with 24x, MPFI, coil near plug and a P59 PCM. I have it for backup along with an old Moates Burn1 or two. Hard thing to find now is a decent quality 29C256 or 27F512 chip now that Amtel and the good suppliers discontinued them years ago. The Chinese clones are often garbage out of the box or fail within 50-100 flashes, where the good ones lasted almost indefinitely. Just a few images of what I have going on tuning these older GMs. The car is actually an 87 Firebird that was a former LG4 car that has a hot little TPI 355 in it. He did not want the wideband visible in the interior, so he hid the wideband and OBD port behind the glovebox lid. Actually makes it a pretty slick setup when I realtime tune it. I rode shot gun, eyes on the laptop, wideband out of the corner of my eyes, made changes while we were rolling. I know another friend got a kick out of it when it was dyno tuned. He had no idea that an 80s GM chip based ECM could be real time tuned with a running engine.

You must be registered for see images attach

You can actually see the data trace option when emulating and datalogging at the same time with TunerProRT. The cells the engine is running on through interpolation are Green. The darker greyed out cells were an area of either the VE table or Spark timing table, I had grabbed and made a change to. When I am roughing in a tune, I will grab large areas around where the engine is running that are rich or lean or have too little or too much timing and give the whole area a change. Once its close, I then smooth it all out and fine tune it. With a wideband, ECM in open loop and real time tuning, I can get the fuel and timing tables roughed out in 10-20 minutes, versus 20-30 datalogs and reburns. It is even quicker on a load bearing dyno with a dyno operator running the dyno and vehicle to load the engine as needed. Within reason obviously the dyno can hold the engine at whatever rpm and load needed to dial in specific areas of the maps not often able to be hit in normal driving except momentarily.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[SNCTMPL]

I think that’s why my setup sold so fast, it was like new, but I had five brand new 27F512 chips to go with it.

The EBL worked out for me because of a friend that is a tuner and has a couple of chassis dynos. I knew the software, so he told me what changes to make and I would make them. First on the dyno and then on a little drive. In a couple of hours we had it way better than the months I spent messing with chips. I remember that day like it was yesterday.

 

[L31MaxExpress]

I think that’s why my setup sold so fast, it was like new, but I had five brand new 27F512 chips to go with it.

The EBL worked out for me because of a friend that is a tuner and has a couple of chassis dynos. I knew the software, so he told me what changes to make and I would make them. First on the dyno and then on a little drive. In a couple of hours we had it way better than the months I spent messing with chips. I remember that day like it was yesterday.

The friend I have worked with multiple times owns a Mustang dyno. I try not to bother him too much with my stuff though. When he is not busy I sometimes get to play around testing stuff. Works out well because he can set the dyno up to hit what I need load wise and that really speeds up the part-throttle stuff versus trying to do it in DFW traffic. The dyno can do stuff like simulate a 6% grade at 50 mph and do it for long enough to really be able to dial it in. It can also be used to say simulate the same grade in 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears so all the rpm range gets hit. It can also be set to slowly increase load with constant speed, requiring the dyno operator to progressively open the throttle. Can also be setup for any number of random things like an IM240 test or even a simulation of various running conditions. The dyno screen has a speed trace that the vehicle operator must adjust the throttle to match in that mode. Good steady dyno/vehicle operator is nearly a must have as it frees the actual tuner up to focus on the data and adjustments needed. The speed and load can both be maintained as a constant variable. I always finalize my tuning with some street tuning, which usually ends up being more of a health check than any crazy changes.

It also really helps having two versed tuners at a given time when I have messed with this stuff. He has run across stuff I have not and vice versa.

 

[Schurkey]

OK, then with a 350 balancer AND a balanced flex plate, we're running an internal balanced engine. I didn't think they existed in a 350 block

They don't. The Chevy small block used to be considered "internally balanced" but most of them weren't. Only the very earliest versions were--265, maybe 283. And I'm not totally sure about those.

They may use a neutral-balance damper, and a neutral-balance flywheel/flexplate, but most or all of them still got a counterweight formed into the crankshaft hanging out the back of the block. Therefore, they're "externally balanced" at the rear, but using a neutral-balanced flywheel/flexplate. Same with the 366/396/402/427

Of course, the 400 had external balance at the front and the rear, because both the damper and the flywheel/flexplate were not neutral-balanced. Same with the 454.

And then the one-piece rear main engines got neutral-balanced dampers but offset weights at the rear because that counterweight that used to hang off the rear of the crank can't be there any more or the seal won't slide over it.

I went nuts trying to get the one-piece rear main seal 350 in my K1500 balanced--the two aftermarket flexplates I bought were weighted differently, and neither one matched the OEM one-piece seal weighting. BE CAREFUL about which flexplate/flywheel you use on a one-piece seal block.

Decades ago, I put a 400 small block in my 'Camino. Aftermarket crank, rods, pistons. I gave the balance shop a standard "400" damper and flexplate. Turns out that engine was easiest to balance with a 400 damper and a neutral-balance flexplate.

In short...put on the parts that 1. fit properly, and 2. actually balance the engine.

All 1-piece rear seal SBCs and even 4.3Ls have a counterweighted flexplate or equivalently balanced flywheel to my knowledge. My 383 is just like any 86+ SBC, neutral balance front, counterweighted rear. That would be internal balanced front and external balanced rear.

Yup.

- may need reverse flow water pump

No such thing, that I'm aware of.

There's water pumps intended to have the impeller spin the same direction as the crank (early engines.)

There's water pumps intended to have the impeller spin the opposite direction as the crank ("reverse rotation" pumps, driven from the smooth side of a serpentine belt.)

But the FLOW is always the same--from the inlet of the pump, to the outlet where it meets the block.

Note that some SBC ENGINES--blocks, heads, head gaskets--are intended for so-called "reverse flow", but the water inlet on the block is in the standard location. The internal passages are revised so the coolant gets pushed "up" into the heads right away.

Pontiac also had "reverse flow" from '55 to '59 or '60. But they had the coolant coming out of the water pump enter the heads directly, not the block. International went to "reverse flow" (which they called "Improved Cooling") on their later 392 truck engines, but never on their 345, 304, or 26x versions. It was more like the Pontiac system than the Chevy system.

Both Pontiac and Chevy got rid of "reverse flow", International used it for a few years and then pretty-much went bankrupt.

 

[L31MaxExpress]

They don't. The Chevy small block used to be considered "internally balanced" but most of them weren't. Only the very earliest versions were--265, maybe 283. And I'm not totally sure about those.

They may use a neutral-balance damper, and a neutral-balance flywheel/flexplate, but most or all of them still got a counterweight formed into the crankshaft hanging out the back of the block. Therefore, they're "externally balanced" at the rear, but using a neutral-balanced flywheel/flexplate. Same with the 366/396/402/427

Of course, the 400 had external balance at the front and the rear, because both the damper and the flywheel/flexplate were not neutral-balanced. Same with the 454.

And then the one-piece rear main engines got neutral-balanced dampers but offset weights at the rear because that counterweight that used to hang off the rear of the crank can't be there any more or the seal won't slide over it.

I went nuts trying to get the one-piece rear main seal 350 in my K1500 balanced--the two aftermarket flexplates I bought were weighted differently, and neither one matched the OEM one-piece seal weighting. BE CAREFUL about which flexplate/flywheel you use on a one-piece seal block.

Decades ago, I put a 400 small block in my 'Camino. Aftermarket crank, rods, pistons. I gave the balance shop a standard "400" damper and flexplate. Turns out that engine was easiest to balance with a 400 damper and a neutral-balance flexplate.

In short...put on the parts that 1. fit properly, and 2. actually balance the engine.


Yup.


No such thing, that I'm aware of.

There's water pumps intended to have the impeller spin the same direction as the crank (early engines.)

There's water pumps intended to have the impeller spin the opposite direction as the crank ("reverse rotation" pumps, driven from the smooth side of a serpentine belt.)

But the FLOW is always the same--from the inlet of the pump, to the outlet where it meets the block.

Note that some SBC ENGINES--blocks, heads, head gaskets--are intended for so-called "reverse flow", but the water inlet on the block is in the standard location. The internal passages are revised so the coolant gets pushed "up" into the heads right away.

Pontiac also had "reverse flow" from '55 to '59 or '60. But they had the coolant coming out of the water pump enter the heads directly, not the block. International went to "reverse flow" (which they called "Improved Cooling") on their later 392 truck engines, but never on their 345, 304, or 26x versions. It was more like the Pontiac system than the Chevy system.

Both Pontiac and Chevy got rid of "reverse flow", International used it for a few years and then pretty-much went bankrupt.

They also make some pumps, like Flowkoolers lineup that have straight impellor vanes that pump the same volume regardless of the direction of rotation. Flowkoolers can turn in either direction.

 

[Schurkey]

They also make some pumps, like Flowkoolers lineup that have straight impellor vanes that pump the same volume regardless of the direction of rotation. Flowkoolers can turn in either direction.

Maybe. I don't know about that. The straight-bladed impeller might not care which direction it's turning, but the housing it's in will probably be directional--with the coolant passages biased to direct the flow smoothly with one rotation more than the other. Kinda like a turbocharger housing that's intended to flow better when the impeller direction matches.

This is not a great example of what I mean--but it's what I have photos of. The impeller is directional, but so is the housing it's in. Mostly noticeable on the aluminum FlowKooler pump, the housing is shaped to favor counter-clockwise rotation (from this view) which would be "standard rotation" from the other side.

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[L31MaxExpress]

Maybe. I don't know about that. The straight-bladed impeller might not care which direction it's turning, but the housing it's in will probably be directional--with the coolant passages biased to direct the flow smoothly with one rotation more than the other. Kinda like a turbocharger housing that's intended to flow better when the impeller direction matches.

This is not a great example of what I mean--but it's what I have photos of. The impeller is directional, but so is the housing it's in. Mostly noticeable on the aluminum FlowKooler pump, the housing is shaped to favor counter-clockwise rotation (from this view) which would be "standard rotation" from the other side.

You must be registered for see images attach

I do not know on that style pump, but all their small block chevy pumps are listed to rotate either way. The flow variance is honestly not a big deal on a lower powered SBC using an OE pump. They all have a big bank to bank flow difference. Stewart has tested the stock style pumps many times and they are all around 60/40 split the way GM built them. Makes me wonder if some of the replacement stuff coming from China might even be worse in that regard. People having issues with overheating on stock stuff after changing everything cooling related lately. They built the thing and say it rotates either direction. I cannot thing of a single reason it would need to turn backwards on a Vortec or any OE setup. I have never seen a V-belt or grooved multi rib pulley made for that odd flange and the fan clutch would likely unthread itself and even it stayed in place, the fan and clutch are obviously directional as well.

You must be registered for see images attach

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[L31MaxExpress]

Come to think of it, I seem to remember the water pump flange bolt pattern being different between the CW and CCW rotation pumps. One is on a wider circle than the other. The pre 87 long pumps (or whatever fit those transition models like the R/V trucks and square body SUVs that ran through 91 with V-belts) would also have a large flange for the p/s mounting that would interfere with most serpentine brackets. Someone would really have to do some grinding, dremel work or drilling to get the wrong pulley onto the pump in the first place and would have to butcher the pump to even get it to mount into place.