Is this how I fried my ECM?

[Ackattack]

The other day I was working on my truck (68 C-10 with an 05 5.3L in it)

The 05 ECM that I have is from a Yukon Denali with a 6.0L in it. I realized this, so I took a look at the tune from my '05 silverado (5.3L also). Using the compare function, I changed all of the settings in the Yukon ECM to match the silverado's (execpt for a few things such as VATS, and the DSCs since I don't have emmissions)

Anyways, two of the Parameters that I changed included "Pedal Desired Area". Tonight I was reviewing my tune and saw the warning at the bottom saying "Modify this table at OWN RISK. Incompatibility of this calibration with the vehicle TAC module calibration my render PCM permanently inoperable"


So a few days ago after I loaded up my new tune as well as hooked up a "pull up wire" to get my autometer tach to work I start up the truck. The truck starts up just like it should and I get a tach reading. I blip the throttle to see the tach move and the truck pretty much immediatly dies.

Now the truck won't start, the TPS shows 100% (the throttle body is closed btw) and I get a DTC error of
U0107 - Lost Communication With Throttle Actuator Control Module
P0606 - Control Module Internal Performance

Also I get a boot loader request timed out when I try to go back to my previous tune.

So I think this is what may have fried the ECM, not the tach wire mod. Anyone else have this problem?

[Bill@HPTuners]

Yes those tables can fry your pcm.

[KLUG'S SS]

That's why as curious as I am about making changes to them I havent yet because I don't feel like wiping out my pcm. Besides I am not even convinced that any changes to those tables will even make any difference anyways.

[Ackattack]

Yes those tables can fry your pcm.

Duh!!!!

I guess I learned my lesson about just coping and pasting from one to another....need to be more careful and pay better attention to detail.

[Johns98TA]

YEP I just did the exact same thing to a 2005 Silverado 5.3L. I multiplied the pedal position table by 1.1 (110%) to give it a lil more perceived throttle response.
Uploaded the tune into the truck, no problems. Truck started up just fine and was idling fine. Put into drive, hit pedal, and engine stalls immediately. The DIC is flashing "engine overheated" and "reduced power mode". Engine will not crank, DTC codes cannot be cleared, and I get the same problem with the bootloader failure when trying to reload the stock tune.
Diagnosis: PCM is FUBAR

The really frustrating thing is that I made the same exact changes to my 2005 8.1L silverado, and it worked just fine. In fact, I have refined that pedal position table many times to get it how I like it.

Bill, is there any way to know what we can and can not get away with?

Frying a PCM is a horrible way to find out your pedal position settings are incorrect.

[KLUG'S SS]

YEP I just did the exact same thing to a 2005 Silverado 5.3L. I multiplied the pedal position table by 1.1 (110%) to give it a lil more perceived throttle response.
Uploaded the tune into the truck, no problems. Truck started up just fine and was idling fine. Put into drive, hit pedal, and engine stalls immediately. The DIC is flashing "engine overheated" and "reduced power mode". Engine will not crank, DTC codes cannot be cleared, and I get the same problem with the bootloader failure when trying to reload the stock tune.
Diagnosis: PCM is FUBAR

The really frustrating thing is that I made the same exact changes to my 2005 8.1L silverado, and it worked just fine. In fact, I have refined that pedal position table many times to get it how I like it.

Bill, is there any way to know what we can and can not get away with?

Frying a PCM is a horrible way to find out your pedal position settings are incorrect.

......and a costly one at that.

[03Sierraslt]

I just stumbled across two stock 04 Sierra Tunes with two different sets of parameters for this table. So how do you know what is right and what is wrong?

[03Sierraslt]

I had one loaded today with a different table and the throttle was much more responsive but when working on the tune I noticed a difference in the tables and started looking on here to see what the deal was and found this thread. I put the table back to what it has been for the last however many years due to reading what I seen above. Why would two stock 04 sierra 6.0 tunes have different values for this table?

[03Sierraslt]

Anyone?

[Google]

are the segments the same for the tac module and both pcm's or was there an update to one of them?

tis check..

[03Sierraslt]

I am not sure how to check that

[Google]

I am not sure how to check that

http://tis2web.service.gm.com/tis2web check the vin.. then look at the segments in each tune and see if one has the tis update and the other does not..

see attached..



..

[03Sierraslt]

Both tunes are showing to have the correct #2 segment which is engine, both sets of segment #'s match. Although mine currently loaded doesnt match on #1 segment, but the rest do. The other tune I have with the different throttle settings has a mismatch #4 segment which is transmission. So i still dont know which segment has the CORRECT table. Or are they both right?

[03Sierraslt]

Just realized I believe my #1 segment doesnt match because I am running a custom OS. 2BarSD.. Is this correct?

[spike]

i've messed with these tables and in some cases it frys it immediately, in some cases in takes a while and in other cases nothing happens at all. The difference is definitly noticable. I was having as issue with frying computers but not cause i messed with the tables it was because i changed the whole file from and HD silverado since we did a 4l80e swap into a 1500 silverado. I could'nt figure out the issue but i suspected it had to do with those tables. I even tried copying the stock tables from the original file but it was still frying the pcm. I finally used 2.22 and it worked great. So my advice is that if u want to experiment at your own risk use 2.22. Not the best advice but this is only for those who want to experiment and don't mind taking the risk.

[03Sierraslt]

Are you talking about vers. 2.22 for HPT software? If so I am running 2.23 beta. Does this mean stay with what I have or go back to 2.22?

[prostreet1967]

realize this is several years old but i was using search function.

I have 2003 silverado pcm, i wired my truck using the 2003 harness i removed TAC module and electric throttle body, truck is now wired for TPS and IAC. what would i do in pcm settings to prevent this from happening. i have harness information and pcm number if anyone interested in this mod.

the pcm i have does have the IAC driver, but before i purchase the license for 2003 silverado i want to make sure there is the option. i know the silverado has DBW but the express van was DBC.

[Shrek]

You should really start a new thread of your own ... yours is a different topic.

This thread relates to programming changes in DBW (drive by wire) configurations. You are now DBC (drive by cable).

The 1999 to 2002 512 Kb P01 PCMs would support either DBC or DBW.

Beginning in 2003 these were updated to 1 Mb P59 PCMs. These PCMs became somewhat application specific - only select versions (Service Number / Hardware Number) would support DBC.

If your PCM is from a 2003 Silverado that was originally equipped with a V8 engine - it will be missing the driver for the IAC control.

So the short answer is, to use DBC with a 1 Mb P59 PCM, you need the correct PCM. Regarding tuning - most people would opt to run a tune from a 2003 Express / Savana van that used DBC (some were DBW).

[prostreet1967]

Sorry for thread jacking thought it would be similar to my question. Made my own thread