But it depends on what the truck is doing at the time you shut off #3. Under some conditions that will shut off one cylinder (not 3) and under other conditions it will shut off a different injector (also not 3).
LLY: EFILive DVT's...broken...?
- Thread starter duratothemax
- Start date
- Status
But it depends on what the truck is doing at the time you shut off #3. Under some conditions that will shut off one cylinder (not 3) and under other conditions it will shut off a different injector (also not 3).
Ok, that explains alot why you were hesitant to put out the info.....thanks for the hint at what the issue was.
Hopefully an EFI revision to make it work properly will be forthcoming in the near future.
No, injectors are connected to the FICM in banks of 4 so if you disconnect 1 injector, all 4 on the same circuit go out. Only way to do it is to use a V2 or Tech 2 in combination with an oscilloscope to verify which injector is actually off. There may be another way as well which has not come to light yet though.
Last edited:
not so easy on a lb7, valve cover has to come off to do each one individually. the connector outside the valve cover disconnects two at a time
Hmm I figured you could since they each have a connector on the individual injector
Just llys are affected by this problem I think.
Hmm I figured you could since they each have a connector on the individual injector
When you pull the connector on 1 injector, 4 injectors will cut off.
Yes, the issue is just on LLY trucks too......LB7 was verified correct in EFI earlier in the thread.
This thread has been going on since 2010. On numerous occasions we asked for further information to support the claims made. Nothing was forthcoming. This is a two way street, we stopped development for LLY in 2008, this thread (and the matching one on our forum) are the ONLY discussions of the issue and only raised by one or two users. At this point of time we have no plans on revisiting a 7 YO platform where development ceased 4 years ago.
For thread continuity below is what we posted in February.
and in 2010
Has EFI been contact with Dustin about this at all?
http://www.duramaxdiesels.com/forum/showpost.php?p=565542&postcount=108
That is about the most useless post I've ever seen. Why do you even post anything if you don't want to help?
He has, but it's too little too late. Our developers have moved on. His email hasn't progressed in favour of current development commitments.
Cheers
Cindy
So what you're telling me is that there is an issue, but that it's not important to EFI anymore (ie not a new market) and this will not be included in any future revisions of EFI. Cindy, this would be a perfectly acceptable answer provided we can get the information on how to translate what is seen in scantool into physical cylinder position.
Dustin, any chance you'd be willing to share your info at this point given that EFI has commented that they aren't interested?
Sent you another email this morning Cindy. As I said I will gladly talk to someone who is actually going to do something to fix the issue. You asked someone to do the work to positively identify the issue, I stayed late one night and spent hours doing that with the expectation that my work would be put to use to fix the problem. If you could have a developer contact me I would be glad to explain what I found.
Josh I didn't have my table in front of me to tell him which injector it shuts off under every condition, so I helped him the best I could without it.
Josh I didn't have my table in front of me to tell him which injector it shuts off under every condition, so I helped him the best I could without it.
Ok, I know I have used that feature on an LB7 to pinpoint which injector was causing the noise.
I'm not telling you there is an issue - the answer is we don't know if there is or not.
What I am telling you is that our product has been available for around 7 years. In that time there has been 0 reported issues until this thread, and subsequent to that the thread on our forum.
Out of the 1,000's of LLY's that have used our software over such an extensive period of time logical reasoning suggests that either the issue reported doesn't exist or if the issue does exist it affects so few customers that the benefits of revisiting the code is relatively small. If you go back to the start of the thread we have indicated it may simply be a terminology issue.
Lets face it. This thread started in 2010. We offered to look into it and no one stepped up. We asked again and again when this thread was bumped. We then posted if we didn't get feedback the issue would be closed some 12-18 months after the issue was raised - still no one stepped up. And now that we've moved on your getting upset? While I appreciate your point, I'd expect that customers would understand ours.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect us to stop development on current projects to review a potential issue on a 7 year old platform where less than a handful of people have been affected and it's taken 18 months for the issue to be documented/tested.
mtl_dmax has this issue has directly affected you? I can find no record of emails/communications regarding you having reported these issues.
Dustin, I'll forward your email once again to Ross. He is eyeball deep in Cummins and adding GM Gasser support. He is notoriously anal about making sure our software is correct, so I'd suggest that at some point he will look at it. It's just no longer a priority. He isn't going to drop his development schedule to investigate an issue reported 18 months ago. It will be the type of task he switches to when he needs a break. Could be in the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months or longer.
Cheers
Cindy
Last edited:
Just to keep everyone up to date on this I wrote both Paul and Ross an email this morning including our findings and how we tested and were able to positively identify the problem. Hopefully with this information they can fix the issue relatively easily when they need a mental break from their current projects.
Cindy, I can appreciate your view on this from a business perspective and I hope you could understand why I might be concerned about this as a consumer. As for whether there is an issue or not, I think we'll have to just agree to disagree. I have seen other threads online alluding to a potential issue (I linked to them in this thread too) so I don't believe it is correct that this and the EFI forum thread are the only places this issue has come to the surface. While EFI may have sold 1000's of these to LLY owners, the logic doesn't follow that it necessarily would have been found quickly. The issue is that you'd have to not only factor in having an injector issue similar to what Ben saw, but you'd also need to factor owning a Tech 2 or oscilloscope (very uncommon/expensive equipment) to verify what was happening and then beyond that you'd need to take the initiative to post it online for someone to find out about it. I think if we did out the math we'd figure out quite quickly why something might not have been discovered sooner.
With all due respect once again I'm not here to be a pain or make your life difficult, but as an someone who both owns this hardware/software and owns an LLY truck, I certainly have a stake in making sure I don't end up costing myself a significant amount of money by replacing perfectly good injectors on my truck. As I mentioned above, should modifications in the software be too complex, I would be perfectly fine with a work around being developed. I would also like to state that even if there is a potential issue in the DVT tool for LLY's, In my view this does not take away from the hard work the folks at EFI have put in to making this the best tuning software available on the market for Duramax trucks so I would extend my thanks to yourself, Ross, Paul and the rest of the the staff who worked to tirelessly to develop the product to where it is today.
Last edited:
Ben and I spent dozens of hours the last couple Weeks tuning my truck and I can honestly say we are thoroughly annoyed with the DVT function and all its glitches. My truck has lb7 electronics and half the time the dvt function wouldnt work without multiple restarts, then it wouldn't deactivate until completely disconnected. This issue and many like it have been reported by regular consumers and professional tuners and beta testers for a long time. Why does efi live choose to spend their time trying to support every vehicle under the sun when there are incredibly inconvenient glitches that need to be fixed in already developed platforms? Efi live mightve been awesome for the first fee years because it was unrivaled, but now for the serious user it seems much less problematic to switch to a standalone ecm and software. Efi live can progress, and we all want to to see it happen, I just wish that you guys shared the same interest in furthering duramax performance.
Thanks,
Tim Judd
Thanks,
Tim Judd
- Status