HELP: 2005 Avalanche PCM issue after full flash

[warlock007]

Ok, OS12606961 Z71 4WD avalanche, after loading .CAX file for lean cruise did a full flash as required everything seemed good, appeared to take it, timer count down etc.

Went out to start and nothing, everything comes on with lights etc, fuel pump now staying on, relay continues to click, V2 says PCM not seen and when trying to turn truck over nothing happens.

Key off Onstar light green, key on Onstar light red.

Talked to JoeCar, battery disconnected now, pulled the INFO fuse under hood( forum says its the on star system fuse) to try and reset PCM.

Don't no what happened as I've been doing normal flashes for tuning and everything working great, also full flash been working on 2000 vette with no issues, reconnected to vette to verify cable still good, works perfectly.

What happened, what do i need to do to reprogram the previous calibration that worked before .cax

thanks Mike

[GMPX]

It sounds like the PCM is bricked. Can you post the .cax file with the lean cruise patch?

[warlock007]

here you go, what does bricked mean?

I got the .cax file off of here as well.16046

[joecar]

bricked = "has same functionality/attributes as a brick"

[warlock007]

now that i understand, it appears it is just that, Ive checked all fuses and voltages all check out good.

does that mean i will need another one?

[GMPX]

It seems like the LC patch in the .cax file has been defined correctly, would you mind posting up the tune that has made the PCM unresponsive?

[warlock007]

16047

here you go,

I had completed a calibration update 1 hour before and drove the truck home with no issues at all. When i go home i loaded this one in under a full flash.

[GMPX]

Well I don't know why but the 'patch' has been applied to the wrong part of the OS, corrupting the code. Can you please explain the exact steps you took?

[warlock007]

I downloaded it, opened it, copied to desktop renamed it .cax, opened C: program files efi /V7.5/ calibrations and placed it there. saved closed and reopened tune file, verified it was there which you can see B9050 was added.

This was the exact sequence that Joecar walked me through when I added the .cax file for OS 156 into my C5 which added Lean Cruise B9100 along with B9021, B9021 works and I have not enabled B9100 yet. Ive completed full flashes on the C5 with no issues what so ever.

[GMPX]

I've just done the exact same thing and it applied the patch fine, the tune that has killed your ECM definately had the LC patch applied to the wrong part of the OS, but I am at a loss as to how that could happen.
Actually, the only way if could happen is if the wrong .cax was used, now the thing is the actual address the patch has been applied to is the one for your 12212156 C5 OS.

[Taz]

Hi Ross,

I wrote that *.cax file for Turbo_bu ... confirmed the address at the time ... confirmed it again tonight when I saw this post.

Warlock007,

Looking at the calibration history of your tune, when you loaded the *.cax today, it should have triggered an "out of range" warning and there would have been a red box around the B9050 value. This value in your tune was somehow "7" - not remotely correct. This should have been a warning sign that something was wrong.

The tune history shows that the LC patch was applied anyway.

Looking further into your tune history, you had also made changes to the ETC Pedal Response ... the changes to the Primary Response were small, but the changes to the Secondary Response were massive. There is a possibility that this is what initially corrupted your tune.

Just my thoughts ...


Cheers,
Taz

[warlock007]

I am confused, does this mean the 156 was applied to the 961 OS when i flashed the PCM, how could this happen? Its only supposed to be accessible to the OS the has the same numbers associated to it correct?

Does this mean I should not try to activate it in OS 156? or that one is ok.

What can I do at this point? does this mean the PCM is dead and worthless? Do i need to get another PCM and reprogram it? What about the license with this PCM, will it carry over? will this happen again if in the same situation with the 961 cax file.

[Taz]

... the only way if could happen is if the wrong .cax was used, now the thing is the actual address the patch has been applied to is the one for your 12212156 C5 OS ...

Was typing while you were posting this ... the 2002 LC address in the 2006 tune is populated with cells containing values in the 6 to 8 range ... thinking this is what has inadvertently happened.


Cheers,
Taz

[warlock007]

Hi Taz,

The tuner made those adjustment 6 months ago and after I bought EFI to do things myself Ive carried everything over as everything has worked perfectly since Feb. 2013.

I received no warnings other than the normal ones when doing a full flash, no red boxes, etc. the status showed good and I hit program, it went through the entire process as ive done dozens of times to date and at the end it said turn ignition off for timer countdown to complete.

everything seemed completely normal until i went to start it up and drive.

I always look for anything out of the ordinary but dont hit the test button everytime i program the computer.

[GMPX]

I am confused, does this mean the 156 was applied to the 961 OS
Yes, that is what I would say has happened.


Its only supposed to be accessible to the OS the has the same numbers associated to it correct?
That is correct, is there any possibility that someone just renamed the 12212156.cax file to make it work with the Trucks OS?


Does this mean I should not try to activate it in OS 156? or that one is ok.
12212156.cax file looks fine.


What can I do at this point?
Try to figure out where the process went wrong in that the wrong OS patch data was applied.


does this mean the PCM is dead and worthless?
Unfortunately it is dead, non recoverable, you will need another, I don't expect that will cost too much as a used item though, maybe $50 to $100.


What about the license with this PCM, will it carry over? will this happen again if in the same situation with the 961 cax file.
The license will not carry over to another PCM, lets figure out the cause before we discuss what happens on this point.


Was typing while you were posting this ... the 2002 LC address in the 2006 tune is populated with cells containing values in the 6 to 8 range ... thinking this is what has inadvertently happened.
Not sure what you mean by '6 to 8 range', but if I was a betting man I'd put money on the 12212156.cax file was modified to work on the trucks OS (incorrectly).

Every CAX file for the LC patch carries the following warning........

; Lean Cruise Patch for GenIII OS 12212156
; DO NOT RENAME TO USE ON ANY OTHER OS, IT WON'T WORK
; DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE AND REDISTRIBUTE, YOU MIGHT KILL SOMEONES PCM


Cheers,
Ross

[Taz]

... Not sure what you mean by '6 to 8 range', but if I was a betting man I'd put money on the 12212156.cax file was modified to work on the trucks OS (incorrectly) ...

Sorry Ross, I was vague ...

In the tune history it showed "7" as the initial value of the cell(s) the LC patch was incorrectly applied too. If the incorrect 16 bit address had leading zeros followed by these 6 to 8 value cells, then it would perhaps explain this value ... was just thinking out loud (and not very well !).

Cheers,
Taz

[warlock007]

OK, the one I sent you is corrupted correct? so deleting that from my tune file is best at this point correct?

Yes, I was able to track down 1 for 75 from a 2003 suburban with Flex fuel, will pick up tomorrow. However Is there someone I can talk to on the license? It appears I did nothing wrong and I'm hoping that i'm not going to be penalized by having to buy another, Hopefully.

Good to know the 156 is safe and correct.

I will re-install the one before adding the cax file, apply the cax update, send it to you for verification on code for any corruption then install if you give it the all clear.

Thank you for all your help

Mike

[Wheelz]

Just curious... Where did you get that .CAX file from? Kinda wanting to avoid doing something similar to mine...

[GMPX]

OK, the one I sent you is corrupted correct? so deleting that from my tune file is best at this point correct?
Yes, delete the tune.


However Is there someone I can talk to on the license? It appears I did nothing wrong and I'm hoping that i'm not going to be penalized by having to buy another, Hopefully.
Mike, the thing with these Lean Cruise patch .cax files is they are not supplied by EFILive or created by EFILive.
Taz created that .cax, however like I found, he said there is nothing wrong with the 12606961.cax, the problem you ran in to is the Lean Cruise patch for OS 12212156 was applied to your truck OS 12606961. Technically that cannot happen in the software because it can't load the .cax from another OS, the only way I see that being possible is someone renamed the 12212156.cax to 12606961.cax and applied the patch.

[warlock007]

Taz,

I had no warning or indication, I see where your talking about now, I went in and looked at history and see the "7", that said nothing alerted me something was wrong or out of spec at anytime. I can assure that I always look for warnings as in my field ignoring them can kill many both in the air and on the ground. I have received "The out of range window" in the past when the tuner removed all the max torque tolerances in the 4wd part of the tune that I reversed and your correct, when that happened it was the first thing that comes to the screen when you open the tune program, this case it did not, it opened right to the calibration window and showed nothing wrong.

I appreciate everyones help in this as well in other areas.

[GMPX]

Mike, I'm not saying that the license won't be replaced, but as it stands the problem with your PCM was more than likely not caused by EFILive. If someone wants to put their hand up and say yes, I just renamed the .cax file that is going to save tech support a lot of stuffing around trying to reproduce the issue.

[warlock007]

Thanks Ross,

I have that luck, I am sure Taz's .cax file is ok as no one in the past said there was any issues with it or this would of come out before now. something happened in this case that i wish i knew or could explain.

Disappointing on the license help and understand the .cax not supported ( however most of the cax files of the past have been written into the newer programs) isnt that how programs get better over time? people like Taz-Joecar-mick-PSB and many others figure out how to do something verify it works and then it gets into a future released update? example: 156 .cax file wrote into file everything except B9021 and B9100 as the others have been integrated into current files.

[warlock007]

Thank you Ross,

Ill be going on tomorrow when i get the new PCM, after i purchase the new license Ill send you the tune file with cax added for the verification if thats ok

Mike

[joecar]

My understanding of the events:
- Mike applied 12212156.cax to his Corvette (source: 5.7ute provided "cax b" which was renamed "12212156.cax" as an allowable OS for that cax);
- Mike applied 12606961.cax to his truck (source: Taz provided 12606961.cax which contains the correct format for that OS);

I instructed Mike of the Windows folder "Calibrations" to deposit the cax file (Mike had initially deposited one of the cax files into folder "LS1B" which is one level too deep).

I'm not aware of any other events.

[GMPX]

Yeah but what actually happened was the LC patch details for 12212156.cax got applied to the Trucks tune (12606961), i can think of only one way that can happen.

[joecar]

The instructions on the cax files give the OS id's that each of cax a/b/c file are applicable to...

see posts #12 and #23 here: need-B9021-for-01250003 (http://forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?17699-need-B9021-for-01250003)


Yeah, the software couldn't confuse 12212156 and 12606961 (that would be a serious bug in the string compare that would have shown itself just about everywhere).

[joecar]

If cax b was copied to 12606961.cax (i.e making an incorrect cax) and it was flashed, then why did the PCM not fail then... why did it fail when the correct 12606961.cax was flashed...?

It doesn't make sense... something is missing.

[GMPX]

It doesn't make sense... something is missing.
Yep, sure is.

[warlock007]

There was no warning, no red boxes, no out of range warnings, nothing that said this is corrupt and not installed.

I bought another PCM and flashed it, then applied cax file, did a test run, verified run, went into all warning areas and it applied correctly this time. I'm not sure when, why, how to did code corruption.

It did in this case, maybe it was an underline of placing 156 in th ls1B first before being corrected to the right calibration file after I don't know. What I do know is when I applied the cax file it accepted it, when I flashed it, it didn't warn me of any errors, then it flashed normally with no indication of something wrong until I tried to start.

If I screwed up knowingly I'd be more than willing to step up but I don't believe I did

[joecar]

...

I bought another PCM and flashed it, then applied cax file, did a test run, verified run, went into all warning areas and it applied correctly this time. I'm not sure when, why, how to did code corruption.

...Mike,

So you flashed the new PCM with the 12606961.cax patched 12606961 file and the truck runs ok...?

[joecar]

There was no warning, no red boxes, no out of range warnings, nothing that said this is corrupt and not installed.

I bought another PCM and flashed it, then applied cax file, did a test run, verified run, went into all warning areas and it applied correctly this time. I'm not sure when, why, how to did code corruption.

It did in this case, maybe it was an underline of placing 156 in th ls1B first before being corrected to the right calibration file after I don't know. What I do know is when I applied the cax file it accepted it, when I flashed it, it didn't warn me of any errors, then it flashed normally with no indication of something wrong until I tried to start.

If I screwed up knowingly I'd be more than willing to step up but I don't believe I didHi Mike,

I've spoken to you often enough to know that if you screwed up you would simply say so (seriously).

If you did as we discussed (phone/email) then there was no screw up (since I would never copy a cax to an OS id that was not compatible);


I don't think having the 12212156.cax file in the LS1B folder would have mattered (the tunetool would simply not find the cax file);


the problem may be in the starting 12606961 file that you applied the 12606961.cax to (the 12606961 file would have had to be already tainted).

[warlock007]

Appears to be so far.

I do have a battery light that stays on now and no dtc showing for it, verified battery charge and alt performance.

Something happened with previous system, I went back to an untouched version of tune and applied the patch.

Had to purchase another license as I've not herd from efi support on this and needed the truck operational.

Again something happened and the safety system did not activate

[Taz]

Gentlemen,

I am going to make a few points of fact ... then leave you to your own good consciences.

I wrote the Lean Cruise *.cax file for 2005 OS 12606961 for another Forum member - after his request. I verified that it worked properly prior to posting it (in hindsight I should have emailed it, and never posted it).

Warlock007 - you have applied it properly this time around (on your second PCM), and you can now also verify that it is correct.

I reviewed your previous attempt at applying a *.cax file to your 2005 tune - some type of error was made (copy & paste, or a file rename) - that caused the Lean Cruise address from OS12212156 (2002) to be applied to your 2005 OS (12606961). As you know, this had a catastrophic result - a bricked PCM.

I then replicated how this would have manifest to the software user. I switched the Lean Cruise addresses, and then opened a 2005 tune with OS12606961. The B9050 parameter (which I used for Lean Cruise) did not trigger an out of range warning - I realized that it cannot - due to the type of values (i.e. not 0 vs 1 type data) used to Enable / Disable Lean Cruise. So, no out of range warning, nor red box around the data.

However, rather than display "Disabled" (as would have been expected) it would have displayed a number - in a format similar to this "<7>" in the B9050 parameter box. From your tune history, it appears a "7" was displayed, however from other calibrations I opened during this exercise it could have been a one, two, three, or four digit number - but a number NOT a word - big difference.

So when a number was displayed, not the expected "Disabled" or "Enabled" parameter - this should have set off an alarm in your brain that something was wrong. Prudence would have dictated stopping, confirming the address in the *.cax file that you had saved to your Calibration folder, followed by seeking support.

Instead, you pressed the "Enabled" button, saved the tune, then full-flashed it.

I have no doubt this error was innocent / inadvertent / unintended.

EFILive (the corporation) does not provide *.cax files to users. EFILive (the corporation) does not warranty issues caused by the use of *.cax files. The use of *.cax files are strictly at the risk of the user - and from a business standpoint it must be this way.

If the tone of this post sounds like I am pissed off - it is because I am.

EFILive allows users to create new parameters via the *.cax file process. EFILive does not have to do this - HPT does not. What this means to business owners (like myself) is that rather than lobby the good folks at EFILive to add new parameters to obsolete controllers (like the LS1-B), users can do this for themselves.

It makes little business sense for EFILive to invest R&D hours in any obsolete controller. No problem - as long as there is a means for the user to do this themselves - at their own risk.

Here is the problem. Too many people make an error, then want EFILive to credit them a VIN license. I'm from a generation that would not even ask - it wasn't their error. To this end, EFILive has begun limiting the use of *.cax files in recent software releases. Further, there is talk of EFILive eliminating the ability to use *.cax files completely.

I have nearly 100 *.cax files in daily use - from 1999 to 2013 model years, for 8 different controllers. It took hundreds of hours of R&D to create all of these - and the continued success of my business relies on these being available for use.

I attempt to answer questions, and help users on this Forum - although not nearly as much as I did at one point in time. If the end result of my philanthropic efforts, is that the software gets locked down to the point where it is of little use to me, then that will end any further Forum contributions from me.


Regards,
Taz

[kangsta]

Agreed Taz, there are a lot of people who make use of the cax facility in our daily work. It is a fantastic feature that only EFILive has. There are risks that you accept when you use them including killing a ECU if something isn't done right. It's part of it and I personally wouldn't expect EFILive it any other community member to provide compensation.

This isn't targeted at the OP, just a warning to people wanting to use cax, and a vote if appreciation to EFILive for providing the facility

[warlock007]

I am understanding of what is said above and grateful for the people who do know how to do these things and give others access to there work.

I came on here for help to understand what happened and to me it appeared there was a glitch in the system after it was figured out the data was corrupted, which is why i then asked EFI for the license credit. However, if the error was me (possible) i have no problem at all excepting that, learning from it then moving on.

Ive been lucky that Joe has made himself accessible to me when i get into something i dont understand as well as being able to come on this forum and receive the guidance that is provided or directed to the location of the information requested as Im sure everyone on here feels the same way.

Again, if I somehow caused the error, i except responsibility. If theres a glitch, maybe this can be used to see if there is a way to provide a warning when the wrong thing happens with in the program before it can be run. That might not be realistic or cost effective but just a thought.

[Taz]

There is no "glitch" in the EFILive software that contributed to this incident. This was 100% a user error.

You made some sort of copy or renaming error which corrupted the original OS12606961*.cax file. You then elected to apply the corrupt *.cax file by pressing the "Enable" button when a number of some sort (not "Disabled" as would have been expected) was displayed in the B9050 parameter box - this action then constituted your second user error.

The parameters to Disable vs Enable Lean Cruise are not the usual "0 vs 1" - they are "26118 vs 20081". This means that the parameters limits in the *.cax file (even if set as tightly as possible) could not prevent / alert all possible user errors.

Using a *.cax file correctly, just like reworking the VE table with a WBO, requires a certain a mount of user knowledge. Blindly setting the VE table to whatever value was calculated - without exercising logic - could result in catastrophic engine damage. In this case, blindly applying the Lean Cruise parameters when presented with an anomaly (a number in the parameter box) - comes down to the user failing to exercise logic / reasonable caution.