I thought it was a safety switch myself until I checked the wiring diagram. It's definitely a parallel circuit to the relay.

 

I don't know. Why don't YOU research it and report back, so we can all learn. It isn't to set a code 54 in my car, because 1984s don't have the capability to display a code 54.


If you really can read the schematic, then you knew what I wrote, before I wrote it. Why didn't you acknowledge that? If you agree with what I said about circuit# 458, then you know there is no way, "the ECM "could" do exactly as I said". If the oil pressure drops to zero, and the oil pressure switch opens, circuits# 458 and 120 remain powered by the fuel pump relay. The signal to the ECM (and the fuel pump) on that circuit remains unchanged. There is no way for the ECM to know or to sense engine oil pressure, therefore there is no way the ECM can shut the engine down based on oil pressure.


If you had stated that you know how to read a schematic, earlier and said you realized what you forced me to write, I may not have said things, like, "Had you given your schematic more than a cursory look, I wouldn't have had to explain all that. It was right in front of your nose all along.". In fact, if you really could read the schematic, you wouldn't have opened with, "And again you didn't answer the question!! What does the ECM do with the circuit.", because you would realize that the connection to the ECM from that circuit could NOT shut off the engine. It is a fine line between sarcasm and the sad truth. If I were you, I'd want to call it sarcasm, too. Study on, and then...

RACE ON!!!

 

Christ dude,

Better yet, take a few vicatin.

If your car is an 84, and doesn't have code 54, and you don't know what it does, then get lost. This guy has a 96, and all your smart *** has come up with can be put simply as "read the f****** manual". I wonder how many members you've run off to date.

Save it. You're not "forced", or "have to" be here.

 

You're not "forced", or "have to" be here.



CFI must stay, I've learned more from his posts, then... well then anything!

This guy has a 96, and all your smart *** has come up with can be put simply as "read the f****** manual".

Besides, your wrong. mash557 asked what the purpose of the oil pressure switch was, CFI answered him and you and also mentioned to check the manual. That not being part of drochau's question at all.

drochau "The car will not turn back on until the oil pressure recovers which usually takes about 30-40seconds." Does the car crank over, have spark, have fuel pressure? Is the oil pressure reading zero and staying there for 30 seconds?

 

I've learned from him too. How NOT to give advice. Yes, this post got sidetracked. The ECM isn't shutting the car down due to oil pressure.

I hate Corvette owners.

 

""drochau "The car will not turn back on until the oil pressure recovers which usually takes about 30-40seconds." Does the car crank over, have spark, have fuel pressure? Is the oil pressure reading zero and staying there for 30 seconds?""

Car cranks fine, as far as I know it has spark, I've never had a shutdown and a timing light at the same time (remember this is somewhat intermittent). Oil pressure is reading 0 and not moving. I seem to remember fuel pressure going when the problem occurs. I unfortunately have a bunk autometer fp gauge at the moment that is being repaired, so I'm not driving the car under high boost because I don't want to lose fuel pressure and not know it.

 

Speaking of . Is there any rhyme or reason to jump into the middle of a "low oil pressure shut off circuit" discussion, with this name calling, defaming, swearing, attack on me, and spouting off the subject, "code 54", drivel?


You have jumped into the middle of an engine shut off discussion that started back in post #3, with off the subject talk of "code 54". Whether that ECM connection has anything to do with a "code 54" or not, there is NO way it could shut down the engine for the lack of oil pressure. And THAT was addressed, previously.


"This guy", drochau, and I have no problems. If you had been paying attention to the thread, you would know that I never referred drochau to the manual. It was mash557 that I referred to the manual, and practically read to him to show how the oil pressure switch is not a "low oil pressure switch" engine cutoff. Rather than answer YOUR question about terminal "G" in the ALDL, I should have referred YOU to the manual. Pardon my kindness. It was out of character. And besides, if you're so flipping smart, why didn't you know that?


If any, obviously, ONE too few.

RACE ON!!!

 

Looking at my '88 GM Shop Manual Supplement pp 20-6 & 20-7, there is a Dk Grn/Wht wire from ECM pin A1 that controls the FP relay. Inside the "ECM block", near that pin, is typed "fuel pump control (during start only)", which says that the ECM only powers the FP for that 2sec interval to prime the fuel rail.

However, I believe I've read within the manual body text that the ECM does keep the fuel pump relay energized.

Some day I'll have to put a DMM onto ALDL pin G to see if there is +12Vdc present, indicating that the relay is in fact not energized. If the relay is energized there would be an open circuit at pin G.

 

These cars aren't all that different, in principle. In my 1984 book, "Chart A-5 Fuel System Diagnosis" shows the Dk Grn/Wht wire as circuit #465. In my car, which has an ECM one step above an abacus, circuit #465 connects to ECM white connector #18, which is labeled, "12 volt relay drive". The labeling makes no mention as to the times when it "drives". The first paragraph after the above quoted chart title is the following, "When the ignition switch is turned "ON", the Electronic Control Module (ECM) will turn "ON" the in tank fuel pump. It will remain "ON" as long as the engine is cranking or running, and the ECM is receiving HEI distributor reference pulses." Elsewhere it states that the above cranking is for only two seconds if the HEI pulses aren't detected. Not necessarily for you, 65Z01, but that is further proof for those that need it, that the oil pressure switch cannot shut down the engine via the fuel pump.


Bear in mind, that the Dk Grn/Wht wire is the trigger from the ECM to the primary side of the fuel pump relay. Terminal "G" is wired directly to the 12 volt fuel pump power supply, the same as the relay secondary, and the oil pressure switch (Ckt #458). With the ignition key off, there is no power to terminal "G", however, if you power it with 12 volts, even with the key off, the fuel pump will run.

Thank you for your intelligent, informed, and researched, contrbution. That beats a slap shot from the hip, every time.

RACE ON!!!

 

Mine says the same thing, FP power during startup, to that effect. That'd be a good thing to test.

Although, if it was true, then that means the oil pressure switch is the only power source during run, and disconnecting it would kill the car, and trigger a code 54 if it had the chance.

 

I'll bet it says more, elsewhere. If all else fails, you could actually READ your schematic. Unplug the wires from the oil pressure switch while the engine is running. You'll get your answer, quickly.

RACE ON!!!

 

Go F*** yourself. I read the damn thing. It doesn't say more elsewhere.

 

I'll bet it does. I wish I had an '85 manual. I'd quote you chapter and verse. But since YOU can't find it, how about the two other suggestions, I made, that you quoted?

FIRST: And SECOND: Are you totally helpless? Would you rather fight or would you rather learn? Never mind. I think you've made that clear.

RACE ON!!!

 

CFI-EFI;

This is annoying as hell.

Why is that every thread I have seen you in has turned into a battle of attitudes? My threads included.

I am beginning to SEE the why... it's one thing to be right. It's one thing to impart knowledge. It's yet another to treat other people like ****ing morons and talk down to them in a condicending manner, picking apart every little word they say.

CFI-EFI, we are not here for grammar, engineering or word choice lessons, stop throwing our mistakes back at us like we are 10-year-olds just caught with our hands in a cookie jar.

The tone you use is acusitory, adversarial and just plain mean.

Personally, I would hate to work with, or be under you authority in any manner. I would be looking over my shoulder at every turn, waiting to be caught doing something minor, that you turn into a grand production of utter stupidity and failure.

Every time I see a post, I start to cringe, cause I don't know who you are going to flame out next. Take a step back, breath, count to ten, then consider your next statements; this attitude, dare I say, anger, has been getting worse of recent weeks.

I am not one to tolerate ignorance, just don't treat it like it's a perminant condition. Tact, grace, elegance and a little warmth would go a long way towards improving your reception here.

Stop the snippy, holier than thou attitude. I have about had it. And I suspect others are about done with it to.

I highly respect your knowledge, yes, I don't respect your delivery. That delivery is beginning to effect your credibility, and I would hate to see that happen. You have SO much knowledge, just don't abuse the power that comes with.

We may not always agree, but I have always considered you a friend on the forum. This is why I am making these statements. I also suspect others may a bit afraid to.... and I wonder why.

-Andy

 

And yet you sought out this thread, in which you've had no participation, to this point. Are my posts THAT difficult to scroll past? For you, they must be like the moth to the flame.

Could it be in response to an attitude from a fellow poster? Such as THIS post of yours?

Let me see if I understand what is going in here. You don't like the way I post. You don't like my attitude. This thread has been going on for 4 days. You have made NO contribution until now. You have no apparent stake in this technical discussion. Finally after 33 previous posts you decide to pipe up, with not ONE word on the subject, to criticize me? What kind of a Tech/Performance post is THAT???

Read your post aloud while looking in the mirror. Then ask yourself, "Who has the attitude?".

RACE ON!!!

 

Now you question my motivations.

I came into this thread under my own free will. I was curious about the topic. To be honest, it had escaped me. As for thread dyamics, that's as far as I want to go on it.

However, as I read the thread, I became more and more frustrated with the tone the thread was taking... mainly, from your very confrontational attitude.

Sure, I will cop an attitude on occasion, for which, I appologize and will endevour to control.

Alas, you make no effort to control your attitude. You won't even admit you have one, and try to deflect blame, and, have the audacity to question my mere presense in a public thread.

This is a PUBLIC forum. We all have to kinda be civil and get along. It's just that everytime I see a post by you, I am waiting for the **** to hit the fan. The attitudes... the posing... the posturing... it's annoying, damnit, and it needs to stop.

I find it equally facinating that you view this as other peoples problem... I don't see that... I see you, coming into a thread, making snide remarks about people... and expecting the collective to take it.

I for one am done taking it.

Your posts do not draw me like a moth to flame. They repel me like ammonia. I do not seek them out, they find me... and they have a tendency to anger me.

I will repeat - you have a lot of knowledge; don't let that power go to your ego... or we will ALL be losers because of it.

It is getting to the point, that when I see a post by you, I leave the thread. For a number of reasons, but mainly, it's because "Mr. Know-it-all" has already been in there and upset half the members... I am not the only one who feels this way. Read some of the posts above... you put people on the defensive. That is not constructive. Here or in real life.

 

Staff meeting.

Can we resolve these personality differences somehow and coexist? I'm game. I think we're all contributors to c4tech usually, but as of now, we're just making a circus out of this forum.

 

But yet, you're back again. And still, with not one word typed on the subject of the thread.

That's the best news of the day.

RACE ON!!!

 

I am trying to, CC...

And yes, I am not immune to blame, but ****, the catalyst seems to be CFI-EFI.

And I have addressed my observations...

So satisfy your whimsy CFI, the question regarding the oil pressure switches have been asked and answered.

What I am addressing has been a lot of pent up frustration when reading your posts. And you just don't want to acknowledge that you are a bully and a thug. Instead of threatening to take our lunch money, you get all this attitude going and won't admit you are part of the problem.

All I am asking is a toning down of all the testosterone. It's not necessary.

 

You post at another forum about how your'e ready to leave CF so why don't you quit causing problems in everyone's threads here and go!
http://www.domesticmisfits.com/forum...ic.php?t=10492