Gale Banks upgrade on Workhorse w22 with 8.1 GM

I did a brazels ultratune on a 2 valve ford V10. Mine was one of the first, perhaps even a prototype programmer.

The people and products at Brazel's were AMAZING. They asked and listened to what I wanted and needed, mostly because the V10 rev's too high too often, and downshifts at the sight of a hill on the horizon.

They did 3 custom tunes for me before we decided we was good.
And no, the 99 V10 never detonated, and it never spit any 3 thread spark plugs out the fenderwells.

Just as back in the old days I spent a lot of time playing with Holley main jets and powervalves, as well as distributor advance springs and weights, I'm not a fan of "one size fits all" tuning.

Especially now, when emissions and MPG testing costs so much. Manufacturers save a fortune if they only have to certify a particular combination once.

topflite51 wrote:
"Since I monitor my engine continuously with my ScanGauge I can see if my Air/fuel ratio varies from 14.7 to a lean condition"

Based on my observations, very few consumers would do this. Most it appears are hard pressed to do anything other than put fuel in the tank and turn the key. Minor upgrades to the ECM are one thing, the problem is you get very little with minor upgrades to the ECM, certainly not enough to justify their expense.

I assume that you have a dyno read out on your engine to support this statement. Brazels does provide a before and after dyno print out on your vehicle to verify the changes. Before you leave their shop you can see the actual difference in your engine performance and if you are not happy, you can go back to the way it was. Once on the road and in the mountains, I was very pleased with the improvements and pleased with the cost compared to a full Banks treatment. If the OP wants to go with a Banks conversion, fine. I was only suggesting a method that I tried on the same chassis, based on my own experience and 60,000+ miles of testing.

"Since I monitor my engine continuously with my ScanGauge I can see if my Air/fuel ratio varies from 14.7 to a lean condition"

Based on my observations, very few consumers would do this. Most it appears are hard pressed to do anything other than put fuel in the tank and turn the key. Minor upgrades to the ECM are one thing, the problem is you get very little with minor upgrades to the ECM, certainly not enough to justify their expense.

randallb wrote:
Rag,
You have been one of the many who have experienced no issue but, if you were one of the people who had an issue your outlook would be different. My statement comes from having seen enough hypereutectic piston upper ring land failures to convince me I would not add any additional ignition timing to a factory engine using a hyper piston. Are you aware that most of the aftermarket tuners made significant changes to their timing and fuel maps based on issues? Please read the following article, www.probeindustries.com/Articles.asp?ID=144
Randy

Thanks for the article that was written by a company that sells forged pistons. I'm not saying that what was written was not factual but after 60,000 miles of use, I can say that my Ultra ECM was NOT programmed with any pre-ignition or detonation concerns. Obviously they kept the timing specs within the acceptable parameters for my engine. My 14.7 AF ratio also indicates that they did not lean the engine out to the point of detonation.
I do not doubt that some tuners reprogrammed the ECM for MAXIMUM performance, could push the limits of ANY engine but that is not the purpose of the Ultra tune.

Rag,
You have been one of the many who have experienced no issue but, if you were one of the people who had an issue your outlook would be different. My statement comes from having seen enough hypereutectic piston upper ring land failures to convince me I would not add any additional ignition timing to a factory engine using a hyper piston. Are you aware that most of the aftermarket tuners made significant changes to their timing and fuel maps based on issues? Please read the following article, www.probeindustries.com/Articles.asp?ID=144
Randy

randallb wrote:
There have been some piston failures due to reprogramming of the 8.1 ECM. GM used a hypereutectic piston, higher silicone content, and these pistons do not like any detonation. If GM had felt comfortable running additional timing and fuel in this engine they would have done so. No engineer leaves HP on the table unless there is the downside of significantly reduced reliability.
Randy

Since I have put over 60,000 miles with the Ultra ECM tuning, I am pretty much convinced of the reliability issues.
You parrot what a lot of people say about a STANDARD engine in a STANDARD vehicle.
In reality, when GM built that engine that went in the W chassis, they had ZERO idea of what was going to be put on that bare chassis. They did not know the total weight of the FINISHED coach, or if it was to be used on flat lands or mountains. Consequently the ECM was programmed for COMPROMISE conditions.
Brazel's will send out a package to be plugged in to your OBDII port so that you can drive around for awhile and input the specifics of your particular vehicle. Once they receive that info, they tweak the ECM to produce the best performance and mileage for your SPECIFIC application, which GM DID NOT know when they built the engine.
Since I monitor my engine continuously with my ScanGauge I can see if my Air/fuel ratio varies from 14.7 to a lean condition. It does not happen and all of my other parameters are well within specs.
Please provide an internet link to those piston problems with a reprogrammed ECM.

There have been some piston failures due to reprogramming of the 8.1 ECM. GM used a hypereutectic piston, higher silicone content, and these pistons do not like any detonation. If GM had felt comfortable running additional timing and fuel in this engine they would have done so. No engineer leaves HP on the table unless there is the downside of significantly reduced reliability.
Randy

I would try the Ultra Power ECM reprogram first. Like me you may find that this is sufficient and there was no need to go with the Banks system and the expense involved. Brazels