PCM Hammer 98/99 Black Box Support

[CDNL]

I loaded the file into UP beta, and it loaded ok. I then loaded 9365085 and 9365095 into different insistences of UP and compared them side by side. The drop down menus were the same, I compared the ve and advance tables and they looked good the data in the tables was different , as expected, since 9365085 was for a 5.7 L engine and 936595 was for a 5.0 L engine. Other data was also correctly displayed.
I then did a side by side comparison with an os 1626325 for a 5.0 L engine and the menus and data were identical. Both operating systems were from 98 5.0 L engines. The only difference is that one has an automatic and the other has a manual transmission.
I hope this helps

[sparepartsblazer]

The 9365095 is one OS I didnt have to work with. From what I have seen is each OS is by year. So any 99 OS,ETC, should all have the same tables.

[antus]

yeah 9365085 to 9365095 has OS changes with maybe 1k more code. The +6 byte offset is real, looks like trans stuff but its not defined. What OS did you need?

[CDNL]

I believe there is a glitch with the xml file for os 9365095. The rpo shows the trans as M30 which means that the truck came with a 4L60-E automatic transmission, which is what is in the truck, but Universal Patcher shows the trans as being a manual.

[sparepartsblazer]

Ill compare the 9365095 to my notes and see what I can find.

[sparepartsblazer]

Looks like the 9365095 trans type is a couple bytes off. Will have to dig a little deeper to find it

[CDNL]

one other piece of information, the truck is a 4x4

[sparepartsblazer]

Found it. The 9365095 trans type address is 000148EF. Six byte offset from the 9365085.

[sparepartsblazer]

I loaded the file into UP beta, and it loaded ok. I then loaded 9365085 and 9365095 into different insistences of UP and compared them side by side. The drop down menus were the same, I compared the ve and advance tables and they looked good the data in the tables was different , as expected, since 9365085 was for a 5.7 L engine and 936595 was for a 5.0 L engine. Other data was also correctly displayed.
I then did a side by side comparison with an os 1626325 for a 5.0 L engine and the menus and data were identical. Both operating systems were from 98 5.0 L engines. The only difference is that one has an automatic and the other has a manual transmission.
I hope this helps

Thats not correct. I have the 9365085 for a 4.3,5.7,and a 7.4. The 9365095 I downloaded from this thread is a 5.7.

[CDNL]

[

I loaded the file into UP beta, and it loaded ok. I then loaded 9365085 and 9365095 into different insistences of UP and compared them side by side. The drop down menus were the same, I compared the ve and advance tables and they looked good the data in the tables was different , as expected, since 9365085 was for a 5.7 L engine and 936595 was for a 5.0 L engine. Other data was also correctly displayed.
I then did a side by side comparison with an os 1626325 for a 5.0 L engine and the menus and data were identical. Both operating systems were from 98 5.0 L engines. The only difference is that one has an automatic and the other has a manual transmission.
I hope this helps

Thats not correct. I have the 9365085 for a 4.3,5.7,and a 7.4. The 9365095 I downloaded from this thread is a 5.7.

Hopefully, I can clear up the confusion.
I believe the 9365095 you are referring to is the 99burb bin that was posted by cmaje72 in this thread, which is from a 5.7. The 9365095 that I am referring to is one that I downloaded from my pcm, which came from a 98 gmc k1500 with a 4L60-E transmission. When I load this bin into Universal Patcher using the xml file that Antus provided, it shows the transmission type as manual, which is incorrect. Also, I checked the vin reported by the bin file and it is the save as that in the truck.
This is the bin file I was reffering to