'96 ECM part number difference

[Paul B.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Charlie, i'll get a pic of my ECM and post it up today.....

[Pat F.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Paul, and let us know if its a LT1 or a LT4.

Thanks

P.S. Here is the 94-95 LT1 ECM and the second photo shows a re-manufactured unit.

[Paul B.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Folks, Here's a pic of my ECM. Its an LT-1, and i'm the original owner. It looks like the judges wrote down the 16131501 instead of the 399 number on the top sheet. I'm thinking about removing the bottom sheet to avoid confusion at the next flight judging, any comments?


ecmvette.jpg

[Terry M.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Paul,

I can't tell you what the C4 guys think, but as a general rule -- leave it alone. In your case where you are the original owner there is no question of the factory configuration. You have to give the judging manual team time to find out all the little quirks. It will take time, more time than any of us like, but eventually they will get there and you will have been there first. Change it now and you will regret it later.

[Pat F.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

I agree with Terry. That is the same advice given to me by the National Team Leader when you come up with something like this.

The larger numbers on the label are the same.

I was told, by who I can not remember, that the label is perforated and the bottom portion was removed when it was serviced by the dealer. I have participated in judging C4's and the Master Judge advised me that no deduction is taken if the lower portion is not attached.

Don't know if that is true about the removal by the dealer, but Paul do not remove anything.

Attached is a photo of another ECM Unit with both the top and bottom of the label intact. As you can see, the larger numbers are the same but the service number and the lower number are different. The Judging Manual utilizes the Top Service Number for Judging purposes.

I am not a spokesperson for NCRS Judging Rules, I am only offering my opinion.

[Joe L.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Folks, Here's a pic of my ECM. Its an LT-1, and i'm the original owner. It looks like the judges wrote down the 16131501 instead of the 399 number on the top sheet. I'm thinking about removing the bottom sheet to avoid confusion at the next flight judging, any comments?


[ATTACH=CONFIG]39773[/ATTACH]

Paul------


The "bottom number" looks to me like 16231501 and not 16131501. Like I mentioned previously, 16131501 is an instrument cluster and not a PCM.

However, this photo answers a lot of questions. I would say that this tells us that the PRODUCTION and SERVICE part numbers were different and the PRODUCTION part number was 16231501. The lower label was probably supposed to have been removed at Bowling Green but in some cases, such as yours, it did not get removed. The reason for removing it would be so that there was no subsequent confusion if a unit had to be replaced.

I have confirmed that 16231501 was never a SERVICE-available part so that would strongly imply that this number was the PRODUCTION part number.

[Jim T.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Pat my original owner 1996 LT4 has the following printed on the attachment to the ECM.

16230041 BSDF

Service Number 16214399

8685DFK260721794*

[Joe L.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Pat my original owner 1996 LT4 has the following printed on the attachment to the ECM.

16230041 BSDF

Service Number 16214399

8685DFK260721794*

Jim------


Apparently, the PRODUCTION part numbers for the 1996 LT1 and LT4 PCM's were different but the SERVICE part number for both was the same.

This implies that the difference between the two PRODUCTION units was slight, perhaps involving only something related to the assembly line test procedures.

[Pat M.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Pat my original owner 1996 LT4 has the following printed on the attachment to the ECM.

16230041 BSDF

Service Number 16214399

8685DFK260721794*

Interesting, Jim. Our service numbers are the same but the longest, lower number differs. And where did you find that first number? I don't think I have any other numbers.

[Jim T.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Pat in seeing your other post of the picture you took, my label is about twice the size. The 162230041 BSDF is at the top of the label.

[Pat M.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Jim, does your label have the double bar codes like in Charlie's last pic?

[Pat F.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Jim, agree with Pat. Do you have pictures?

The bottom of the label is sometimes removed. If yours is intact it will be twice the size of the one I posted.

[Brian M.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Are these ECM's available today? If so how much outright?

[Pat F.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Are these ECM's available today? If so how much outright?

Brian, I am sure that they are available in the aftermarket. I do not know if you can get one from your friendly Chevrolet Dealer.

Perhaps Tom Hendricks can answer your question.

[Joe L.]

Re: '96 ECM part number difference

Are these ECM's available today? If so how much outright?

Brian------

The GM #16214399 was recently discontinued but a replacement is available from GM. Cost is about $250, GM list.