Remove me from this list please

htt= p://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/Resource_Titlepage.htm

http= ://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/course/p0304x.htm

http://= www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/p101/p01172.htm

http:/= /www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/p101/p01035.htm

http://= www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/p101/p01033.htm

htt= p://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/Tutorial_Titlepage.htm

http://www.chemical-stoic= hiometry.net/

http://www.c= hemical-stoichiometry.net/tutorial.html

http://www.collingwood.org/chemistry/Curriculum%20Docs/ch1111.htm

http:= //www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/struct/s0201.htm

http://w= ww.chemical-stoichiometry.net/begin_student.htm

htt= p://www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/course/vn41505x.htm

http:/= /www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/p102/p0511x.htm

and

htt= p://www.chem.ualberta.ca/courses/plambeck/p102/p02085.htm

to start with.

Says if anybody is full of BS it's not = me.=20 Stoiciometry in many points of reference - other than = combustion.

An excerpt from the last = reference:

Stoichiometric calculations involving = redox=20 reactions always begin with the balanced redox reaction. Once the = balanced redox=20 reaction has been obtained, the mole ratios will give the desired = stoichiometric=20 information. .............

Combustion is a Redox reaction =20 (oxidation/reduction)

I've been told to make sure I've got my = facts=20 straight before posting "opinions" - the definition I gave may be a = gross=20 simplification - but the facts are the facts.

Now, as for stoich being a moving = target - A=20 theoretically stoich mixture may not behave as stoich under certain = conditions -=20 something to do with elemental vs radical oxygen - elemental oxygen is = not as=20 reactive as radical oxygen, so if the O2 can be dissassociated into 2 X = O, and=20 the Hydrogen and Oxygen of the hydrocarbon fuel dissaciated into = hydrogen and=20 carbon, the reactions of oxygen + carbon =3D carbon dioxide, and = hydrogen +=20 oxygen=3Dwater can become stoichiometrically correct, Changing the = reaction of=20 nitrogen + oxygen=3Dnitous oxides (or oxides of nitogen - NOX) in the = cyl can and=20 does change the stoichiometry of the reaction in the cyl. This is, in = effect,=20 what EGR does to an engine. By inhibiting the formation of NOX the = actual=20 mixture ratio of gasoline and air required can be can be changed. = Decrease NOX=20 production and the mixture required for a stoichiometrically correct = combustion=20 of the fuel can be richened because more oxygen is available for the = desired=20 reaction.

----- Original Message -----

From:=20 Phil = Lamovie

To: Clare Snyder

Sent: Thursday, December 09, = 1999 10:02=20 AM

Subject: Stoich

=20

Hi Clare,=20

Stoich is a point that moves with conditions ?=20

ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE !=20

is the mixture required to convert ALL of 2 elements to a compound=20

TRUE !=20

I used the chemist's definition of stoichiometricly correct (sic) - = which=20 is when all of the (active) elements are combined = (my=20 italics) to produce a compound=20

In a word BULLSHIT ! There is no single compound produced and = stoich=20
does not apply to any branch of chemistry except combustion. =
=20

mixture is the key word.=20

If I had a pound of fuel and 14.7 pounds of air at STP I would have = a=20
stoichiometric mixture even if it was held in a balloon. = Absolutely no=20
combustion is required for this condition it is a MOL. What = happens when=20 you try to ignite it is a completely different field of study. = Combustion=20 chemistry which I am sure you are familiar with has a multiplicity of = factors=20 that affect the results only one of which is the MIXTURE that is = supplied to=20 the combustion chamber.=20

Baffle them with accuracy and facts; that ought to do the job.=20

Phil

------=_NextPart_000_003E_01BF4291.0905A800-- From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 02:48:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18796 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:48:47 -0500 Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18783; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:48:15 -0500 From: PHXSYS@aol.com Received: from PHXSYS@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id j.0.9531ff52 (4572); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:48:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.9531ff52.25820a37@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:48:07 EST Subject: Sample HC11 EFI code in C To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu, gmecm@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 228 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi Can anyone hook me up with some sample starter HC11 EFI code in C to get me started on a project? The more samples the better. I found some in asm, but I want to understand the strategy. I found some in c for the 332, but that pretty sophisticated and difficult to understand. Thanks in advance Jon From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 02:53:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18859 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:53:04 -0500 Received: from imo25.mx.aol.com (imo25.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.69]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18848; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:52:57 -0500 From: PHXSYS@aol.com Received: from PHXSYS@aol.com by imo25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id j.0.8c78fe7d (4572); Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:52:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.8c78fe7d.25820b37@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:52:23 EST Subject: Atmel 8535 for engine controller To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu, gmecm@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 228 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi Has anyone looked at using the Atmel AVR 8535 8 bit micro for an engine controller? It has 8k flash, 512 bytes eeprom, 8 ch 10 bit a/d, pwm, capture/compare, usart, spi, 3 timers...Cost about 7-8$ ? Advantages and disadvantages over hc11? Thanks Jon From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 08:46:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22613 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:46:10 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f310.hotmail.com [207.82.251.223]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA22609 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:46:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 80654 invoked by uid 0); 10 Dec 1999 13:45:37 -0000 Message-ID: <19991210134537.80653.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 212.200.56.100 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:45:37 PST X-Originating-IP: [212.200.56.100] From: "Robert Sandor" To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: virtual closed loop dwell regulation Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 05:45:37 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I am working out an idea to fire sparks of a 4cyl. carburatted engine in right time without use of lookup tables or a knock detecton nor ionization current measurment.The only input to te regulator will be the RPM. The lookup table itself is not enaugh, because the temperature of the air and fuel varies. The knock detection and the ionisation current measurment are expensive methods. I hope a cheap method "virtual closed loop dwell regulation" will work. The main idea is to advance-retard dwell until maximal RPM is measured at fixed throttle position(Is this a fuzzy logic). I want to use separate coil for each cylinder. At very low RPM (like starting the engine) even multiple sparks could be applied. I also want to drive switching transistor without a MC3334 or alike IC. If the battery voltage and the inductivity of the coils are nearly constant, why to use an inteligent ignition driver IC? What do You think is this a good idea? Robert Sandor ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 08:46:15 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id IAA22622 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:46:15 -0500 Received: from teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com [139.134.5.237]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA22618 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 08:46:13 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa728326 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 23:45:59 +1000 Received: from DC-101-23.bpb.bigpond.com ([203.40.101.23]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Zany-MailRouter V2.6h 1/1683382); 10 Dec 1999 23:45:58 Message-ID: <002b01bf4315$216eb1a0$426428cb@jetech> From: "Ken Thompson" To: References: <199912101000.FAA20226@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #687 /* Re Stoich */ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:46:43 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu From: Kevin Jaeger kjaeger@superflow.com.au We have binned every scrap of this weeks DIY_EFI. The subject that has been debated this week regarding STOICH is well known. Data out of your everyday hot rod type magazine, is not worth a whole lot in the total scheme of things. Who has herd of the practice of using the uni. library? Clare has. We could start a huge bomb fire with the tons of papers that have been written by people with more knowledge on this subject than most will acquire in a life time. Such a bomb fire would certainly unstoich the atmosphere a little more than it is today. Poor choice of words, I know. The Methane from the bullsh_t that I have read this week will most assuredly have the server administrators testing the air fuel ratio, by their servers. That has got to contaminate a few hard drives. I think I missed the meaning of some of Clare's verbals, but I think I heard the message loud and clear. I'm with you Clare. I believe I understand the direction Phil is coming from and the point he is attempting to make. I can think of perhaps another 50,000 related matters, that are yet to be mentioned by anyone. >From now on, how about narrowing down the topic range a little. If I were to pretend that this stuff were new to me and came in on the action early in the week, I would have learnt absolutely nothing by weeks end. This exclusive group is here for the purpose of learning the facts not wasting their time. Others have visited these areas a very long time before the majority of DIY readers had ever heard STOICH mentioned. "Come Let Us Reason Together" using data that is very readily available. Libraries, search engines and people like Clare and others should send in their references and mount arguments based on Science and Reason. People like Phil Irving were the technology maestros in their day, yet many of the assumptions (scientific knowledge of the day), turned out to be a pile of crap. Someone is bound to correct me, but I think that I'd be safe to state that Phil's engines won two F1 championships. The pile of crap I refer to was their understanding of the reasons behind certain phenomena related to cylinder fill while the piston was travelling towards the combustion chamber on the compression stroke. Now if this had been the topic, I would have come armed, but it isn't so I'm not. If the level of industry has not picked up by Monday, I can already tell that will be my favourite button, long before the mail is opened. Have a nice weekend, Kevin. > Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 22:02:07 -0500 > From: "Clare Snyder" > Subject: Re: Stoich > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > - ------=_NextPart_000_003E_01BF4291.0905A800 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > believe what you want to believe - I asked > > > see: > http://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/Resource_Titlepage.htm > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/course/p0304x.htm > http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/p101/p01172.htm > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/p101/p01035.htm > http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/p101/p01033.htm > http://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/Tutorial_Titlepage.htm > http://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/ > http://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/tutorial.html > http://www.collingwood.org/chemistry/Curriculum%20Docs/ch1111.htm > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/struct/s0201.htm > http://www.chemical-stoichiometry.net/begin_student.htm > http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/plambeck/che/course/vn41505x.htm > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/~plambeck/che/p102/p0511x.htm > and > http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/courses/plambeck/p102/p02085.htm > > to start with. > Says if anybody is full of BS it's not me. Stoiciometry in many points = > of reference - other than combustion. > An excerpt from the last reference: > > Stoichiometric calculations involving redox reactions always begin with = > the balanced redox reaction. Once the balanced redox reaction has been = > obtained, the mole ratios will give the desired stoichiometric = > information. ............. > > Combustion is a Redox reaction (oxidation/reduction) > I've been told to make sure I've got my facts straight before posting = > "opinions" - the definition I gave may be a gross simplification - but = > the facts are the facts. > > Now, as for stoich being a moving target - A theoretically stoich = > mixture may not behave as stoich under certain conditions - something to = > do with elemental vs radical oxygen - elemental oxygen is not as = > reactive as radical oxygen, so if the O2 can be dissassociated into 2 X = > O, and the Hydrogen and Oxygen of the hydrocarbon fuel dissaciated into = > hydrogen and carbon, the reactions of oxygen + carbon =3D carbon = > dioxide, and hydrogen + oxygen=3Dwater can become stoichiometrically = > correct, Changing the reaction of nitrogen + oxygen=3Dnitous oxides (or = > oxides of nitogen - NOX) in the cyl can and does change the = > stoichiometry of the reaction in the cyl. This is, in effect, what EGR = > does to an engine. By inhibiting the formation of NOX the actual mixture = > ratio of gasoline and air required can be can be changed. Decrease NOX = > production and the mixture required for a stoichiometrically correct = > combustion of the fuel can be richened because more oxygen is available = > for the desired reaction. From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 09:29:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA23072 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:29:50 -0500 Received: from keybank.com ([156.77.98.54]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA23069 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:29:49 -0500 From: Rodney_L_Wiggins@keybank.com Received: by keybank.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 85256843.004F224A ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:24:21 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: KEYCORP To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: <85256843.004F2106.00@keybank.com> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:29:08 -0500 Subject: Newbie needs sage advice Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu id JAA23070 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I am fairly new to the list so forgive my relative lack of knowledge. I need your help with a fundamental and somewhat philosophical question: Is it really worth replacing my stock FI system with a quality aftermarket system? The car is an 86 Porsche 944 turbo with early Bosch Motronic converted from vane to hot wire. The computer incorporates a manifold pressure sensor, which I assume references boost level and adjusts timing and fuel accordingly. (I don?t know the range of this sensor however, as I am running far more boost than the factory intended). The computer is crank triggered. In other words, it is my impression that I already have a lot of the features that make the aftermarket EFI systems desirable. So far I?ve just been using the white-lies method to get the stock computer to meet the added fuel requirement of the larger turbo, headwork, cam, nitrous, etc. Other than a minor drivability problem, this method has worked well. However, if there is horsepower to be gained, I am willing to move to the next level. Is there really a fundamental improvement to be had by moving to an aftermarket system? Of course, the downsides are clear, cost, complexity, potential tuning headaches. Does anyone out there regret taking this step? I love gadgets, love having complete control over all parameters, and I love knowing exactly how it all is working. So the EFI systems are very attractive to me. However, will I end up just spending lots of time and money to have a car that drives the same as it does now? I assume the engineers at Bosch and Porsche knew more than I do about EFI when the designed my system. Now that I?ve doubled the stock horsepower have I so completely surpassed their original design specs that I need to ditch what I have? I know the answer may contain a large ?opinion? component. This is fine, I?m hoping to learn from others? experience here. I suspect might have some trouble getting an unbiased answer to this question from an EFI sales rep. Thanks in advance, Rod Wiggins From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 12:00:24 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25819 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:00:24 -0500 Received: from sparticus.bright.net (sparticus.bright.net [205.212.123.5]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25816 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:00:22 -0500 Received: from v1b1k1 (dark-cas1-cs-46.dial.bright.net [216.201.10.48]) by sparticus.bright.net (8.9.3/8.9.3 ComNet Build) with SMTP id MAA21519 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:00:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007401bf4330$e066fc00$300ac9d8@v1b1k1> From: "Bruce Plecan" To: References: <85256843.004F2106.00@keybank.com> Subject: Re: Newbie needs sage advice Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:06:17 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu None sage response: To really make a difference at the level your at is gonna take some money. The Felpro SEFI, Wide Band O2, ecm sounds about what you'd like/need. I have 0 personal experience with it, but have heard nothing but good about it. This is from 3-4 people at the gn list who are running it. Any time you run out of calibration room, your out of ecm, IMHO. Pasting/bandaiding things is a waste of $$, and effort. Grumpy | | I am fairly new to the list so forgive my relative lack of knowledge. I need | your help with a fundamental and somewhat philosophical question: Is it | really worth replacing my stock FI system with a quality aftermarket system? | The car is an 86 Porsche 944 turbo with early Bosch Motronic converted from vane | to hot wire. The computer incorporates a manifold pressure sensor, which I | assume references boost level and adjusts timing and fuel accordingly. (I don?t | know the range of this sensor however, as I am running far more boost than the | factory intended). The computer is crank triggered. In other words, it is my | impression that I already have a lot of the features that make the aftermarket | EFI systems desirable. So far I?ve just been using the white-lies method to get | the stock computer to meet the added fuel requirement of the larger turbo, | headwork, cam, nitrous, etc. Other than a minor drivability problem, this method | has worked well. However, if there is horsepower to be gained, I am willing to | move to the next level. Is there really a fundamental improvement to be had by | moving to an aftermarket system? Of course, the downsides are clear, cost, | From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 12:07:08 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA25931 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:07:08 -0500 Received: from sparticus.bright.net (sparticus.bright.net [205.212.123.5]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA25928 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:07:06 -0500 Received: from v1b1k1 (dark-cas1-cs-46.dial.bright.net [216.201.10.48]) by sparticus.bright.net (8.9.3/8.9.3 ComNet Build) with SMTP id MAA02094 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:06:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007e01bf4331$d5d7a040$300ac9d8@v1b1k1> From: "Bruce Plecan" To: References: <199912101000.FAA20226@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> <002b01bf4315$216eb1a0$426428cb@jetech> Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #687 /* Re Stoich */ Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:13:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I'm finally being able to leave personalities aside, and just read for content, and this is all fascinating to me, often way over my head, but still interesting. Smart folks usually have just a tad more ego than others, and that tends to rear it's ugly head at times, and is a shame. I think in general if all 800 of us (DIY_EFI) hit a restaurant we'd all have coffee, and talk for 2-3 weeks. Just remember life has shades of gray, and even colors, not everything is black, and white. So much for my philosophy, today Grumpy | We have binned every scrap of this weeks DIY_EFI. The | subject that has been debated this week regarding STOICH | is well known. Data out of your everyday hot rod type | magazine, is not worth a whole lot in the total scheme of | things. Who has herd of the practice of using the uni. library? | Clare has. We could start a huge bomb fire with the tons of | papers that have been written by people | with more knowledge on this subject than most will acquire | in a life time. Such a bomb fire would certainly unstoich the | atmosphere a little more than it is today. Poor choice of words, | I know. | The Methane from the bullsh_t that I have read this week will | most assuredly have the server administrators testing the air | fuel ratio, by their servers. That has got to contaminate a few | hard drives. | I think I missed the meaning of some of Clare's verbals, but | I think I heard the message loud and clear. From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 12:58:40 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA26865 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:58:40 -0500 Received: from firewall.ceco.com (firewall-user@firewall.ceco.com [198.29.253.130]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26860 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:58:24 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@ucm.com Received: by firewall.ceco.com; id MAA08035; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 12:01:16 -0600 Received: from cccntcon52.ceco.com(130.197.125.205) by firewall.ceco.com via smap (V4.2) id xma006549; Fri, 10 Dec 99 12:00:27 -0600 Received: by cccntcon52.ceco.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:49:10 -0600 Message-ID: <6D07A7DEF8E8D21182700080D8701070391C40@cccntxch51.ceco.com> To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: 1228746 ECM Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 11:57:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Got a 1228746 ANLU at the yard last night. TBI , 1989 might be an old cop car would the app be 5.0 L or 5.7 L I didn't get the VIN number. Also got a 1227730 FML out of a 2.0 L Cavalier. Why did GM use a 730 on a 4 banger when a 6867 was used on other 2.0L cars ? Thanks Don From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 13:04:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA26924 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:04:18 -0500 Received: from sparticus.bright.net (sparticus.bright.net [205.212.123.5]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26921 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:04:16 -0500 Received: from v1b1k1 (dark-cas5-cs-21.dial.bright.net [216.201.10.227]) by sparticus.bright.net (8.9.3/8.9.3 ComNet Build) with SMTP id NAA05715 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:04:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001501bf4339$d255d2e0$e30ac9d8@v1b1k1> From: "Bruce Plecan" To: References: <6D07A7DEF8E8D21182700080D8701070391C40@cccntxch51.ceco.com> Subject: Re: 1228746 ECM Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:10:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 12:57 PM Subject: 1228746 ECM 5.7L, auto LO5 Who knows the infinite wisdom, at Corporate HQ. Grumpy | Got a 1228746 ANLU at the yard last night. TBI , 1989 might be an old cop | car | would the app be 5.0 L or 5.7 L I didn't get the VIN number. | Also got a 1227730 FML out of a 2.0 L Cavalier. Why did GM use a 730 on | a 4 banger when a 6867 was used on other 2.0L cars ? | Thanks Don | From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 13:18:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA27086 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:18:39 -0500 Received: from wolfenet.com (root@smtp1.wolfenet.com [207.178.61.5]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27083 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 13:18:38 -0500 Received: from gonzo.wolfenet.com (orin@gonzo.wolfenet.com [204.157.98.2]) by wolfenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04115; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:18:27 -0800 (PST) From: Orin Eman Received: (from orin@localhost) by gonzo.wolfenet.com (8.8.3/8.7) id KAA03902; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:18:27 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912101818.KAA03902@gonzo.wolfenet.com> Subject: Re: Stoich To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:18:26 -0800 (PST) Cc: phil@injec.com In-Reply-To: <004301bf42ba$f900c230$28167018@ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com> from "Clare Snyder" at Dec 9, 99 10:02:07 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu [admin] Please turn the html off on posts to the list. It makes a real mess of the digests. Orin. From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 19:43:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA01983 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:43:26 -0500 Received: from kla-tencor.com (mail01.kla-tencor.com [206.67.220.38]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA01980 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 19:43:24 -0500 Received: from milxbh03.kla-tencor.com (exchange3.kla-tencor.com [10.208.10.3]) by kla-tencor.com (8.9.1b+Sun/KLAC-1.0i) with ESMTP id QAA19432 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:42:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by exchange3.kla-tencor.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:42:13 -0800 Message-ID: <933713F1FB7BD111AC2300A0C98F1AD1033E4A65@milxpr06.kla-tencor.com> From: "Buchholz, Steven" To: "'DIY-EFI'" Subject: Motronic Version for Audi V8 Engine - Model PT Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 16:42:46 -0800 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu A friend has an engine from an Audi V8 quattro that he is installing in another car. It has a Motronic control box, but he was looking to find which version of the Motronic system it has. I may be able to get the Bosch number on the ECU soon, but I thought I'd post to see if anyone knew based on the engine code. I've been able to determine that the 4.2 liter ABH engine code uses Bosch Motronic M2.3.2, but this would be for the 3.6 liter PT engine code installed in Audi V8 Quattros until MY 1992. TIA! Steve Buchholz San Jose, CA (USA) From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 20:22:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA02616 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:22:05 -0500 Received: from online.no (pilt-s.online.no [148.122.208.18]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA02613 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 20:22:04 -0500 Received: from siemens-nixdorf (ti34a21-0108.dialup.online.no [130.67.68.108]) by online.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA20916 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:22:02 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912110122.CAA20916@online.no> From: "Espen Hilde" To: Subject: Newbie needs sage advice. Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:19:55 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi ! If you want to change what you have it better be to something better? I would like to have a system that could stage two sets of low ohm injectors. Peek and hold.I would like it to be sequential to get better milage, and its better to inject once at low milsec than even shorter twice,at high rpm you dont want to spill the time you have to inject by opening and closing your injectors more than nessesary.(my guess..) If this is not enough to cope with the big hp band of your engine you could allso consider a fuel pressure gain control. Offcourse you have to have controll of ignition as well, and software to handle the pecularities of turbo charging.The possibility of using map or tps at certain parts of the map is an advantage if you run into occilation problems. To be able to easy adjust the system on the run is essensial. Allso to be able to log data as you drive. Allso a system that can use as much of the sensors you allready have. Nothing realy good comes cheap.....this applyes to ECUs as well ecept if you learn to dig into OEM ECUs but they are all lacking in the arias of extreme hp output that you are . Weber Marelli makes a good ecu for turbo charging , used in Lancia Integrale .Its sequential and well hacked. Using a GM system you can join GMECM mailing list and get help from Mr Santa Bruce and all his good helpers at CSH HQ. My first choice for non OEM would be Zytec or simular.But thats just my own oppinion........ Offcourse its not worth all the trubble.......If you use this time to just beeing good and help someone you could make a big difference in someones life.And it would make you feel much better than beeing faster /more tecnical advanced than the next guy....... The Olympic ideals is killing the human race...... But DIY EFI is allmost like heaven , help others and share what you have.. Its just a little sick, ,just doing digest mode..... But beeing a gearhead like myself I could not have resisted to GO for it.... Your nice Porsche deserves it! Please keep us posted. Espen Hilde > From: Rodney_L_Wiggins@keybank.com > Subject: Newbie needs sage advice > The car is an 86 Porsche 944 turbo with early Bosch Motronic converted from vane > to hot wire. From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 21:00:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA03324 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:00:02 -0500 Received: from online.no (pilt-s.online.no [148.122.208.18]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA03321 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:00:00 -0500 Received: from siemens-nixdorf (ti34a29-0065.dialup.online.no [130.67.70.65]) by online.no (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id CAA14073 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:59:59 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <199912110159.CAA14073@online.no> From: "Espen Hilde" To: Subject: stoich cristmas ??? Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 02:57:19 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1162 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi ! Sorry for beeing in the philosophic corner today..... Maybe this intens interest for stoich is trying to tell us something. I think everything in the world can tell us things if we are open for it. Why is it at just at 14,7 that everything falls into place. 7 is a saicret number......Is it that we should reach for the perfect love? Then everything falls into place and the waste is harmless. The perfect balance is better than the extreme? When you reach the right balance something extraordinary happens? Its not facts , it cant be given to us, because then you cant decide for your self. We have to belive. Espen From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 21:46:19 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA04127 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:46:19 -0500 Received: from tlm.tlm.org (root@tlm.tlm.org [166.82.5.1]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA04124 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:46:18 -0500 Received: from ldc (clt25-91-244.carolina.rr.com [24.25.91.244]) by tlm.tlm.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA29124 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:46:13 -0500 Message-ID: <001401bf4381$e479e860$f45b1918@carolina.rr.com> From: "Larry Carter" To: Subject: how does tbi work Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 21:46:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF4357.F98AC460" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF4357.F98AC460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I presently own a 79 fiat spider that I would like to convert to tbi = (from an 85 4 cylinder chevy cavalier). i have a 1.8 liter engine in the = fiat, the chevy is a 2 liter engine. does this year tbi operate in open = and closed loop mode. what sensors would i have to include, which could = i ignore. i understand that the chevy injector works mainly off the = distributor to know when to supply fuel, using the throttle position, = engine temp and maf sensor to determine how much fuel to inject. am i = out of my mind or is this a (with some work) doable project. enjoy this forum, even if i need a ladder for some of the discussions, = as they are over top of my head. larry c. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF4357.F98AC460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I presently own a 79 fiat spider that I = would like=20 to convert to tbi (from an 85 4 cylinder chevy cavalier). i have a 1.8 = liter=20 engine in the fiat, the chevy is a 2 liter engine. does this year tbi = operate in=20 open and closed loop mode. what sensors would i have to include, which = could i=20 ignore. i understand that the chevy injector works mainly off the = distributor to=20 know when to supply fuel, using the throttle position, engine temp and = maf=20 sensor to determine how much fuel to inject. am i out of my mind or is = this a=20 (with some work) doable project.

enjoy this forum, even if i need a = ladder for some=20 of the discussions, as they are over top of my head.

larry c.

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01BF4357.F98AC460-- From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 10 22:15:57 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA04307 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:15:57 -0500 Received: from sparticus.bright.net (sparticus.bright.net [205.212.123.5]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA04303 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:15:55 -0500 Received: from v1b1k1 (dark-cas1-cs-41.dial.bright.net [216.201.10.43]) by sparticus.bright.net (8.9.3/8.9.3 ComNet Build) with SMTP id WAA29351 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:15:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002b01bf4386$e1108c60$2b0ac9d8@v1b1k1> From: "Bruce Plecan" To: References: <001401bf4381$e479e860$f45b1918@carolina.rr.com> Subject: Re: how does tbi work Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:21:55 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01BF435C.F74045E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BF435C.F74045E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I presently own a 79 fiat spider that I would like to convert to tbi = (from an 85 4 cylinder chevy cavalier). i have a 1.8 liter engine in the = fiat, the chevy is a 2 liter engine. does this year tbi operate in open = and closed loop mode. Yes. what sensors would i have to include, which could i ignore. Use all of them. Start with learning the basics, and build on that. = Don't try reinventing the wheel with your first go around. i understand that the chevy injector works mainly off the distributor = to know when to supply fuel, using the throttle position, engine temp = and maf sensor to determine how much fuel to inject. am i out of my mind = or is this a (with some work) doable project. Given time, energy, money, and information, about anything is = possible. Ya need to do your homework, and the level that you do that will = predict your success at the conversion. Homework here is reading the = gmecm AND diy_efi archives for all the TBI postings. enjoy this forum, even if i need a ladder for some of the discussions, = as they are over top of my head. It will get much worse. I still get to where I can't even word the = questions Grumpy larry c. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BF435C.F74045E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I presently own a 79 fiat spider that = I would=20 like to convert to tbi (from an 85 4 cylinder chevy cavalier). i have = a 1.8=20 liter engine in the fiat, the chevy is a 2 liter engine. does this = year tbi=20 operate in open and closed loop mode.

Yes.

what sensors would i have to = include, which=20 could i ignore.

Use all of them. Start with = learning the=20 basics, and build on that. Don't try reinventing the wheel with = your=20 first go around.

i understand that the chevy = injector works=20 mainly off the distributor to know when to supply fuel, using the = throttle=20 position, engine temp and maf sensor to determine how much fuel to = inject. am=20 i out of my mind or is this a (with some work) doable = project.

Given time, energy, money, and information, about = anything=20 is possible.

Ya need to do your homework, and the level that = you do that=20 will predict your success at the conversion. Homework here is = reading=20 the gmecm AND diy_efi archives for all the TBI postings.

enjoy this forum, even if i need a = ladder for=20 some of the discussions, as they are over top of my head.

It will get much worse. I still get to where = I can't=20 even word the questions

Grumpy

larry = c.

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01BF435C.F74045E0-- From diy_efi-owner Sat Dec 11 13:51:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11554 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:51:04 -0500 Received: from comet.connix.com (root@comet.connix.com [198.69.10.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11551 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:51:03 -0500 Received: from connix.com (79.ct6.dyn.connix.net [209.66.144.214]) by comet.connix.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16169 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:51:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <38529005.CBE794B@connix.com> Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:55:21 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Organization: ww.connix.com/~bshaw/william.html X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 (Macintosh; U; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: how does tbi work References: <199912111000.FAA08036@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi Larry, I'm in the process of converting my '78 to EFI, you might want to take a look at my page at http://www.connix.com/~bshaw/fiatefi.html to see how I've gone about it. What you're proposing is possible, but it'd be much easier to do using Fiat parts. There's also some real good general efi info at http://hometown.aol.com/dvandrews/ems.htm, and much info in the list DIY_EFI archives. Hope that helps, Bill BTW, please check your settings and turn the HTML off! Larry Carter wrote: > > I presently own a 79 fiat spider that I would like to convert to tbi = > (from an 85 4 cylinder chevy cavalier). i have a 1.8 liter engine in the = > fiat, the chevy is a 2 liter engine. does this year tbi operate in open = > and closed loop mode. what sensors would i have to include, which could = > i ignore. i understand that the chevy injector works mainly off the = > distributor to know when to supply fuel, using the throttle position, = > engine temp and maf sensor to determine how much fuel to inject. am i = > out of my mind or is this a (with some work) doable project. > > enjoy this forum, even if i need a ladder for some of the discussions, = > as they are over top of my head. > > larry c. > > From diy_efi-owner Sat Dec 11 16:08:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA12843 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:08:06 -0500 Received: from smtp9.gateway.net (relaye.gateway.net [208.230.117.253]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA12840 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:08:04 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer (1Cust17.tnt3.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net [63.11.55.17]) by smtp9.gateway.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA20699 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:08:02 -0500 (EST) From: "Steve Schneider" To: Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 15:15:56 -0600 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF43EA.9F3AC3A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF43EA.9F3AC3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Edelbrock MPFI for 350 TBI Part # 3501 The Edelbrock EFI works with the original wiring harness. You splice into the four wires leading to the TBI assembly. The Edelbrock MPFI wiring harness then plugs into eight injectors positioned on each side of the intake below the fuel rails. I have not installed the Edelbrock in my Z71 as of yet. The only snag that I can for see from my research is the in-tank fuel pump swap which must be done to achieve the 45 psi required for the MPFI. Other than that, I would suggest checking your EGR valve. I know I will probably need to replace mine since the Edelbrock system is more fussy and could cause poor idle and a rich mixture. Depending on the vehicle, there are also some sensor and throttle cable bracket issues you may face since Edelbrock did not make a bracket for all of GM's different brackets. srs ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF43EA.9F3AC3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Edelbrock MPFI for=20 350 TBI

Part # = 3501

The = Edelbrock EFI=20 works with the original wiring harness. You splice into the four = wires=20 leading to the TBI assembly. The Edelbrock MPFI wiring harness = then plugs=20 into eight injectors positioned on each side of the intake below the = fuel=20 rails.

I have = not installed=20 the Edelbrock in my Z71 as of yet. The only snag that I can for = see from=20 my research is the in-tank fuel pump swap which must be done to achieve = the 45=20 psi required for the MPFI. Other than that, I would suggest = checking your=20 EGR valve. I know I will probably need to replace mine since the = Edelbrock=20 system is more fussy and could cause poor idle and a rich mixture. = Depending on the vehicle, there are also some sensor and throttle cable = bracket=20 issues you may face since Edelbrock did not make a bracket for all of = GM's=20 different brackets.

srs

------=_NextPart_000_0004_01BF43EA.9F3AC3A0-- From diy_efi-owner Sat Dec 11 16:36:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA13168 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:36:22 -0500 Received: from smtpout.telus.net (smtpout.telus.net [207.194.28.79]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13164 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 16:36:21 -0500 Received: from [209.53.37.119] (00-05-02-e8-f0-00.bconnected.net [209.53.37.119]) by smtpout.telus.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA18478 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:36:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912112136.NAA18478@smtpout.telus.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:38:23 -0800 Subject: ECU pulse width calculations...? From: "Andrew Brownsword" To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I finally got to try my modified program in the car's ECU today.. and (unfortunately) did NOT get the expected results. The car is a '93 Ford Probe GT (Mazda 2.5L DOHC V6 engine). I had modified the program by locating all of the places that the injector firing routines are called from, tracing backwards to locate the last place that the calculations are scaled by a ROM value before being passed to the firing routine, and then scaling back the injector values by the ratio of the flow rates of the old and new injectors. Doing this, as I understand it, should have reduced the pulse widths controlling the injectors and therefore decreased the amount of fuel being injected. We cut the numbers by fully half and measured the effect using a (high end) A/F meter. We expected to see the engine lean out significantly at idle... instead it leaned out slightly. From 11.5 up to 13.2 or so. It would momentarily jump up to around 14.5 and then slowly drop back down to 13.1 or so. Does anyone have theories, advice, hints, etc? Thanks, Andrew From diy_efi-owner Sat Dec 11 19:53:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA15306 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:53:20 -0500 Received: from ix2.sinectis.com.ar (IDENT:root@ix2.sinectis.com.ar [200.16.183.6]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA15303 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 19:53:16 -0500 Received: from polaca2 (modem82-tc4.sinectis.com.ar [200.41.134.142]) by ix2.sinectis.com.ar (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id VAA30746 for ; Sat, 11 Dec 1999 21:54:13 -0300 Message-ID: <000601bf43d8$fd7407e0$81818181@polaca2> From: "Diego Martin Monteverde" To: Subject: Re: how does tbi work Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 10:09:37 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hello Bill, I visited your page. From what FIAT does the efi parts came from? Thanks, Martin >Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:55:21 -0400 >From: Bill Shaw >Subject: Re: how does tbi work > >Hi Larry, > >I'm in the process of converting my '78 to EFI, you might want to >take a look at my page at http://www.connix.com/~bshaw/fiatefi.html >to see how I've gone about it. What you're proposing is possible, >but it'd be much easier to do using Fiat parts. > >There's also some real good general efi info at >http://hometown.aol.com/dvandrews/ems.htm, and much info >in the list DIY_EFI archives. > >Hope that helps, > >Bill From diy_efi-owner Sun Dec 12 02:10:28 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18386 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 02:10:28 -0500 Received: from spamgaaf.compuserve.com (as-img-6.compuserve.com [149.174.217.151]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA18383 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 02:10:27 -0500 Received: (from mailgate@localhost) by spamgaaf.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.7) id CAA16249 for diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 02:10:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 02:10:05 -0500 From: Michael Baxter Subject: engine swaps To: Blind.Copy.Receiver@compuserve.com Message-ID: <199912120210_MC2-90AC-1674@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu id CAA18384 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu john writes: >> ok, so help me out with the math here... << pre '81 258 = 535 lbs. '81 up 258 = 445 lbs. (apparently...I can't verify that number exactly) 360 = 540 lbs 401 = 550ish lbs. (thicker webbing in the block and bigger crank journals) Now the question of the day: Do those weights include the standard accessories like the alternator, fan, fan clutch, carburetor, air cleaner, air pump, etc or is that just a bare long-block? Jeep doesn't specify. Michael Baxter, MBaxter@Compuserve.com-OR-N7OVD@arrl.net http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 11-Dec-1999 From diy_efi-owner Sun Dec 12 15:38:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24596 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:38:34 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24593 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:38:32 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.65] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11xFlC-00023K-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:38:28 -0800 Message-ID: <005101bf44e1$e258bd20$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: Re: maximum ON before damage Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:45:04 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu >Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 02:48:38 +1100 >From: Phil Lamovie >Subject: maximum ON before damage > >Hi John et al, > [snip] > >The limiting factor with any injector is the max. time in ms available >at max. rpm. If that rpm is say 6,000 rpm we have 10 ms total. > It's at this point, Phil, that I must still disagree with you. I suspect again that it's somehow a philosophical point. Can an engine function efficiently if the injector is fired at an 80% maximum duty cycle over a 720 degree cycle? I believe it can so in fact at 6000RPM 720 degrees takes 20ms of which 80% is 16ms. >If it takes 1.2 ms to open (saturated type) and 1.1 ms to close you >only have 7.7 ms left. Just to make things difficult the first period >of 1.2 ms has NO flow. So really that 2.5 ms lower limit (for >stability's sake) >means you have 2.5 -8.9 ms to play with. Now, given that I have engine logs of the behaviour with stock Honda Injectors operating at 2.0ms at idle and the O2 sensor dancing around 0.5V (Stoich?), and the engine idles smoothly I'd say that for the first 1.2ms there is some flow. In fact, according to one of the papers I have, the amount of flow is, (at an average), 66% of the injector flow rate. This means during injector open time, of 2.0ms for example, the injector behaves as a 16 lb/hr injector. Now using our injector cleaner, with 40psi on the injector pump, I've watch a consistant and repeatable amount of fuel be dispensed from an injector running at 2ms. I've yet to do an experiment to determine the minimum pulse width before fuel is dispensed but you are probably right; 1ms is probably pretty close. This minimum pulse width is not only due to the mechanical aspects of the injector but also due to the injector inductance. It takes a certain amount of time for the current to build up and if this is longer than the pulse width, you'll never see the injector coil build up enough power to lift the pintle off the seat. BTW, there is no reason that with the same sort of circuit used for saturated injectors that someone couldn't use a 24 to 48 volt power supply and treat the saturated type of injectors as PeakHold. It's the inductance of the injector coil that prevents the rapid rise of current and increasing the voltage increases the rate of current rise in the injector. Once the maximum current is reach the electronics can reduce the voltage to 12V. This would have an impact on the minimum pulse width as now the maximum current may be reached before it's time to turn off the injector. If you've got the electronic 'smarts' a switching power supply that can take 12V and step it up to 48V would do the job. >Once again I must ask are you pulsing once per revolution or every >second / If once your figures don't add up. If every second your >choice is incorrect. The sequence is not an issue. How often do you >fire No. 1 injector ? As I stated earlier, I inject each cylinder once per engine cycle with a pulse rate from approximately 2.0ms up to 12.8ms using the stock Honda 24lb/hr injectors; we get about 126HP and peak torque is as per the engine curve as stipulated by Honda. With 28lb/hr Lucas Injectors my minimum injection time is reduced a bit, the engine still idles smoothly and my torque is also still where it's supposed to be. My top end RPM goes up from 6600RPM to 6800RPM and my HP is now at 135HP. Above 6800RPM my ignition REV Limitor cuts in and prevents further excursions. > >If you apply a table with load vs rpm values instead of you falutin' >volumetric eff. table you would find that the map sensor response of >1-3 ms is sufficiently fast to react within 1/4 of a revolution even >at moderately high rpm. If your code does a run through in under 10 ms > >you will never miss more than 1 p/w correction. > >You might be in the middle of an output event as the vacuum drops but >most throttle movements take 200 - 300 ms from start to finish and >thus many injection cycles b/w start and finish. That's a good point. I'm into a Heisenberg type situation here where if I log from the engine controller any faster to get better resolution I will be impacting the injection cycles or the higher speed output from the engine just won't show up. My alternative is to put a data acquisition system on the engine and log on a 100uSec interval all my sensors including my Hall Effect CAM sensors. I use two sensors under the CAM shaft timing pulley with magnets on the pulley to give me a Grey Code 2 bit output to identify which cylinder is on what part of the cycle. However, I don't think my client wants to pay for that, they just want an acceleration that works. Catch-22. >As to the 40 ms pulse... I don't think so. The maximum fuel required >is more a function of poor combustion at low rpm than anything else >but given a max. p/w of 8.5 at 6000 rpm then the pulse width at full >load 1000 rpm would be 8.5 plus the excess fuel required due to poor >tumble, swirl, vaporization etc. etc. Probably no worse than 4 -5 ms >extra will be required. Don't forget to decay this in proportion to >the rate of change of rpm (derivative of PID ) I still disagree with your maximum pulse rate but in either case, the point is well taken. How much extra fuel is required when the throttle is suddenly opened and the MAP goes from 9" to 29". My sensor acquisition loop is more than fast enough to calculate new values at an idle speed so it's more a matter of figuring out how much extra fuel to pour in. And yes, I do decay the enrichment. > >This still points to a short coming that you have imposed with your >12.7 ms upper limit. Full load plus cold air plus cold water plus >acc enrichment will put you badly in debt even at low rpm. I suspect you are correct. My next experiment will set in max PW as a dependant parameter of RPM so that at low RPM I will be able to increase dramatically the amount of fuel and at high RPM not have my software blow up if the requested pulse rate is too long. > Cheers, John From diy_efi-owner Sun Dec 12 15:38:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA24606 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:38:42 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA24592 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:38:31 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.65] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11xFl6-00023K-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:38:21 -0800 Message-ID: <005001bf44e1$de776440$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:07:47 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu > >Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 13:38:23 -0800 >From: "Andrew Brownsword" >Subject: ECU pulse width calculations...? [snip] >scaling back the injector values by the ratio of the flow rates of the old >and new injectors. > >Doing this, as I understand it, should have reduced the pulse widths >controlling the injectors and therefore decreased the amount of fuel being >injected. We cut the numbers by fully half and measured the effect using a >(high end) A/F meter. We expected to see the engine lean out significantly >at idle... instead it leaned out slightly. From 11.5 up to 13.2 or so. It >would momentarily jump up to around 14.5 and then slowly drop back down to >13.1 or so. > >Does anyone have theories, advice, hints, etc? You haven't mentioned what the actual pulse widths were with the old injectors and then after you scaled them. The Open/close time of injectors remains somewhat fixed and if the pulsewidth is made too short the injectors operate erratically. So if the pulse width with the old injectors was, say, 2.5ms and you change it to 1.7ms by your scaling algo. then you just barely get the pintle off the seat before it starts to close again. This causes erratic mixture as sometimes it opens more than other times. Been there done that. It's for this very reason that picking an injector for an engine is so touchy. Big enough for gobs of power at high end and you dispense, with those injectors, too much fuel at idle. It's for this reason that the concept of staged injection is used by some performance enthusiests. Small injectors for idle and midrange and large injectors for high end. This is much like a two barrel carburetor. One alternative, is to use a throttle body injector for idle and cold start enhancement and use the multiple injectors for high end. The throttle body injector has to supply all cylinders and so has a much better chance of never being asked to be open less than a minimum time. The new problem introduced with that is then you need carb heat and an ability to make a smooth transition between the two injector set. Cheers, John From diy_efi-owner Sun Dec 12 18:35:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA26299 for diy_efi-outgoing; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:35:39 -0500 Received: from saturn.terahertz.net (digi@saturn.terahertz.net [209.83.5.170]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26296 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 18:35:38 -0500 Received: from localhost (digi@localhost) by saturn.terahertz.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA41998 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:41:10 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 17:41:10 -0600 (CST) From: digi To: DIY_EFI-Digest@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Pulse width, too Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I'm wondering how you can calculate the amount of fuel that is injected from fuel pressure/duration. I'm assuming it is not a static flow, as the injector opens and closes the flow decreases for the same time unit versus fully open. Any help is appreicated. From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 06:48:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA01713 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 06:48:22 -0500 Received: from hotmail.com (f296.hotmail.com [207.82.251.187]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA01710 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 06:48:20 -0500 Received: (qmail 53573 invoked by uid 0); 13 Dec 1999 11:47:48 -0000 Message-ID: <19991213114748.53572.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 212.200.56.100 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:47:48 PST X-Originating-IP: [212.200.56.100] From: "Robert Sandor" To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: virtual closed loop dwell regulation Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:47:48 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I am working out an idea to fire sparks of a 4cyl. carburetted engine in right time without use of lookup tables or a knock detection nor ionization current measurement.The only input to the regulator will be the RPM. The RPM-dwell lookup table itself is not enough, because the temperature of the air and fuel varies. The knock detection and the ionisation current measurement are expensive methods. I hope a cheap method "virtual closed loop dwell regulation" will work. The main idea is to advance-retard dwell until maximal RPM is measured at fixed throttle position(Is this a fuzzy logic). I want to use separate coil for each cylinder. At very low RPM (like starting the engine) even multiple sparks could be applied. I also want to drive switching transistor without a MC3334 or alike IC. If the battery voltage and the inductivity of the coils are nearly constant, why to use an intelligent ignition driver IC? What do You think is this a good idea? Robert Sandor ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 12:17:43 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id MAA06635 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:17:43 -0500 Received: from smtpout.telus.net (smtpout.telus.net [207.194.28.79]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA06632 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:17:41 -0500 Received: from [209.53.37.119] (00-05-02-e8-f0-00.bconnected.net [209.53.37.119]) by smtpout.telus.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA26288 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:17:38 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912131717.JAA26288@smtpout.telus.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:19:44 -0800 Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? From: "Andrew Brownsword" To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:07:47 -0800 > From: "John Dammeyer" > Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? > > You haven't mentioned what the actual pulse widths were with the old injectors > and then after you scaled them. The Open/close time of injectors remains > somewhat fixed and if the pulsewidth is made too short the injectors operate > erratically. So if the pulse width with the old injectors was, say, 2.5ms and > you change it to 1.7ms by your scaling algo. then you just barely get the >pintle > off the seat before it starts to close again. This causes erratic mixture as > sometimes it opens more than other times. Been there done that. I'm fairly certain that this is not the case -- the engine is running uniformly too rich. It may become a problem at high RPM, but with the turbocharger I doubt it. The injectors are less than 50% higher flow rate than stock, so I don't think there will be a problem. There's another Probe owner who is planning to go with 550cc/min... I think he is going to run into the issue you're pointing out! My current theory is that my O2 sensors are carbon fouled and the ECU thinks it is running lean and thus richens up the mixture. When I cut the values down far enough it goes beyond the ability of the ECU to compensate. We're going to test the O2 sensors next, and see if we can diagnostic information out of the car's ECU. > It's for this very reason that picking an injector for an engine is so touchy. > Big enough for gobs of power at high end and you dispense, with those > injectors, too much fuel at idle. > It's for this reason that the concept of staged > injection is used by some performance enthusiests. Small injectors for idle > and midrange and large injectors for high end. This is much like a two barrel > carburetor. Unfortunately my application has very little space for the extra hardware. > One alternative, is to use a throttle body injector for idle and cold start > enhancement and use the multiple injectors for high end. The throttle body > injector has to supply all cylinders and so has a much better chance of never > being asked to be open less than a minimum time. The new problem introduced > with that is then you need carb heat and an ability to make a smooth > transition between the two injector set. Considered this as well, but it is a V-configuration engine with a convoluted pair of intake manifolds, so even fuel distribution would be a big problem. From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 16:55:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA10625 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:55:35 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA10622 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 16:55:33 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.64] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11xdRJ-0002UC-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:55:31 -0800 Message-ID: <010e01bf45b5$d1a56da0$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:02:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu > >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 09:19:44 -0800 >From: "Andrew Brownsword" >Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? > >> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 12:07:47 -0800 >> From: "John Dammeyer" >> Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? >> >> You haven't mentioned what the actual pulse widths were with the old injectors >> and then after you scaled them [snip] >My current theory is that my O2 sensors are carbon fouled and the ECU thinks >it is running lean and thus richens up the mixture. When I cut the values >down far enough it goes beyond the ability of the ECU to compensate. We're >going to test the O2 sensors next, and see if we can diagnostic information >out of the car's ECU. In my ignition/injection controller I added the ability to turn off the O2 feedback so that I could tune the engine as best as possible in case an O2 sensor failed. My O2 PI algorithm only adds a slight bit of correction anyway. If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides 0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result of your tuning. Cheers, John From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 19:10:55 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13463 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:10:55 -0500 Received: from newaccess.hereintown.net (newaccess.hereintown.net [207.196.96.3]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13459 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:10:54 -0500 Received: from hereintown.net (MAX1-4.hereintown.net [207.196.96.23]) by newaccess.hereintown.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA16446 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:09:58 -0500 Message-ID: <38558979.AC07FF9C@hereintown.net> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:04:10 -0500 From: David Brode X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: 2.2/2.5L Mopar injector impedance References: <199912132000.PAA08418@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hello All, Can someone tell me if the '80's 2.2 and 2.5L turbo'd Mopars have low or high impedance injectors? TIA Dave Brode From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 19:47:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA13917 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:47:09 -0500 Received: from fw-austin.austin.arm.com (firewall-user@ns2.arm.com [208.202.62.114]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA13914 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 19:47:07 -0500 Received: by fw-austin.austin.arm.com; id SAA02063; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:47:07 -0600 Received: from unknown(192.168.3.3) by fw-austin.austin.arm.com via smap (V5.0) id xma002061; Mon, 13 Dec 99 18:46:42 -0600 Received: from arm.com (auspc21 [192.168.3.121]) by aussun1.austin.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02083 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:46:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38559299.75FC0B12@arm.com> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 18:43:05 -0600 From: steve ravet X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: closed loop dwel References: <199912132000.PAA08418@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 03:47:48 PST > From: "Robert Sandor" > Subject: virtual closed loop dwell regulation > > I am working out an idea to fire sparks of a 4cyl. carburetted engine in > right time without use of lookup tables or a knock detection nor ionization > current measurement.The only input to the regulator will be the RPM. The > RPM-dwell lookup table itself is not enough, because the temperature of the > air and fuel varies. The knock detection and the ionisation current > measurement are expensive methods. I hope a cheap method "virtual closed > loop dwell regulation" will work. The main idea is to advance-retard dwell > until maximal RPM is measured at fixed throttle position(Is this a fuzzy > logic). I want to use separate coil for each cylinder. At very low RPM (like > starting the engine) even multiple sparks could be applied. I also want to > drive switching transistor without a MC3334 or alike IC. If the battery > voltage and the inductivity of the coils are nearly constant, why to use an > intelligent ignition driver IC? What do You think is this a good idea? > > Robert Sandor Robert, are you talking about dwell or timing? Timing is when you want the spark to occur, dwell is how long you let the coil charge before the spark. I can't speak as to how well your feedback scheme would work as far as timing goes, but it seems like a lookup table vs RPM would be simpler than a control loop based on RPM that continuously changes the timing. As far as why a driver IC is used, it allows the coil to charge faster because higher voltage is applied at first, then reduced as current builds. More efficient than the "point" style ignition with an inline resister and probably a higher impedance coil, although that worked fine for years. --steve -- Steve Ravet steve.ravet@arm.com Advanced Risc Machines, Inc. www.arm.com From diy_efi-owner Mon Dec 13 23:41:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA18006 for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:41:05 -0500 Received: from mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.26]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18003 for ; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:41:03 -0500 Received: from chriss ([208.188.27.69]) by mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8) with SMTP id <0FMP005KBRMXBH@mta2.rcsntx.swbell.net> for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:40:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600 From: pcs74 Subject: Airflow Measurement To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Message-id: <004901bf45ed$18c20f40$451bbcd0@chriss> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 References: <199912132000.PAA08418@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hello, Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors are rated this way just not why other engine componets are not. Thanks Chris Skarzenski pcs74@swbell.net From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 05:25:01 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA20624 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:25:01 -0500 Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (imo17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA20621 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:25:00 -0500 From: DemonTSi@aol.com Received: from DemonTSi@aol.com by imo17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v24.6.) id j.0.3cd5a080 (4533) for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <0.3cd5a080.258774ef@aol.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 39 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! Thanks in advance. Van - http://members.xoom.com/BADROC From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 06:20:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id GAA21197 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 06:20:25 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA21193 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 06:20:14 -0500 Received: from oemcomputer ([12.72.5.150]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07.07 118-134) with SMTP id <19991214112004.JSR5516@oemcomputer> for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 11:20:04 +0000 From: "Carl Summers" To: Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #694 Airflow measurement Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:21:32 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <199912141000.FAA20321@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi Chris, I'm pretty sure it goes back to the same old thing....compressors, blowers, swamp coolers were all measured in cubic feet transferred and not by mass transferred.....pretty tough for the entrepeneurs way back to explain it any different than this machine can blow 600 cubic feet of air per minute....it still takes a computer to figure the airflow and air temperature and make a calculation of (supposed)actual grams per second or lbs per minute....hth's -Carl Summers --------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600 From: pcs74 Subject: Airflow Measurement Hello, Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors are rated this way just not why other engine componets are not. Thanks Chris Skarzenski pcs74@swbell.net ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #694 ***************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command above with "diy_efi". From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 07:18:20 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id HAA21533 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:18:20 -0500 Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (tk2.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.14]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA21530 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 07:18:17 -0500 Received: from amiga3k (p70-tnt6.akl.ihug.co.nz [216.100.154.70]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id BAA10980 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 01:18:10 +1300 Date: 15 Dec 99 01:12:42 +1200 From: "Tom Parker" Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations...? To: "John Dammeyer" Message-ID: <842.18T2106T724021parkert@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: THOR 2.6 (Amiga;TCP/IP) Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu John Dammeyer wrote: >If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides >0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, >because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep >screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result >of your tuning. I have little experiance in these things, but don't OEM controllers richen the mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a "transition" from low to high, and then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes back down. Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have an unpredictable effect. Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and use some sort of backup system. -- Tom Parker - parkert@ihug.co.nz - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/8381/ From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 13:59:34 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA28080 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:59:34 -0500 Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA28077; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 13:59:32 -0500 Received: from clintsmc.demon.co.uk ([158.152.122.156]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11xxAZ-0009h6-0K; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:59:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:59:09 +0000 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Cc: DIY_EFI-Digest@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu From: Clint Sharp Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #694 References: <199912141000.FAA20321@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912141000.FAA20321@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 S Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu In message <199912141000.FAA20321@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu>, DIY_EFI Digest writes >In my ignition/injection controller I added the ability to turn off the O2 >feedback so that I could tune the engine as best as possible in case an O2 >sensor failed. My O2 PI algorithm only adds a slight bit of correction anyway. > >If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides 0..1.0V >and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, because the >O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep screwing around >with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result of your tuning. I was under the impression that the ecu doesn't use a standard O2 sensor as an analogue device, rather it watches the output go lean and then richens the mixture and vice-versa, kind of like a a switch? > >Cheers, > >John Please correct me if I'm wrong though. -- Clint Sharp From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 15:37:22 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA29856 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:22 -0500 Received: from benatar.snurgle.org (IDENT:fluffy@c266492-a.lakwod1.co.home.com [24.1.8.253]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA29852 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:17 -0500 Received: from localhost (fluffy@localhost) by benatar.snurgle.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA04640 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) From: William T Wilson To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: CFM vs. lb/min In-Reply-To: <199912142000.PAA29084@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. > etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they > were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors > are rated this way just not why other engine componets are not. Because CFM is the same regardless of ambient pressure, but lbs/min is not. From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 17:17:11 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA31671 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:17:11 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA31667 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:17:09 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.81] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11y0Fi-0006yT-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:17:03 -0800 Message-ID: <01f201bf4681$ff993760$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu >John Dammeyer wrote: > >>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides >>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, >>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep >>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result >>of your tuning. > >I have little experiance in these things, but don't OEM controllers richen the >mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a "transition" from low to high, and >then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes back down. > >Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have an unpredictable effect. >Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and use some sort of backup >system. I don't believe that's true. The HEGO sensors have a voltage output of 0.5V at 14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on either end and so the sensor appears to have a on/off value. Perhaps some engine controllers do just use a simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can adjust the mixture so the O2 puts out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. I have no clue if 0.55V is 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 but I do know that with a properly set up engine with an Ellison Throttle carb. or else an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is at about 0.75V. I've set my fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas Temperature and a Post Run check of the spark plug colour all confirm the mixture is 'about' right. Cheers, John From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 17:31:02 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA31909 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:31:02 -0500 Received: from external.toyota.com (external.toyota.com [205.180.183.242]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA31906 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:31:00 -0500 From: Scott_Hay@toyota.com Received: by external.toyota.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.5 (863.2 5-20-1999)) id 88256847.007AB89F ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:20:26 -0800 X-Lotus-FromDomain: TOYOTA@TMSVEN To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Message-ID: <88256847.007AB7DD.00@external.toyota.com> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:28 -0500 Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu 4 Links Van, The length and distance apart are only a small portion of the equation. What are their angles relative to horizontal and are they parallel? I assume that this car is for the road as opposed to drag racing (completely different setup). The instantaneous center is the point where the torque of the wheels will act upon the body. This is determined by the angles of the links. If this projected point is too low (significantly below the CG) the front of the car will have tremendous lift on acceleration. Too high, and not enough weight will transfer to the back and wheelspin (if you have that much HP). As to the lengths that you are working with, that will probably be determined more by space availability more than anything else. There are some very good books like HP's "How to Make Your Car Handle" it is a starting point that goes into most of the questions that you need to ask. Scott Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST From: DemonTSi@aol.com Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! Thanks in advance. Van From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 17:37:07 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA32008 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:37:07 -0500 Received: from newaccess.hereintown.net (newaccess.hereintown.net [207.196.96.3]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA32005 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:37:05 -0500 Received: from hereintown.net (MAX7-38.hereintown.net [206.239.168.245]) by newaccess.hereintown.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA30473 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:36:16 -0500 Message-ID: <3856C4F7.53674CB5@hereintown.net> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:16 -0500 From: David Brode X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: 4 links References: <199912142000.PAA29084@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hello all, Finally something I know a little about![humor]. I've done a bit of chassis fabricating and help a friend with a 4 link equipped 3040 lb B-1 Dart that carries the wheels 90 ft and runs 9.20's @ 149 [through the muffs]. Short "bars" will cause your pinion angle to change a bunch during travel. Most race car equal length "links" are 20" C/L to C/L. Unequal length deals are usually 20" on the lower bars and shorter, but as long as possible on top. For a street only car, Spread them out as far as possible to prevent bad body roll, and make them level front to rear. You can run them parallel to car's C/L, but you'll need a diagonal link or a panhard bar. Another option is to run the top bars [or all] at an angle, like many factory 4 bar setups. You could copy most any factory design. Running at least the tops at an angle will enable you to get away without a locator [panhard/track locator] Fyi - Chevettes had a 4 bar set up that could be cheaply adapted. You can cut and re-weld them too. Now, if I could just get someone to tell me if 80's turbo 2.2 Chryslers had low or high impedance injectors. Good luck. Dave Brode > > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > Thanks in advance. > > Van > - - http://members.xoom.com/BADROC > From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 17:52:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA32309 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:52:54 -0500 Received: from tas4-atm.tampabay.rr.com (root@tas4-atm.tampabay.rr.com [24.92.0.54]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA32306 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:52:53 -0500 Received: from jr (242688hfc89.tampabay.rr.com [24.26.88.89]) by tas4-atm.tampabay.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA09176 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:50:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00d501bf4685$a96311a0$0200a8c0@jr> From: "Jesse R. Ortiz" To: Subject: Max injector size? Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:50:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Is there a formula to figure out the maximum injector size, while still allowing for a good idle. I'll be using a Haltech so idle pulse width can be adjusted. The engine is 2.6L. Thanks in advance. Jesse. From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 17:55:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA32371 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:50 -0500 Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA32368 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:48 -0500 Received: from gponton (dal-tx5-06.ix.netcom.com [207.94.121.134]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA26644 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:55:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001901bf4686$45085840$86795ecf@gponton> From: "G. Scott Ponton" To: References: <199912142000.PAA29084@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:55:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu There is a lot of good information in the archives about how the OEM systems use the o2 sensor. As the OEMs implement it it is used more as a switch than anything else. This has been an ongoing disagreement for some of us. The O2 sensor is capable of being used as an analog device if it is not connected to the OEM computer system. The problem with it is that it has a very narrow operating window. It won't read AFRs much either side of stoich. So using it in a manner other than it was intended by the OEM system isn't necessarily going to give you the info you always want. Scott From diy_efi-owner Tue Dec 14 22:07:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA02649 for diy_efi-outgoing; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:07:50 -0500 Received: from mrc.soton.ac.uk (mrc81.mrc.soton.ac.uk [152.78.10.81]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA02646 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 22:07:49 -0500 Received: from leslie [152.78.202.101] by mrc.soton.ac.uk [152.78.10.81] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 03:09:39 +0000 Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19991214181527.009138e0@mail.mrc.soton.ac.uk> X-Sender: lms2@mail.mrc.soton.ac.uk X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:15:27 +0000 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu From: Ade + Lamb Chop Subject: RE: Airflow Measurement In-Reply-To: <199912141000.FAA20321@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu X-Return-Path: alaw@mrc.soton.ac.uk Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu At 05:00 14/12/99 -0500, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600 >From: pcs74 >Subject: Airflow Measurement > >Hello, > >Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. etc. >airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they were given in >lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors are rated this way >just not why other engine componets are not. > >Thanks Chris Skarzenski pcs74@swbell.net Don't think it really matters as long as everbody uses the same units for comparison purposes. Also air changes density so a lb of air changes it's phisical dimentions. However a Cubic foot of air will always be a cubic foot of air. Whether this is a good thing of not I don't know :-) It probably stems from some acient ritural that us brits came up with :-) Ade From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 09:35:51 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11412 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:35:51 -0500 Received: from oh.verio.com (users.qual.net [209.57.253.2]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA11409 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:35:49 -0500 Received: from gderian (dialcust-223.ts5.cv.oh.verio.net [205.212.1.223]) by oh.verio.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA22961 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:35:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000401bf4709$ab34b860$df01d4cd@gderian> From: "Gary Derian" To: References: <199912151000.FAA08172@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:53:42 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Is this drag race, road race or street? Angling the top links will cause binding during roll. Rubber bushings will accept some but rod ends won't. A panhard rod or watts link for lateral location is better. Long links are better. I think a torque arm is better, offset to the right to counteract driveshaft torque and two trailing arms and a watts link to complete the location. 4 link is OK for drag racing because it is easily adjustable for varying track conditions. Gary Derian > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > Thanks in advance. > > Van From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 10:50:26 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA12266 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:50:26 -0500 Received: from devmail.dev.tivoli.com (devmail.dev.tivoli.com [208.230.244.136]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA12263 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:50:24 -0500 Received: from atheurer ([32.225.188.127]) by devmail.dev.tivoli.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA26641 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 09:50:21 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <034501bf471c$6dfcbe80$7fbce120@tivoli.com> From: "Andrew Theurer" To: Subject: computer to controll sequential turbos Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 10:49:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hello list, I am working on a Toyota Supra (1998) sequential turbo, and in the process of replacing stock exhaust manifold and turbos with a nice header and turbos still designed for sequential operation, I would like to research modifying it's sequential timing. Right now, it has a very nice system of pre-spooling the second turbo (with interesting placement of the first wastegate/exhaust bypass and a reed valve), which usually happens through 2500-4000 rpm, then two valves, like throttle blades, (after exhaust wheel on exhaust, after compressor housing on intake) open at 4000rpm. This is done with a Vacuum Switching Valve, or VSV, which is triggered by the ECU. Now, normally I would not mess with any of this, but there's a good chance my new turbos will flow a LOT more, and subsequently, they are going to spool differently than the stock ones. The prespool operation works very well, and has really no computer influence. What I want to modify is the timing of these throttle valves at my desired rpm. First thing I thought of doing is using a rpm trigger (summit, msd, etc) at xxxx rpm to open the VSV, which opens the valves. Only one problem, the stock ECU opens the VSV at 4000rpm, BUT it closes the VSV only after rpm falls below 3500rpm... So.. maybe I could use two rpm triggers and some sort of flip-flop to control this... or what I'm really getting at.. a nice simple ECU for sequential operation. Either commercial or home built, but something that can read rpm, maybe MAP, and control a vacuum switching valve or even better cycle a solenoid like ones found in electronic boost controllers. The algorithms would be pretty simple, as rpm increases beyond x close circuit a, if rpm falls below y, open circuit b. Eventually I'd like to incorporate boost control, with a couple of solenoids run inline with the wastegates, but that's not necessary right now. Anyway, If you have any suggestions for what I can use, commercial or home built, please let me know. Thanks Andrew Theurer From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 15:25:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA17647 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:25:04 -0500 Received: from pimout8-int.prodigy.net (pimout8-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.59.137]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA17643 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:25:02 -0500 Received: from prodigy.net (CHCGB211-27.splitrock.net [209.156.13.188]) by pimout8-int.prodigy.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA350642 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 15:24:59 -0500 Message-ID: <3857EB93.D58FF18D@prodigy.net> Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:27:15 -0500 From: Bobby Radomirov X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 References: <199912151000.FAA08172@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu The O2 sensor varies the voltage constantly. Abouth 8 times per sec on a good one and 4 times per sec one old one. The perfect 14.7-1 mixture is about .480V anything that is under is Lean anything over is Rich. The Max power range is abouth 10:1 - 12:1 mixture. You can cheat on the O2 sensor my puting small resistor in series with the circuit you will have some initial voltage drop accross it and will cause the Computer to richen the mixture. Althou I dont see why you would do that Because at WOT teh computer doesnt receive input from the O2 sensor and it will run at teh best preprogramed mixture for teh particular engine. The point is in making other sensors like temp sensor, air temp sensor, AFM to read denser air and colder temperatures. That added the resistor accross the O2 wire will richen the mixture. But it might afect performance as well. Richer mixture doesnt neseseraly means that you will have more HP or Torgue. It all depends on the engine design DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 Volume 04 : Number 696 > > In this issue: > > CFM vs. lb/min > re: Pulse Wdith. > Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > Re: 4 links > Max injector size? > Re: ECU pulse width calculations > RE: Airflow Measurement > > See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the > DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) > From: William T Wilson > Subject: CFM vs. lb/min > > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > > Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. > > etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they > > were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors > > are rated this way just not why other engine componets are not. > > Because CFM is the same regardless of ambient pressure, but lbs/min is > not. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 > From: "John Dammeyer" > Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. > > >John Dammeyer wrote: > > > >>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides > >>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, > >>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep > >>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result > >>of your tuning. > > > >I have little experiance in these things, but don't OEM controllers richen the > >mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a "transition" from low to high, and > >then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes back down. > > > >Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have an unpredictable effect. > >Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and use some sort of backup > >system. > > I don't believe that's true. The HEGO sensors have a voltage output of 0.5V at > 14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on either end and so the sensor > appears to have a on/off value. Perhaps some engine controllers do just use a > simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can adjust the mixture so the O2 puts > out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. I have no clue if 0.55V is 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 but I do > know that with a properly set up engine with an Ellison Throttle carb. or else > an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is at about 0.75V. I've set my > fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas Temperature and a Post Run > check of the spark plug colour all confirm the mixture is 'about' right. > > Cheers, > > John > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:28 -0500 > From: Scott_Hay@toyota.com > Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > > 4 Links > > Van, The length and distance apart are only a small portion of the equation. > What are their angles relative to horizontal and are they parallel? I assume > that this car is for the road as opposed to drag racing (completely different > setup). The instantaneous center is the point where the torque of the wheels > will act upon the body. This is determined by the angles of the links. If this > projected point is too low (significantly below the CG) the front of the car > will have tremendous lift on acceleration. Too high, and not enough weight will > transfer to the back and wheelspin (if you have that much HP). As to the > lengths that you are working with, that will probably be determined more by > space availability more than anything else. > > There are some very good books like HP's "How to Make Your Car Handle" it is a > starting point that goes into most of the questions that you need to ask. > > Scott > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > Thanks in advance. > > Van > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:16 -0500 > From: David Brode > Subject: Re: 4 links > > Hello all, > Finally something I know a little about![humor]. I've done a bit of > chassis fabricating and help a friend with a 4 link equipped 3040 lb > B-1 Dart that carries the wheels 90 ft and runs 9.20's @ 149 > [through the muffs]. > Short "bars" will cause your pinion angle to change a bunch during > travel. Most race car equal length "links" are 20" C/L to C/L. > Unequal length deals are usually 20" on the lower bars and shorter, > but as long as possible on top. For a street only car, Spread them > out as far as possible to prevent bad body roll, and make them level > front to rear. You can run them parallel to car's C/L, but you'll need a > diagonal link or a panhard bar. Another option is to run the top bars > [or all] at an angle, like many factory 4 bar setups. You could copy > most any factory design. Running at least the tops at an angle will > enable you to get away without a locator [panhard/track locator] > Fyi - Chevettes had a 4 bar set up that could be cheaply adapted. > You can cut and re-weld them too. > > Now, if I could just get someone to tell me if 80's turbo 2.2 Chryslers > had low or high impedance injectors. > Good luck. > Dave Brode > > > > > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... > > > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with > > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing > > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there > > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I > > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, > > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Van > > - - http://members.xoom.com/BADROC > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:50:46 -0500 > From: "Jesse R. Ortiz" > Subject: Max injector size? > > Is there a formula to figure out the maximum injector size, while still > allowing for a good idle. I'll be using a Haltech so idle pulse width can be > adjusted. The engine is 2.6L. > > Thanks in advance. > > Jesse. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:55:06 -0600 > From: "G. Scott Ponton" > Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations > > > There is a lot of good information in the archives about how the OEM > systems use the o2 sensor. As the OEMs implement it it is used more as a > switch than anything else. This has been an ongoing disagreement for some of > us. The O2 sensor is capable of being used as an analog device if it is not > connected to the OEM computer system. > The problem with it is that it has a very narrow operating window. It > won't read AFRs much either side of stoich. So using it in a manner other > than it was intended by the OEM system isn't necessarily going to give you > the info you always want. > > > Scott > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:15:27 +0000 > From: Ade + Lamb Chop > Subject: RE: Airflow Measurement > > At 05:00 14/12/99 -0500, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > > >Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600 > >From: pcs74 > >Subject: Airflow Measurement > > > >Hello, > > > >Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. etc. > >airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they were given in > >lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors are rated this way > >just not why other engine componets are not. > > > >Thanks Chris Skarzenski pcs74@swbell.net > > Don't think it really matters as long as everbody uses the same units for > comparison purposes. Also air changes density so a lb of air changes it's > phisical dimentions. However a Cubic foot of air will always be a cubic > foot of air. > > Whether this is a good thing of not I don't know :-) It probably stems from > some acient ritural that us brits came up with :-) > > Ade > > ------------------------------ > > End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 > ***************************** > > To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: > > subscribe diy_efi-digest > > in the body of a message to "Majordomo@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu". > > A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to > subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command > above with "diy_efi". From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 17:38:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA19940 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:38:12 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA19936 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 17:38:09 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.133] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11yN3c-0006F6-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:38:06 -0800 Message-ID: <005301bf474e$1c0209a0$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: Re: computer to controll sequential turbos Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:45:30 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Hi All, At the risk of appearing slightly commercial check out www.lawicel.com and in particular his CANDIP. This uses an ATMEL microprocessor RS232 and CAN device and has FLASH ROM on it all in a 28pin DIP package. There is an ATMEL Basic or you can get an inexpensive C compiler along with a fairly inexpensive download module for programming. A small proto board and some transistors and you can create your own RPM based on/off outputs. And since that company is in Sweden, I do sell them in Canada. $69USD 8-) Cheers, John >Subject: computer to controll sequential turbos > >Hello list, > [snip] Eventually I'd like to incorporate boost >control, with a couple of solenoids run inline with the wastegates, but >that's not necessary right now. Anyway, If you have any suggestions for >what I can use, commercial or home built, please let me know. > >Thanks > >Andrew Theurer From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 19:33:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21384 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:33:09 -0500 Received: from omta01.mta.everyone.net (sitemail.everyone.net [216.200.145.35]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA21381 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:33:08 -0500 Received: from sitemail.everyone.net (reports.everyone.net [216.200.145.62]) by omta01.mta.everyone.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 679081A43 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:32:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by sitemail.everyone.net (Postfix, from userid 60001) id 2D20280B5; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:33:07 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.104 (Entity 4.117) Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:33:06 -0800 (PST) From: dennis To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: 2.2/2.5 chysler injectors and a Q Message-Id: <19991216003307.2D20280B5@sitemail.everyone.net> Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Chrysler 2.2/2.5 turbo's all had approx 2.5 ohm injectors. BTW Neons had 12 ohm approx 22 lbhr. The late tbi cars had higher impedence obviously. And the earlier pre 85 tbi's had a single approx 55-60lbhr injector with a super low <1ohm resistance. It looks as though it could be used as a direct port inj. as it has a standard electrical plug, is bosch top feed style, standard height, and all other multiport looking features. I don't happen to have the p/n handy but would post it if there is interest. The only thing that would make this injector not work is that the end that fits into the intake manifold doesn't have the usual provisions for an o-ring, it seals with a large grommet on the body and a snap ring. It seems to me that you could probably rob some parts off of another injector and put a spacer and one of those nipple looking jobs on it to locate the o-ring. If anyone has a scheme to fire this thing with a low impedance driver designed to fire 2.5 ohm injectors I would like to hear from them. Could I run two of them in series instead of parallel? I don't know J/S about electronic stuff. My system is batch fire and fires them both at the same time anyway. Thanks, dennis --- wrote: > >DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 Volume 04 : Number 696 > > > >In this issue: > > CFM vs. lb/min > re: Pulse Wdith. > Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > Re: 4 links > Max injector size? > Re: ECU pulse width calculations > RE: Airflow Measurement > >See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the >DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) >From: William T Wilson >Subject: CFM vs. lb/min > >On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > >> Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. >> etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they >> were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors >> are rated this way just not why other engine componets are not. > >Because CFM is the same regardless of ambient pressure, but lbs/min is >not. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 >From: "John Dammeyer" >Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. > >>John Dammeyer wrote: >> >>>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides >>>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, >>>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep >>>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result >>>of your tuning. >> >>I have little experiance in these things, but don't OEM controllers richen the >>mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a "transition" from low to high, and >>then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes back down. >> >>Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have an unpredictable effect. >>Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and use some sort of backup >>system. > > >I don't believe that's true. The HEGO sensors have a voltage output of 0.5V at >14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on either end and so the sensor >appears to have a on/off value. Perhaps some engine controllers do just use a >simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can adjust the mixture so the O2 puts >out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. I have no clue if 0.55V is 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 but I do >know that with a properly set up engine with an Ellison Throttle carb. or else >an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is at about 0.75V. I've set my >fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas Temperature and a Post Run >check of the spark plug colour all confirm the mixture is 'about' right. > >Cheers, > >John > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:28 -0500 >From: Scott_Hay@toyota.com >Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > >4 Links > >Van, The length and distance apart are only a small portion of the equation. >What are their angles relative to horizontal and are they parallel? I assume >that this car is for the road as opposed to drag racing (completely different >setup). The instantaneous center is the point where the torque of the wheels >will act upon the body. This is determined by the angles of the links. If this >projected point is too low (significantly below the CG) the front of the car >will have tremendous lift on acceleration. Too high, and not enough weight will >transfer to the back and wheelspin (if you have that much HP). As to the >lengths that you are working with, that will probably be determined more by >space availability more than anything else. > > There are some very good books like HP's "How to Make Your Car Handle" it is a >starting point that goes into most of the questions that you need to ask. > >Scott > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST >From: DemonTSi@aol.com >Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... > >Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with >fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing >and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there >were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I >should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, >and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! >Thanks in advance. > >Van > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:16 -0500 >From: David Brode >Subject: Re: 4 links > >Hello all, > Finally something I know a little about![humor]. I've done a bit of >chassis fabricating and help a friend with a 4 link equipped 3040 lb >B-1 Dart that carries the wheels 90 ft and runs 9.20's @ 149 >[through the muffs]. > Short "bars" will cause your pinion angle to change a bunch during >travel. Most race car equal length "links" are 20" C/L to C/L. >Unequal length deals are usually 20" on the lower bars and shorter, >but as long as possible on top. For a street only car, Spread them >out as far as possible to prevent bad body roll, and make them level >front to rear. You can run them parallel to car's C/L, but you'll need a >diagonal link or a panhard bar. Another option is to run the top bars >[or all] at an angle, like many factory 4 bar setups. You could copy >most any factory design. Running at least the tops at an angle will >enable you to get away without a locator [panhard/track locator] > Fyi - Chevettes had a 4 bar set up that could be cheaply adapted. >You can cut and re-weld them too. > > Now, if I could just get someone to tell me if 80's turbo 2.2 Chryslers >had low or high impedance injectors. >Good luck. >Dave Brode > >> >> From: DemonTSi@aol.com >> Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar rear ends... >> >> Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone who has experience with >> fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. I'm working on designing >> and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was just wondering if there >> were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance between them that I >> should try and stick to. Right now I have the links at about 10.5-11" long, >> and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any help/advice/tips/comments would be great! >> Thanks in advance. >> >> Van >> - - http://members.xoom.com/BADROC >> > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:50:46 -0500 >From: "Jesse R. Ortiz" >Subject: Max injector size? > >Is there a formula to figure out the maximum injector size, while still >allowing for a good idle. I'll be using a Haltech so idle pulse width can be >adjusted. The engine is 2.6L. > >Thanks in advance. > >Jesse. > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:55:06 -0600 >From: "G. Scott Ponton" >Subject: Re: ECU pulse width calculations > > > There is a lot of good information in the archives about how the OEM >systems use the o2 sensor. As the OEMs implement it it is used more as a >switch than anything else. This has been an ongoing disagreement for some of >us. The O2 sensor is capable of being used as an analog device if it is not >connected to the OEM computer system. > The problem with it is that it has a very narrow operating window. It >won't read AFRs much either side of stoich. So using it in a manner other >than it was intended by the OEM system isn't necessarily going to give you >the info you always want. > > >Scott > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 18:15:27 +0000 >From: Ade + Lamb Chop >Subject: RE: Airflow Measurement > >At 05:00 14/12/99 -0500, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: >> >>Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 22:38:40 -0600 >>From: pcs74 >>Subject: Airflow Measurement >> >>Hello, >> >>Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, throttlebodys, etc. etc. >>airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it be better if they were given in >>lbs/min? Why or why not? I understand why compressors are rated this way >>just not why other engine componets are not. >> >>Thanks Chris Skarzenski pcs74@swbell.net > >Don't think it really matters as long as everbody uses the same units for >comparison purposes. Also air changes density so a lb of air changes it's >phisical dimentions. However a Cubic foot of air will always be a cubic >foot of air. > >Whether this is a good thing of not I don't know :-) It probably stems from >some acient ritural that us brits came up with :-) > >Ade > >------------------------------ > >End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 >***************************** > >To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: > > subscribe diy_efi-digest > >in the body of a message to "Majordomo@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu". > >A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to >subscribe to that instead, replace "diy_efi-digest" in the command > above with "diy_efi". _____________________________________________________________ AutoSpeed - The World's Best High Performance Online Magazine http://www.autospeed.com From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 19:52:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21609 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:52:25 -0500 Received: from web903.mail.yahoo.com (web903.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.78]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21604 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:52:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 29765 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Dec 1999 00:52:23 -0000 Message-ID: <19991216005223.29764.qmail@web903.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.6.201.49] by web903.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:23 PST Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:23 -0800 (PST) From: Carter Shore Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 O2 Sensors To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu, DIY_EFI-Digest@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu The standard sensors are very poor analog devices. The transition area is very abrubt, non-linear, and probably not consistent from batch to batch. The factory ECU depends upon the transitions from rich to lean, 'crossings' over the threshold. The A/F ratio is set by the injector pulse width, the system acting like an integrator over time. Those of you who see a 'constant' .75 V are probably using an analog meter, or a DVM with with long time constant or input filtering. If you take a look at the O2 sensor with an oscilloscope, you will see the crossings in clsed loop mode, as well as injector pulse width 'jitter' as the ECU continuously adjusts the A/F ratio. As has been discussed on this list, wide band accurate O2 sensors are available, but expensive. If these were manufactured in the same volume as the current auto O2 sesnors, they would probably be about the same price. Think of the ECU and O2 sensor like a big switchmode power supply, the A/F ratio is varied via pulsewidth to achieve an average value that is integrated over time. I wonder what the effective loop damping and settling times are for these systems? Are there systemic oscillation conditions to be aware of, and to design out, for DIY'ers like us? Anyone have first hand info? --- DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 > Volume 04 : Number 696 > > > > In this issue: > > CFM vs. lb/min > re: Pulse Wdith. > Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > Re: 4 links > Max injector size? > Re: ECU pulse width calculations > RE: Airflow Measurement > > See the end of the digest for information on > subscribing to the > DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) > From: William T Wilson > Subject: CFM vs. lb/min > > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > > Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, > throttlebodys, etc. > > etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it > be better if they > > were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I > understand why compressors > > are rated this way just not why other engine > componets are not. > > Because CFM is the same regardless of ambient > pressure, but lbs/min is > not. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 > From: "John Dammeyer" > Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. > > >John Dammeyer wrote: > > > >>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it > with a pot that provides > >>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is > supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, > >>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture > is perfect it won't keep > >>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and > you can see the real result > >>of your tuning. > > > >I have little experiance in these things, but don't > OEM controllers richen the > >mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a > "transition" from low to high, and > >then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes > back down. > > > >Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have > an unpredictable effect. > >Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and > use some sort of backup > >system. > > > I don't believe that's true. The HEGO sensors have > a voltage output of 0.5V at > 14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on > either end and so the sensor > appears to have a on/off value. Perhaps some engine > controllers do just use a > simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can > adjust the mixture so the O2 puts > out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. I have no clue if 0.55V is > 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 but I do > know that with a properly set up engine with an > Ellison Throttle carb. or else > an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is > at about 0.75V. I've set my > fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas > Temperature and a Post Run > check of the spark plug colour all confirm the > mixture is 'about' right. > > Cheers, > > John > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:28 -0500 > From: Scott_Hay@toyota.com > Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > > 4 Links > > Van, The length and distance apart are only a small > portion of the equation. > What are their angles relative to horizontal and are > they parallel? I assume > that this car is for the road as opposed to drag > racing (completely different > setup). The instantaneous center is the point where > the torque of the wheels > will act upon the body. This is determined by the > angles of the links. If this > projected point is too low (significantly below the > CG) the front of the car > will have tremendous lift on acceleration. Too > high, and not enough weight will > transfer to the back and wheelspin (if you have that > much HP). As to the > lengths that you are working with, that will > probably be determined more by > space availability more than anything else. > > There are some very good books like HP's "How to > Make Your Car Handle" it is a > starting point that goes into most of the questions > that you need to ask. > > Scott > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar > rear ends... > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone > who has experience with > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. > I'm working on designing > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was > just wondering if there > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance > between them that I > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links > at about 10.5-11" long, > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any > help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > Thanks in advance. > > Van > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:16 -0500 > From: David Brode > Subject: Re: 4 links > > Hello all, > Finally something I know a little about![humor]. > I've done a bit of > chassis fabricating and help a friend with a 4 link > equipped 3040 lb > B-1 Dart that carries the wheels 90 ft and runs > 9.20's @ 149 > [through the muffs]. > Short "bars" will cause your pinion angle to change > a bunch during > travel. Most race car equal length "links" are 20" > C/L to C/L. > Unequal length deals are usually 20" on the lower > bars and shorter, > but as long as possible on top. For a street only > car, Spread them > out as far as possible to prevent bad body roll, and > make them level > front to rear. You can run them parallel to car's > C/L, but you'll need a > diagonal link or a panhard bar. Another option is to > run the top bars > [or all] at an angle, like many factory 4 bar > setups. You could copy > most any factory design. Running at least the tops > at an angle will > enable you to get away without a locator > [panhard/track locator] > Fyi - Chevettes had a 4 bar set up that could be > cheaply adapted. > You can cut and re-weld them too. > > Now, if I could just get someone to tell me if 80's > turbo 2.2 Chryslers > had low or high impedance injectors. > Good luck. > Dave Brode > > > > > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four > link/bar rear ends... > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 19:52:27 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA21615 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:52:27 -0500 Received: from web903.mail.yahoo.com (web903.mail.yahoo.com [128.11.23.78]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21603 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:52:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 29765 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Dec 1999 00:52:23 -0000 Message-ID: <19991216005223.29764.qmail@web903.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [208.6.201.49] by web903.mail.yahoo.com; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:23 PST Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:52:23 -0800 (PST) From: Carter Shore Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 O2 Sensors To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu, DIY_EFI-Digest@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu The standard sensors are very poor analog devices. The transition area is very abrubt, non-linear, and probably not consistent from batch to batch. The factory ECU depends upon the transitions from rich to lean, 'crossings' over the threshold. The A/F ratio is set by the injector pulse width, the system acting like an integrator over time. Those of you who see a 'constant' .75 V are probably using an analog meter, or a DVM with with long time constant or input filtering. If you take a look at the O2 sensor with an oscilloscope, you will see the crossings in clsed loop mode, as well as injector pulse width 'jitter' as the ECU continuously adjusts the A/F ratio. As has been discussed on this list, wide band accurate O2 sensors are available, but expensive. If these were manufactured in the same volume as the current auto O2 sesnors, they would probably be about the same price. Think of the ECU and O2 sensor like a big switchmode power supply, the A/F ratio is varied via pulsewidth to achieve an average value that is integrated over time. I wonder what the effective loop damping and settling times are for these systems? Are there systemic oscillation conditions to be aware of, and to design out, for DIY'ers like us? Anyone have first hand info? --- DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 > Volume 04 : Number 696 > > > > In this issue: > > CFM vs. lb/min > re: Pulse Wdith. > Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > Re: 4 links > Max injector size? > Re: ECU pulse width calculations > RE: Airflow Measurement > > See the end of the digest for information on > subscribing to the > DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:37:02 -0500 (EST) > From: William T Wilson > Subject: CFM vs. lb/min > > On Tue, 14 Dec 1999, DIY_EFI Digest wrote: > > > Can someone tell me why cylinder heads, intakes, > throttlebodys, etc. > > etc. airflow numbers are quoted in CFM? Would it > be better if they > > were given in lbs/min? Why or why not? I > understand why compressors > > are rated this way just not why other engine > componets are not. > > Because CFM is the same regardless of ambient > pressure, but lbs/min is > not. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 > From: "John Dammeyer" > Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. > > >John Dammeyer wrote: > > > >>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it > with a pot that provides > >>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is > supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, > >>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture > is perfect it won't keep > >>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and > you can see the real result > >>of your tuning. > > > >I have little experiance in these things, but don't > OEM controllers richen the > >mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a > "transition" from low to high, and > >then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes > back down. > > > >Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have > an unpredictable effect. > >Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and > use some sort of backup > >system. > > > I don't believe that's true. The HEGO sensors have > a voltage output of 0.5V at > 14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on > either end and so the sensor > appears to have a on/off value. Perhaps some engine > controllers do just use a > simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can > adjust the mixture so the O2 puts > out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. I have no clue if 0.55V is > 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 but I do > know that with a properly set up engine with an > Ellison Throttle carb. or else > an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is > at about 0.75V. I've set my > fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas > Temperature and a Post Run > check of the spark plug colour all confirm the > mixture is 'about' right. > > Cheers, > > John > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:28:28 -0500 > From: Scott_Hay@toyota.com > Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 > > 4 Links > > Van, The length and distance apart are only a small > portion of the equation. > What are their angles relative to horizontal and are > they parallel? I assume > that this car is for the road as opposed to drag > racing (completely different > setup). The instantaneous center is the point where > the torque of the wheels > will act upon the body. This is determined by the > angles of the links. If this > projected point is too low (significantly below the > CG) the front of the car > will have tremendous lift on acceleration. Too > high, and not enough weight will > transfer to the back and wheelspin (if you have that > much HP). As to the > lengths that you are working with, that will > probably be determined more by > space availability more than anything else. > > There are some very good books like HP's "How to > Make Your Car Handle" it is a > starting point that goes into most of the questions > that you need to ask. > > Scott > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 05:24:47 EST > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four link/bar > rear ends... > > Hi folks, I was hoping to get some info from someone > who has experience with > fabricating a rear 4 link or 4 bar suspension setup. > I'm working on designing > and fabbing a 4 bar for my datsun roadster and was > just wondering if there > were any optimum lengths for the links, and distance > between them that I > should try and stick to. Right now I have the links > at about 10.5-11" long, > and 5" apart, center-to-center. Any > help/advice/tips/comments would be great! > Thanks in advance. > > Van > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 17:30:16 -0500 > From: David Brode > Subject: Re: 4 links > > Hello all, > Finally something I know a little about![humor]. > I've done a bit of > chassis fabricating and help a friend with a 4 link > equipped 3040 lb > B-1 Dart that carries the wheels 90 ft and runs > 9.20's @ 149 > [through the muffs]. > Short "bars" will cause your pinion angle to change > a bunch during > travel. Most race car equal length "links" are 20" > C/L to C/L. > Unequal length deals are usually 20" on the lower > bars and shorter, > but as long as possible on top. For a street only > car, Spread them > out as far as possible to prevent bad body roll, and > make them level > front to rear. You can run them parallel to car's > C/L, but you'll need a > diagonal link or a panhard bar. Another option is to > run the top bars > [or all] at an angle, like many factory 4 bar > setups. You could copy > most any factory design. Running at least the tops > at an angle will > enable you to get away without a locator > [panhard/track locator] > Fyi - Chevettes had a 4 bar set up that could be > cheaply adapted. > You can cut and re-weld them too. > > Now, if I could just get someone to tell me if 80's > turbo 2.2 Chryslers > had low or high impedance injectors. > Good luck. > Dave Brode > > > > > From: DemonTSi@aol.com > > Subject: Non- DIY EFI: question about four > link/bar rear ends... > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one place. Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com From diy_efi-owner Wed Dec 15 21:44:38 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA23156 for diy_efi-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:44:38 -0500 Received: from mail.rdc3.on.home.com (ha1.rdc3.on.home.com [24.2.9.68]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA23153 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:44:37 -0500 Received: from CR929909A ([24.112.22.40]) by mail.rdc3.on.home.com (InterMail v4.01.01.02 201-229-111-106) with SMTP id <19991216024231.NHBT15480.mail.rdc3.on.home.com@CR929909A> for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:42:31 -0800 Message-ID: <003001bf476f$a154bb90$28167018@ktchnr1.on.wave.home.com> From: "Clare Snyder" To: References: <199912151000.FAA08172@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Subject: EGO Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 21:45:36 -0500 Organization: Snyder Enterprises MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: DIY_EFI Digest To: Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 5:00 AM Subject: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 14:16:01 -0800 > From: "John Dammeyer" > Subject: re: Pulse Wdith. > > >John Dammeyer wrote: > > > >>If it's a standard O2 sensor why not replace it with a pot that provides > >>0..1.0V and set the output to 0.5V which is supposed to be 14:7:1. Then, > >>because the O2 is telling the ECU that the mixture is perfect it won't keep > >>screwing around with the mixture pulse width and you can see the real result > >>of your tuning. > > > >I have little experiance in these things, but don't OEM controllers richen the > >mixture until they see the O2 sensor make a "transition" from low to high, and > >then they lean the mixture until the voltage goes back down. > > Correct - Strandard computers, with standard O2 sensors count the transitions to monitor sensor. No transitions means bad sensor - goto backup mode (open loop) > >Holding the O2 sensor voltage constant would have an unpredictable effect. > >Possibly the computer would flag it as faulty and use some sort of backup > >system. > > > I don't believe that's true. Trust me, it is. > The HEGO sensors have a voltage output of 0.5V at > 14.7:1 and then the voltage changes rapidly on either end and so the sensor > appears to have a on/off value. Not only appears to have - the computer does not read absolute, but adjusts the mixture lean when it gets too rich, and rich when it gets too lean. By doing this very quickly it holds an average steady state. > Perhaps some engine controllers do just use a > simple go/nogo approach but I doubt it. I can adjust the mixture so the O2 puts > out 0.55V or 0.6V etc. You can, but the computer can't. The wide range ion-pump type units work differently, as they are linear in output. A given voltage means a given A/F mixture (close enough for our purposes - not technically 100%true, so forget the flaming) >I have no clue if 0.55V is 14.1:1 or 10.1:1 Nor does the standard O2 sensor > but I do > know that with a properly set up engine with an Ellison Throttle carb. or else > an SU carb that at maximum Torque the O2 sensor is at about 0.75V. I've set my > fuel injection to be roughly the same. Exhaust Gas Temperature and a Post Run > check of the spark plug colour all confirm the mixture is 'about' right. > > Cheers, > > John > > ------------------------------ From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 03:41:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id DAA27536 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:41:05 -0500 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id DAA27533 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 03:41:01 -0500 Received: from amiga3k (p320-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.109.205.80]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id VAA04163 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 21:40:55 +1300 Date: 16 Dec 99 21:28:36 +1200 From: "Tom Parker" Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 To: "Bobby Radomirov" Message-ID: <1866.19T1846T12883761parkert@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: THOR 2.6 (Amiga;TCP/IP) Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Bobby Radomirov wrote: >The O2 sensor varies the voltage constantly. Abouth 8 times per sec on a >good one and 4 times per sec one old one. It is my understanding that the computer varies the mixture, which the sensor detects and responds by varying the output voltage. This is quite different from the sensor varing the voltage on it's own!!! >The perfect 14.7-1 mixture is >about .480V anything that is under is Lean anything over is Rich. "Perfect", "Lean" and "Rich" are open to interpretation. >The >Max power range is abouth 10:1 - 12:1 mixture. You can cheat on the O2 >sensor my puting small resistor in series with the circuit you will have >some initial voltage drop accross it and will cause the Computer to >richen the mixture. Althou I dont see why you would do that Because at >WOT teh computer doesnt receive input from the O2 sensor and it will run >at teh best preprogramed mixture for teh particular engine. When you change teh engine, the preprogramed computer will no longer provide the "best" mixture for the engine. Also your idea of "best" may differ from that of the manufacturer. >The point is >in making other sensors like temp sensor, air temp sensor, AFM to read >denser air and colder temperatures. That added the resistor accross the >O2 wire will richen the mixture. But it might afect performance as well. >Richer mixture doesnt neseseraly means that you will have more HP or >Torgue. It all depends on the engine design It also depends on the design of the ECU and the program it is running. >DIY_EFI Digest wrote: >> >> DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, December 15 1999 Volume 04 : Number 696 PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE THE WHOLE DIGEST! Doing so can crash the server, apart from wasting everyone's time. -- Tom Parker - parkert@ihug.co.nz - http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Track/8381/ From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 05:01:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA28277 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:01:53 -0500 Received: from saclink3.csus.edu (saclink3.csus.edu [130.86.82.3]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id FAA28274 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 05:01:52 -0500 Received: by saclink3.csus.edu (1.40.112.6/16.2) id AA012148509; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:01:49 -0800 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:01:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tristan Dresch Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #698 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu In-Reply-To: <199912160244.VAA23161@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu> Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu I am interested in the idea of using some sort of efi controller to regulate nitros flow. I want to be able to map out the flow of nitros at different levels to maintain a steady torque level. Lets say I want to maintain 400lbs of torque from 2000 to 6000 rpm on a turbo 4. Is it possible to use nitros and a computer to achieve this? If so how? I was thinking of using rpm, throttle position, and intake temp as inputs. Any ideas or suggestions - Cris From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 09:31:47 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA30624 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:31:47 -0500 Received: from cmn.net (root@yampa.cmn.net [206.168.145.15]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA30621 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 09:31:46 -0500 Received: from [207.49.39.188] (w39.cmn.net [207.49.39.188]) by cmn.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA14630 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:25:47 -0700 (MST) X-Sender: bearbvd@mail.cmn.net Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:31:06 -0700 To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu From: bearbvd@cmn.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #699 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu > >Date: 16 Dec 99 21:28:36 +1200 >From: "Tom Parker" >Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #696 > >Bobby Radomirov wrote: > >>The O2 sensor varies the voltage constantly. Abouth 8 times per sec on a >>good one and 4 times per sec one old one. > >It is my understanding that the computer varies the mixture, which the >sensor detects and responds by varying the output voltage. This is quite >different from the sensor varing the voltage on it's own!!! > >>The perfect 14.7-1 mixture is >>about .480V anything that is under is Lean anything over is Rich. > >"Perfect", "Lean" and "Rich" are open to interpretation. The ecu uses what is known as a "Bang-Bang" control algorythm with respect to the O2 sensor, as opposed to a proportional (P), proportional-integral (P-I), or proportional-integral-derivative (P-I-D) scheme. What this means is that when the sensor output voltage deviates a pre-programmed amount to the rich side of the stoich sensor voltage, the ecu begins to lean out the mixture (at a pre-programmed rate), and then when the sensor output varies a pre-programmed amount to the lean side, the ecu begins to richen the mixture, again according to a preprogrammed rate. The programmable variables include how FAR the sensor signal must deviate in each direction before the ecu reverses its corrective action, and the size and rate of the corrective action taken in each direction. It_IS_DEFINITELY possible to change the frequency at which an ecu oscillates the mixture about the stoich point (and how far it swings each way) when the ecu is in "closed loop" mode by changing these control variables in the program. The limit as to how tightly and quickly the mixture can be controlled is the response rate of the EGO (or HEGO) sensor. The advantages of bang-bang control are that it is a very simple algorythm--and thus it takes up very little code/memory capacity, and that there is no control "offset"(error, or deviation) from the setpoint as system load varies. The usually quoted disadvantage of bang'bang control is the inherent oscillations of the controlled variable about the set point. However, in these (vehicle ecu) applications, that disadvantage has been turned into an asset--the oscillations are said to improve the performance of a three way catalytic converter, and now OBDII uses counting of the oscillations as a strategy to detect system malfunctions. Proportional control gives a much smoother control, but has the disadvantage of introducing a control "offset", or error--the controlled variable will err in the direction of the load on the system in an amount proportional to the amount of the load on the system. PI control eliminates the "offset" error that one ALWAYS has with P control by correcting the system input based on the Integral of controlled variable error over time--the longer an error in the controlled variable exists, the greater the correction that is applied. PID control adds another correction to PI control so as to avoid the tendency for the controlled variable to oscillate about the set point (something that looks sort of like a deteriorating sine wave shaped oscillation around the set point when the controlled variable returns to the set point from an upset. In order to do this, the Derivative correction adds a correction factor to the control input based on the RATE at which the controlled variable is returning to its set point. The behavior of P, PI, and PID controls can be "tuned" by changing the control constants which are applied to each of the three components of the control scheme. There are even "self tuning" programs which are commonly available for these type of controls. However--the processor and memory demands of these types of control schemes should be pretty obvious. Regards, Greg From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 10:21:10 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA31483 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:21:10 -0500 Received: from smtpout.telus.net (smtpout.telus.net [207.194.28.79]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31480 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:21:08 -0500 Received: from [209.53.37.119] (00-05-02-e8-f0-00.bconnected.net [209.53.37.119]) by smtpout.telus.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id HAA11002 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:21:06 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199912161521.HAA11002@smtpout.telus.net> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 07:23:15 -0800 Subject: O2 sensor information From: "Andrew Brownsword" To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Mime-version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Check this site out: http://www.wps.com/LPG/o2sensor.html And **PLEASE** **PLEASE** **PLEASE** do NOT quote an entire digest message in your reply to the list. At the very least delete all the excessive content, and hopefully put a reasonable subject line in as well. Thanks, Andrew From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 11:54:35 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA00867 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:54:35 -0500 Received: from lstc1.Linnstate.edu (lstc1.linnstate.edu [207.160.145.125]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA00863 for ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:54:34 -0500 Received: by lstc1.linnstate.edu with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:54:33 -0600 Message-ID: From: Jim Brandon To: "'diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu'" Subject: RE: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695 Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 10:54:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01BF47E6.39D9B0A2" Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF47E6.39D9B0A2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Dave Morgan publishes a book called Doorslammers the chassis book. 1-800-331-8014 It is the best book on the subject I have read. He also has seminars on suspension at local speed shops. ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF47E6.39D9B0A2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #695

Dave Morgan publishes a book called Doorslammers the = chassis book. 1-800-331-8014 It is the best book on the subject I = have read. He also has seminars on suspension at local speed = shops.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF47E6.39D9B0A2-- From diy_efi-owner Thu Dec 16 16:53:39 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA07603 for diy_efi-outgoing; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:53:39 -0500 Received: from mail.phoenix.speedchoice.com (mail.phoenix.speedchoice.com [24.221.30.31]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07592; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:53:34 -0500 Received: from WallaceA (hybrid-024-221-113-140.phoenix.speedchoice.com [24.221.113.140]) by mail.phoenix.speedchoice.com (8.9.3/) with SMTP id OAA10046; Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:53:44 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <001901bf4811$2cedf760$8c71dd18@Gustafson.phoenix.speedchoice.com> From: "Wallace A. Gustafson" To: , , Cc: , References: <199912090110.UAA18075@jsgpc.mrcday.com> Subject: Re: [admin] 2.5" hard disk Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 15:01:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu You name the size drive you need. I will see what I can locate for you. Contact me with information for shipping, etc. Thank You, Wallace "Cobra" Gustafson Cobra Racing & Engineering ----- Original Message ----- From: John S. Gwynne To: ; ; Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 6:10 PM Subject: [admin] 2.5" hard disk > > Did someone have a 2.5" IDE hard drive that they were willing to > donate for use in a diy_efi server? I thought I read that in one of > the emails, but I could not find it again... > > If so, please email me. > > Thanks, > > john gwynne > From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 17 11:01:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA19626 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:01:12 -0500 Received: from keybank.com ([156.77.98.54]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA19623 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:01:11 -0500 From: Rodney_L_Wiggins@keybank.com Received: by keybank.com(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.4 (830.2 3-23-1999)) id 8525684A.00577DB3 ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:55:38 -0500 X-Lotus-FromDomain: KEYCORP To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu cc: sac49091@saclink.csus.edu Message-ID: <8525684A.00577C5B.00@keybank.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:00:31 -0500 Subject: Nitrous Controler Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Tristan, I do not reccomend trying to make 400lb/ft of torque @2000 RPM with Nitrous on a turbo 4. Unless you have a substantially upgraded bottom-end, an o-ringed head individual foggers for each cylinder, and consistent bottle pressure. This is the voice of experience. I got greedy for numbers and tried to do the same thing on a dyno once. I had plenty of fuel as confirmed by the Dyno operator's exhaust analyser. The failure was catastrophic with very little warning and was very very expensive. -Rod Wiggins 86 Porsche 944 turbo, (with fresh engine). Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 02:01:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Tristan Dresch Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #698 I am interested in the idea of using some sort of efi controller to regulate nitros flow. I want to be able to map out the flow of nitros at different levels to maintain a steady torque level. Lets say I want to maintain 400lbs of torque from 2000 to 6000 rpm on a turbo 4. Is it possible to use nitros and a computer to achieve this? If so how? I was thinking of using rpm, throttle position, and intake temp as inputs. Any ideas or suggestions - Cris ------------------------------ <--- From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 17 14:44:31 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA24220 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:44:31 -0500 Received: from fw-austin.austin.arm.com (firewall-user@ns2.arm.com [208.202.62.114]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA24202; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:44:01 -0500 Received: by fw-austin.austin.arm.com; id NAA11270; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:44:01 -0600 Received: from unknown(192.168.3.3) by fw-austin.austin.arm.com via smap (V5.0) id xma011268; Fri, 17 Dec 99 13:43:08 -0600 Received: from arm.com (auspc21 [192.168.3.121]) by aussun1.austin.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA26844; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:43:07 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <385A916C.16B8F3B@arm.com> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:39:24 -0600 From: steve ravet X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: diy_efi , "gmecm@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu" , efi_332 Subject: server status update Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu In case anyone is curious, here is the status of the new list/www/ftp server: Jon Valesh graciously donated a slightly used Alpha workstation as the new list host. He was also able to locate a 9G external scsi drive, and we have a case for it as well. It is located on a T1 connection to his work. The OS is installed and booting, maintenance accounts have been set up. I'm in the process of transferring the WWW and FTP stuff over, John and Orin are taking of the list stuff. It's just a matter of getting everything set up/configured now, everything else seems to be in place. On behalf of Jon, John, Orin, and myself, I'd like to thank everyone who made generous offers for location and hardware. We should have things set up by early january, unless of course we're all wiped out in riots New Years eve. --steve -- Steve Ravet steve.ravet@arm.com Advanced Risc Machines, Inc. www.arm.com From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 17 16:54:06 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27007 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:54:06 -0500 Received: from mail.islandnet.com (mail.islandnet.com [199.175.106.4]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27000 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:54:03 -0500 Received: from [199.175.106.82] (helo=johnd) by mail.islandnet.com with SMTP id 11z5K3-00089C-00 for diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 13:54:01 -0800 Message-ID: <017601bf48da$4a9eba50$0100a8c0@johnd.islandnet.com> From: "John Dammeyer" To: Subject: Re: Riots Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:01:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu >On behalf of Jon, John, Orin, and myself, I'd like to thank everyone who >made generous offers for location and hardware. We should have things >set up by early january, unless of course we're all wiped out in riots >New Years eve. > >- --steve > >- -- >Steve Ravet >steve.ravet@arm.com >Advanced Risc Machines, Inc. >www.arm.com Heavens... riots.... for Y2K.... naw, we'll all be freezing in the dark until the idea comes up to go sit in the car and foul the sparks plugs by idling for two weeks straight with the heater on. Now if we had an inexpensive UEGO we could carefully lean out the mixture and keep ourselves warm. ;-) John Dammeyer From diy_efi-owner Fri Dec 17 17:12:04 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id RAA27380 for diy_efi-outgoing; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:12:04 -0500 Received: from toshiro.sk.sympatico.ca (toshiro.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.5.62]) by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA27377 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 17:12:02 -0500 Received: from super-computer (sktnsk01d05040199.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.43.99]) by toshiro.sk.sympatico.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA360852 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:11:58 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000601bf48db$ee2b0e20$632ba58e@super-computer> From: "Clint S." To: Subject: Re: Nitrous Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:12:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-diy_efi@esl.eng.ohio-state.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: diy_efi@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu A couple of general rules I have learned over the years about turbocharging and nitrous . 1) Make sure the fuel pump and injectors are big enough, fuel pump is often overlooked use a fuel pressure guage to confirm 2) O-ringing block and buying a stronger head gasket are usually strengthing the weak links . The way I look at it they are like fuses, cheaper to blow them than a set of pistons, rods or junk your entire motor . The oringing trick allows a little more OOPS detonation while tuning, but when it blows it blows big time (Others may disagree), I say avoid detonation all together . For really high HP engines o ringing must be done 3) NOS has many advantages over turbo including instant response, major cooling effect and combustion chamber stabilization . Get the NOS recipe wrong and that instant response now turns your motor to instant junk . I personally would not try to computer control NOS due to the fact that mistakes will more than likely cost you an engine . Use a small shot first and tune engine, get your feet wet . 4) Proper timing controll is often overlooked, it is a major key factor to keep you engine from detonating . TIMING IS CRITICAL I hope I didn't turn you off NOS, it is very effective and cheap . Buy an NOS book on the shelf and research it . 400lbft of torque at 2000 rpms is not going to happen, NOS is not to be used at low rpms . -----Original Message----- From: DIY_EFI Digest To: DIY_EFI-Digest@efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu Date: 17-Dec-99 3:20 PM Subject: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #702 > >DIY_EFI Digest Friday, December 17 1999 Volume 04 : Number 702 > > > >In this issue: > > Nitrous Controler > server status update > >See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the >DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:00:31 -0500 >From: Rodney_L_Wiggins@keybank.com >Subject: Nitrous Controler > >Tristan, > I do not reccomend trying to make 400lb/ft of torque @2000 RPM with Nitrous >on a turbo 4. Unless you have a substantially upgraded bottom-end, an o-ringed >head individual foggers for each cylinder, and consistent bottle pressure. This >is the voice of experience. I got greedy for numbers and tried to do the same >thing on a dyno once. I had plenty of fuel as confirmed by the Dyno operator's >exhaust analyser. The failure was catastro