Re: P&H Injector Interface

["nacelp" <nacelp@bright.net>]

Well, the heat ain't that big of deal.
Just lately, I been running some re driven ecms, and running P+Hs injectors
in a static condition.   That and at the beginning of the test forget the
TBIs were 1.2 instead of 2.4 and really got them hot, ie work bench wood top
was smelling bad from the injectors being so hot.  The ecm case never got
over 100dF.   Putting the driver board under hood worsens the temp
situation, from what it looks like over here.  ie had to find anything less
tehn 100dF under hood on a 105 day, hahaha.
   How many drivers you looking to fit in there?
Grumpy



> Here's something more to contemplate on the topic. The "jumper" method
> is just one way to deal with getting the P&H drivers in-circuit. There
> be substantial tradeoffs.
>
> Injector drivers, even P&H ones, have to dissipate some modest amount of
> heat. The connectors for the Sat injectors usually are a pretty good run
> of harness out from the ECU box to the engine top. So the "jumper"
> method would want to have the modules near the injectors, so you didn't
> create a much longer run by connecting the original connectors to a box
> somewhere on the firewall, and then back up/out to the injectors again.
> That's gonna require that the interface module have some robust heat
> transfer capacity.
>
> BUT, let's face it, anyone doing this with an OEM controller (switching
> to P&H injectors, that is), is probly capable of putting a splice in the
> harness after the injector wires exit the ECU, going over to the
> injector interface module, and then hooking up the existing injector
> wires to the output of the module. Then, you don't need the "jumper" nor
> the special connectors, plus the interface now lives inside the cabin
> somewhere, and therefore needs somewhat less cooling wherewithal, and
> needn't be hermetic.
>
> If we took the "jumper" approach, and the modules would hafta have some
> clunky fins and live atop the engine, would that make you want to opt
> instead for the perhaps less convenient but cleaner method of splicing
> into the existing wire near the ECU instead? Makes the packaging/thermal
> design considerably easier/smaller, and avoids the special connectors,
> but isn't quite as slam-dunk convenient as plugNplay.
>
> What say ye, gentlemen? Which passes muster in the sanity check?
>
> Gar
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org