[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: P&H Injector Interface



At 02:25 PM 5/19/00 -0700, you wrote:
On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:39:24 -0400, Len sabatine <sabatine@epix.net>
wrote:

> This sounds like some very useful work ; cost effective and painless
>  upgrading for retrofit projects. Add to that your not contemplating
>  wearing a gun belt and mask for these relatively low cost items. Cool.

Alright, thank you for the comment.

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
The General Routinely piggybacks various "Modules" on Vehicles circa late 80's,
 Early 90's, Like 4 out Buffers, D.R.A.C. etc. This Area would most likely be
less obtrusive, easier,less costly and have improved heat dissipation qualities. The most recent splice/shrink and seal connectors , plus metripacks,etc appear
 effective and durable.
IMHO,If one is going to place ckt in the engine real estate, flex Circuit hi temp material may be a good plan, however this won't fit the K.I.S.S. rule you are appearing
 to employ. Merely My 2c. Plug and Play beats Plug and Prey, hands down.

 Len



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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