DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 16 December 1995 Volume 00 : Number 005 In this issue: re: RE: Playing with the ECM Re: Moper Re: 67f687 chip ... Re: All the EST See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Brad_Miller@xxx.com (Miller,Brad) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 05:57:05 PST Subject: Say - - I've got a question . . . . I've got a 2.5L TBI Dodge in a '93 Duster. I'm looking for a little more pickup and I've been told that the stock intake manifold sucks . . . (BTW: I might have asked this before . .. mind is slipping . . ) I'm wondering if it's feasible to scavenge the local boneyard for a 2 peice intake manifold from a turbo car and to use it with my existing TBI unit. The different intake manifold is actually a "tuned" setup. I'm told it was originally designed for non-turbo applications. For right now, I'd keep the injectors in place (but not hooked up) or I'd plug those holes up. I'm thinking of fashioning a mounting plate to mount my stock TBI unit on the manifold. Has anyone done anything like this? I know there has to be other cars that people have converted from one type of system to another. My long-term goal would be to convert this car to a fuel-injected turbo setup, and this would start the ball rolling. Also - - another more in-depth question: The stock 2.2/2.5 motors from Chrysler had only 8.0:1 compression, my motor is "supposedly" got about 9-9.5:1. I've read numerous articles in "Sport Compact Car" and "Turbo and Hi-Tech Performance" on systems running under boost with compression ratios that high. What would the benefit of the higher compression ratio be? I love my car's current off the line torque, and I'm afraid that lowering the compression ratio will hurt it significantly. Anyone got any ideas on that? Thanks a lot! I've been following a long quietly on the sidelines here . . . . I've also got a few ideas about converting my 2.2 Shelby Charger from Webers to fuel injection - - - I was looking at aftermarket throttle bodies for the Weber manifold - - but it might be easier to put the 2.2 Turbo II intake on and sell the Webers. Bradley Miller Midwest Shelby Dodge Automobile Club brad_miller@xxx.com or brad2dbone@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: SRavet@xxx.com Date: Fri, 15 Dec 95 9:32:01 CST Subject: re: RE: Playing with the ECM ws6transam@xxx.net (Daniel R Burk) Wrote: | | > | >Markus Strobl has written: | > | > | > | >> Second subject: I own a '96 Camaro with the LT1. The service manual I | >> read was for a friends '95. GM did alot of changes for '96 to | >> comply with OBDII. My owners manual says that the ECM now detects | >> misfires, and will flash the service engine light if it detects a | >> misfire. The '96 also has 4 (!) O2 sensors (dual cat), to detect | >> catcon degradation. | > | >> Does anyone have any info on OBDII? Ie how much can the engine be | >> modified before the ECM tilts? Can the ECM be modified, or can | >> it be fooled be changing the sensor readings? Any info appreciated. | > | > | | Marcus: Before you modify your ECM let me tell you about a little conversation | I have had with a GM engineer who actually worked in ECM design. | | GM will be designing their new vcm (vehicle control module) with anti-tampering | software. There are three levels of information available on the new vcm: | 1) general engine diagnostics (freely available to scan tools) | 2) dealership functions (like clearing the trouble codes) | 3) emissions functions ( fuel maps, shift maps, ignition timing) | | As you can guess, level two will be only available to authorized service | personnel. Level three will be protected from modifications from everyone | except GM. | | If someone like me, or you, or Hypertech, tries to gain access and change level | three type of information in the new '97 VCM, and does not have the correct | access code the FIRST TIME, the VCM will lock itself down into a | non-functional unit that cannot be restarted except by engineers at Delco!! | | Yup, it sucks don't it? | | I asked the engineer "Why!?" and he replied it is because of liability | concerns that GM is implementing this type of security. | | --- Thought you would like to know that I am going to buy me a used '95 or '96 | in a few years. I don't want the '97 anymore. | | ---Dan | | | I'd be interested in hearing that conversation. The EPA published a rule in the Federal Register Aug 9 1995 that basically deals with what information has to be on the OBD bus. Anything emissions related must be present and compliant with OBD-II specs so that any generic scan tool can read it. In addition, *any* information relating to the diagnosis or repair of OBD systems that is available to dealers must also be made available to the general public. Finally, manufacturers must have provisions for reprogramming ECMs in the interest of emissions related repair. Since dealers have to know how to reprogram ECMs, the manufacturers will have to make that info available to everyone else. The catch is, they can make it available "indirectly", in the form of a device that does the reprogramming, without telling people how it's actually done. This conversation happened just this week somewhere else (on the efi332 list?) so sorry if this is a repeat... The bottom line is, keeping independant shops (and owners) from being able to repair their own cars is anti-competitive behavior. Steve Ravet sravet@xxx.com Baby you're a genius when it comes to cooking up some chili sauce... ------------------------------ From: MTaylorfi@xxx.com Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 19:37:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Moper In a message dated 95-12-15 11:15:44 EST, you write: > higher compression ratio be? I love my car's current off the line > torque, and I'm afraid that lowering the compression ratio will hurt > it significantly. Anyone got any ideas on that? > > Yeah, detonation! the higher the compression, the less the boost you can run (pretty much). See ya, Mike ------------------------------ From: "Zublin, Bryan (SD-MS)" Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 17:58:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 67f687 chip ... Andrew wrote: >The location is: >ftp://cim.cim.swin.edu.au/pub/uploads/aden/ > >the files are: > >67f687.pdf (binary) >67f687.ps (ascii) >67f687.zip (binary) Andrew, Are these files also on the WWW page? I don't have access to ftp. Maybe you could just email me the 67f687.pdf file. Thanks, Bryan Zublin bzublin@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Watergeo@xxx.com Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 00:58:44 -0500 Subject: Re: All the EST I think most of the DYI-EFI guys are in it more for the application of techie/engineering/physics/computer geek expertise (by all means, nothing negative intended). The vehicle would need to show improved street drivability of course and If the rig goes faster in the 1/4, then that would be a positive side benefit. Just my first take as a casual observer. I, however, will continue to soak up the info, in case I can make my own vehicles go faster... Nick Hagen ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V0 #5 *************************** To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command: subscribe diy_efi-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@xxx. 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".