DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, 11 February 1996 Volume 01 : Number 039 In this issue: Re: Multiprocessor system Re: Sequential Setup? Re: Injector Phasing... Transients/WOT intro Re: Electronics suppliers Bosch CIS-E III Re: Multiprocessor system Re: Ducati w/TEC Re: Multiprocessor system Re: Multiprocessor system Re: Bosch CIS-E III Re: Bosch CIS-E III Re: Ducati w/TEC Re: Transients/WOT Re: Multiprocessor system Re: Bosch CIS-E III I seem to be out of my league here.... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mark Boxsell Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:42:20 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system At 11:42 PM 8/02/96 PST, you wrote: >I have been thinking about a fuel injection system composed of four 68HC11 >microprocessors. The first processor would run the ignition system. It >would have inputs from crank and cam sensors (no missing tooth in the crank >senor for syncronization) and from the map sensor. It would also receive >6 bits of data from the master controller and 4 bits of control information. > Clint, I did one with 2 HC11's about 6 years ago. Sequential V8 GroupA car. Use the SPI to communicate between processors (thats what Motorola put it there for !). The only thing I noticed when doing the software is that both processors often need the same information but one or the other may calculate this so you have to swap data a bit. It ended up a master and "friend" rather than master and slave! One day Motorola may get their act together and make a HC11 with more that 5 output compares, do they think every has four cylinders or something !! If anyone from Motorola is listening don't worry this is my pet HC11 cripe. Anyway Clint what's someone at intel.com doing asking about HC11's, a bit of market research perhaps? regards, Mark Boxsell MRB Design ------------------------------ From: Mark Boxsell Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:42:40 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Sequential Setup? > >The only way to see the effects of the above is to be in constant TRANSIENTS >which is were our engines spend 80% of their time. > > >Regards > >R.S.Sian > Raghbir, This may be so but not all of us have the exotic equipment to measure changes to engine acceleration, etc. You must be chasing cycle to cycle. I tend to stick to Peter Wales comments (providing I don't make a spelling mistake) however I agree it is necessary to qualify any comments. I give an example. We had a single cylinder rotary valve research engine (250cc) using a "plate" style injector (from "Lucas, prince of darkness" if my memory serves me correctly) which did not atomise the fuel very well. Changing the position of injection in relation to the inlet valve window we could get 30% change in torque at a (constant) test speed of 3000 RPM. We replaced this injector with a "pintel" type which gave very good atomisation and we could not measure a change no matter where we positioned the injection period. Most of my experience is on racing engines. In part throttle "off cam" areas in the RPM range you can measure changes, you can even hear the difference however apart from helping the guy drive out of the pits there are no MAJOR gains to be made from sequential. Emission and OEM development often have quite different goals to racing so what is important to some may not matter to others. To anyone studying this area a useful exercise is to graph the TIME taken for the inlet period (eg. 240 degrees) and graph this against RPM. The inlet time in degrees is fixed however notice how the actual inlet TIME changes quite dramatically. Then graph a fixed injector duration say 5 milliseconds against the above graph and you will see there is a interesting comparison between the AIR FLOW period and the FUEL FLOW period. Since we are trying to get the two to mix....... regards, Mark Boxsell MRB Design ------------------------------ From: Mike Wesley Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:27:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Injector Phasing... On Sat, 10 Feb 1996, Timothy Coste wrote: > > > I'll stop discussing this unless there is a reply directly to my > comments since this is getting way off of the diy category. If > you care enough about COVimep, transients, and cold starts, you're > working for an auto manufacturer and not in your garage. Or your > WAY too optimistic about your 4 micro-processor's having nothing to > do during idle times. :) Sorry, I really enjoy my own humor late > at night too much. > Welp, count me as one of the 'garage' types who does care about transients, emmisions, part throttle driveability and WOT performance and does this type of work for himself and not an OEM. My company develops calibrations to pass EPA regulations for all 50 states in the US. I work mainly on Ford EEC-IV/V systems re-calibrating them for other manufactuers. I've been following the closed vs open valve injector timing and I too have spent many an hour doing steady state and transient testing. On a Ford, you can change injector timing based on speed/load which is VERY nice. I fire on a more closed valve at part throttle/light load for smooth peformance and reduced emmisions. I fire on a more open valve at high load/WOT for increased torque. During the WOT transient testing, and depending on the engine, I see a 0-10% torque increase by firing on a more open valve. Of course if you fire too late, your in for trouble later on. Since I deal with high performance, federal certified, street cars, injector timing is pretty important to me. Mike... ------------------------------ From: Fred Miranda Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 08:17:16 GMT Subject: Transients/WOT I don't buy the idea that the only ones interested in transients and part throttle are government/EPA types. Transients are everything, you transition to WOT! I got into aftermarket EFI 5 years ago when I put an Electromotive system on my turbo rotary Spitfire, which I ran in slalom/autocross events. Good transient and part throttle operation are crucial in slalom racing, esp with a high power car. Tenths and hundreds of seconds count as these are timed events that last about 60sec a run. You can't afford to be sputtering and popping around a sweeper and as you squeeze the throttle comming off the turn onto a short straight. Here the car that is the easiest to drive has the best shot at winning. I saw numerous cars with poorly tuned or installed aftermarket EFI systems that gave the drivers fits, needless to say , they didn't do so well. Everything that pertains to slaloming pertains to real world driving as well. One difference being, you might want better efficiency if you are talking about your daily driver. I would bet that most on this list are more concerned about real world situation than WOT at 6000rpm. So lets continue the discussions and let the WOT types form DIY_WOT. Fred ------------------------------ From: Sam Stoney Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:32:04 -0800 Subject: intro I've been lurking here for a few days and what I've seen (except for the spelling incident) is enough to get me interested in the EFI project I just shelved again. I have a Ducati 750 V-twin motorcycle that I adapted a TEC 2 system to. From the get-go I've had several problems. The first is lack of any test facility. Being a race bike I can't test on the street and I prefer to spend my time at the race track racing. I'm addressing this problem this year by setting up a complete secondary fuel and ignition system. This way I can test during practice and go over to the proven system at race time. But I digress; this isn't of use to this group. The -technical- problems I have seem to be related to my using a MAP based system on an odd-fire v twin with radical cam timing. Needless to say I've got a -very- uneven manifold pressure. One solution I've been considering is going over to a MAF input. Specifically I was going to combine the two intakes into a chamber and then put the MAF sensor on the end of that. The throttles and injectors would remain right at the intake. Having this additional volume would dampen the airflow going through the MAF sensor. Of course, it would also slow down the response of the overall system to engine demand changes. But I figure I can compensate with throttle position based enrichment. I guess I'm trying to decide whether I should go to the trouble of doing this or simply continue to try to make this system work. Any suggestions, general or specific, would be welcome. It has already been suggested that I throw away the bike and get a car or at least a 4-cylinder engine to play with but I'm stubborn. On another topic - at one point in this project I took a Seimens injector (new) and mounted it on a throttle body mounted to a clear tube. I then attached the tube to a vacuum cleaner and attached a 40PSI clean water source to the injector. Using this apparatus I could then watch the way the injector atomized. I tried this with several different sized injectors, different pressures, and a couple of used Bosch injectors. In every case the injector emitted an incredibly squirt-gun like stream much to my suprise. I guess I expected it to look like those posters I see in garages showing cleam vs. dirty injectors. Perhaps the very different viscosity of water made a difference. I would have used gas but when the vapor got to vacuum cleaner.....:-0 The injector was pointed roughly 60 degrees down the intake. When the stream hit the other side it atomized rather well, so it didn't really matter that it was a stream. The atomization was consistant through all throttle positions. At one point I cycled the injector with the throttle WO and the vacuum off. The vacuum generated by the injector's pulse alone was very substantial. This -must- have a benificial effect on performance. Higher pressure definitly increased this vacuum too. I also tried the same experiment with like sized carbs attached where the throttle body was attached. An older Mikuni design seemed to atomize slightly better; a brand new Keihin flat slide (arguably the best carburetor currently available for racing) gave a substantally finer atomization right up to full throttle. But the carbs didn't flow very well when I shut the vacuum off.:-) Has anybody out there measured the pressure differential in a port before and after the injector to quantify the effect the injector output has on flow? ------------------------------ From: tom sparks Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 12:50:39 -0600 Subject: Re: Electronics suppliers At 11:26 PM 2/9/96 +0000, you wrote: > >> >I could go on with more, but you're better off to do a little research >> >on your own. I'm up in Canada, so I don't have American addresses >> >and phone numbers for most of these places, but you can look them up >> >in the Thomas Registry at your local library. Another good source... >> >> Thomas Registry is online at: >> http://www.thomasregister.com:8000/finder/gate1.html >> >> VERY handy. >> >And *very* password protected. If it is anything like the printed >version you have to have some very deep pockets to afford this kind >of things. Practically speaking, you have to be buying *lots* of >stuff ALL the time for something like the Thomas Registry to be worth >it (IMHO) > >Mark Hillier >HVW Technologies > > OOOOPS! I lied! Not handy at all! Here's the registration page. I copied in my personal bookmark of the page you come to AFTER the registration page. Try this one: http://www.thomasregister.com:8000/adfinder.html#register Just sign up and you're in like Flint. Sorry and best regards, Thomas Sparks ------------------------------ From: marchil@xxx.net Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 13:51:05 Subject: Bosch CIS-E III I saw a post from a person that had converted a flapper type Motronic systems to a MAF sensor input. I would like some information on modifying my injection control box. My car is an Audi 90 1989 5Cyl but not 20V front drive. The Robert Bentley shop manual says that the controller is a Bosch CIS-E III, but on the controller it is stamped Jetronic the numbers on it are 0 280 800 295 and also 443 906 264 0 The EPROM is from Intel the numbers on it are B57604 S7804 U842005MS is this a standard 27256 or what?? I am manly looking to reprogram the EPROM to get better power and if possible better fuel efficiency and then converting it to a MAF system. Any information on this and also on the ignition controller would be greatly appreciated. Thank You //---------------------------------------------------------------------------- // Marchil@xxx.NET 1983 RX-7 GX // Alain Marchildon 1989 Audi 90 // 1271 Bernard West // Outremont, Quebec Canada // H2V 1V8 //---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: dn Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 14:12:21 MDT Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system > >Clint Corbin wrote: > That's the crux of the matter. I want a fully sequential system. The 68HC11 > does not have enough output compare ports to control 8 fuel injectors in a > sequential system. The software for the main modules would be pretty basic. Pardon my ignorance here, but what the heck do you need more than 1 output compare for? You only have 1 cylinder firing at a time (except perhaps in exotic engines like the V12, I'm not familiar with these...) whether it's a V8 or an inline 4... you only have to keep track of one injector on and off time at any given portion of the cycle. Keep in mind that in an ECU, all things are RELATIVE with respect to timing, not ABSOLUTE. You have a reference timing pulse from the distributor or crank trigger which alerts you ahead of time which cylinder needs to fire, and you setup the output compare register to open the injector at some point in the future. When it opens, you reload the same OC with the ON time and shut off the injector when you hit that time. Next reference pulse, same sequence, different injector. You would need some sort of data selector or multiplexer between the OC output pin and the injector drivers, which is also controlled by the program, to route the OC signal to the proper injector. Thinking about this, just use a serial shift register with it's outputs tied as enable lines to the respective injector drivers, and buss the OC output to all injectors. Use a port pin to clock in a bit for cyl 1, and ripple it down the line as each cylinder fires. Thus, only the selected injector would open or close depending on whether OC is high or low. A single pulse from the CPU at the end of a cylinder cycle would increment the SR to enable the next injector inline, and start over. Thus, if you have more cylinders, just add more shift registers. If you want to fire more than 1 injector at a time, just clock in 2 bits in the right sequence instead of 1. If you ripple the overflow from the shift register back into another port pin on the CPU, so you could tell when it had gone full cycle, you shouldn't even need to change the software to add more injector drivers, it would all happen automagically... > Not to mention most microcontrollers do not have enough hardware resourses > (input captures, output compares, regular I/O ports, etc.) to run the system > the way I want it to run. By breaking it up into modules, I have the It's not so much how many resources the chip has, but how efficiently you make use of what you do have. Just 'cause it's a microcontroller, don't be afraid to add a few chips to the system to do the job more efficiently with less software. This is the approach I use, 'cause I hate writing code... regards dn - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell A. Norquay Internet: dn@xxx.ca Datalog Technology Inc. Bang: calgary!debug!dlogtech!darrell Calgary, Alberta, Canada Voice: +1 (403) 243-2220 Fax: +1 (403) 243-2872 @ + < __/ "Absolutum Obsoletum" - If it works, it's obsolete -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Fred Miranda Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 13:31:49 GMT Subject: Re: Ducati w/TEC >The -technical- problems I have seem to be related to my using a MAP based >system on an odd-fire v twin with radical cam timing. Needless to say I've >got a -very- uneven manifold pressure. One solution I've been considering is >going over to a MAF input. Specifically I was going to combine the two >intakes into a chamber and then put the MAF sensor on the end of that. The >throttles and injectors would remain right at the intake. A much easier solution would be to switch over to Electromotives Superblend software. It allows you to blend TPS and MAP inputs in any ratio at various rpm through software. Probably beter suited suited to your bike than trying to cram a MAF sensor in somewhere. >On another topic - at one point in this project I took a Seimens injector >(new) and mounted it on a throttle body mounted to a clear tube. I then >attached the tube to a vacuum cleaner and attached a 40PSI clean water >source to the injector. Using this apparatus I could then watch the way the >injector atomized. I tried this with several different sized injectors, >different pressures, and a couple of used Bosch injectors. In every case the >injector emitted an incredibly squirt-gun like stream much to my suprise. must be the water, every (good) injector I've ever tested had a nice even cone shaped pattern. It might be interesting to try again with fuel but this time blow through the throttle body. Fred ------------------------------ From: Mark Boxsell Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 10:06:15 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system At 02:12 PM 10/02/96 MDT, you wrote: > >> >Clint Corbin wrote: > >> That's the crux of the matter. I want a fully sequential system. The 68HC11 >> does not have enough output compare ports to control 8 fuel injectors in a >> sequential system. The software for the main modules would be pretty basic. > >Pardon my ignorance here, but what the heck do you need more than 1 output >compare for? You only have 1 cylinder firing at a time (except perhaps in >exotic engines like the V12, I'm not familiar with these...) whether it's a >V8 or an inline 4... you only have to keep track of one injector on and off >time at any given portion of the cycle. Keep in mind that in an ECU, all >things are RELATIVE with respect to timing, not ABSOLUTE. > >regards >dn > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > Darrell A. Norquay Internet: dn@xxx.ca > Datalog Technology Inc. Bang: calgary!debug!dlogtech!darrell > Calgary, Alberta, Canada Voice: +1 (403) 243-2220 > Fax: +1 (403) 243-2872 > @ + > < > __/ "Absolutum Obsoletum" - If it works, it's obsolete > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Darrell, I should point put that in a sequential system the injector pulses can overlap as you go up the RPM range. regards, Mark Boxsell MRB Design ------------------------------ From: pjwales@xxx.net (Peter Wales) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 19:29:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system >Pardon my ignorance here, but what the heck do you need more than 1 output >compare for? You only have 1 cylinder firing at a time Wrong. At WOT (I'm fed up with yanks pussy footing it around. Get your foot down :), All of the injectors can be open at the same time. Peter Wales President Superchips Inc Chairman Superchips Ltd "Timing is everything" Superchips home page with all the answers http://www.superchips.com ------------------------------ From: Land Shark Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:27:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Bosch CIS-E III At 13:51 2/10/96, you wrote: >The EPROM is from Intel the numbers on it are B57604 > S7804 > U842005MS >is this a standard 27256 or what?? I would just read it as a 27256 and see how many times the code "repeats" in the adress space of the eprom This way you can tell if it's a 27256, 27128, or 2764 What does the processor say, what freq. is the xtal?!? Jim ------------------------------ From: walter@xxx.com (thomas walter x5955) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:24:06 CST Subject: Re: Bosch CIS-E III >The EPROM is from Intel the numbers on it are B57604 > S7804 > U842005MS >is this a standard 27256 or what?? If you peel back the label, you can use a 10X microscope and READ the device number right through the quartz window. ;-) Of a few laying around here: B57604 = 27256 12.5 Vp If you have plain EPROMS look at the die, through the window, and soon you'll be able to recognize the 2764, 27128, and 27256's by glance. B57607 is the 27128, btw. From the internal Bosch number sceme it is clear numbers are asigned arbitrarily to the Bosch Bxxxxx marking code. Cheers, Tom ------------------------------ From: walter@xxx.com (thomas walter x5955) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:30:53 CST Subject: Re: Ducati w/TEC When bench testing the injectors, try using mineal spirits through the injectors. Specific gravity is pretty close to gasoline, and a lot less volatile. Tom Walter Austin, TX. Question for our Canadian friends: Is Varsol just mineral spirits or? (any other fans of Guy Lautard's? -> if so just email direct walter@xxx.com) ------------------------------ From: walter@xxx.com (thomas walter x5955) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 20:55:50 CST Subject: Re: Transients/WOT On the subject of WOT: During the time trials of Pike's Peak Hill climb, the Audi engineers had fitted Michele Mouton's Quattro with the full array of sensors. After looking over her times, one engineer pointed out the "problem" of her slow times... she was not keeping the engine at WOT long enough. Being a rather practical driver, she suggested the engineer strap himself into the navigators seat for the next run. Poor fellow returned white as a ghost, and when asked about the "lack of time at WOT" he replied "Kein Problem, Kein Problem" (no problem at all). With so much carbon fiber built into the "special Quattro" they had overlooked the GROUNDING of the ECU. Once fixed, well... Our French Lady driver set a record time that held for a few more years. Cheers, Tom Walter Austin, TX. ------------------------------ From: bs73@xxx.edu (Brad Sheridan) Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 22:09:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system > > > >Pardon my ignorance here, but what the heck do you need more than 1 output > >compare for? You only have 1 cylinder firing at a time > > Wrong. At WOT (I'm fed up with yanks pussy footing it around. Get your foot > down :), All of the injectors can be open at the same time. Would it be possible to make some sort of FIFO structure that kept track of the time to go into the output compare, and a mask to tell you which injector to be turned off? Given that you know how many cylinders you have(I hope :), the FIFO can be of a fixed size:2 bytes for OC value, 1 for mask per cylinder, with an extra pair of bytes to tell you where the beginning and end of the valid info is. Every time the OC was triggered, it could load the next value from the queue into the OC. You'd need an available output port to do this, but I think it could be done. One potential problem would be if two injectors were to be closed in a time frame shorter than the length of time for the interupt to be serviced. This shouldnt be too much a problem if the OC is kept as a high priority, and the interrupts aren't too long. How does the aftermarket deal with this? Or do they use chips with more output compares? Brad Sheridan ------------------------------ From: Mitsu16v@xxx.com Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 23:17:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Bosch CIS-E III WOAH! Afraid you are all talking WAY over my head on this one.... I am just looking for some info on modifying my Eclipse <16V 2.0L, nonturbo> ... Anyone with info, please email me at mitsu16v@xxx. how do I get out of here?? ------------------------------ From: Mitsu16v@xxx.com Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 00:27:11 -0500 Subject: I seem to be out of my league here.... WOAH! Afraid you are all talking WAY over my head on this one.... I am just looking for some info on modifying my Eclipse <16V 2.0L, nonturbo> ... Anyone with info, please email me at mitsu16v@xxx. how about some suggestions for some EFI primer info?!?! ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #39 **************************** 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".