DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 30 March 1996 Volume 01 : Number 093 In this issue: Re: TEC Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: VW Bosch injection Attachments making post unreadable... RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) Re: Electronic valves Re: Multispark RE: Independent cylinder knock control RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Uncl: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! Re: TEC Info on EVA companies. Re: Uncl: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) Re: Info on EVA companies. Re: Info on EVA companies. See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: ricrain@xxx.net (Ric Rainbolt) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 04:46:34 -0600 Subject: Re: TEC >If I were them, I'd sue GM too. I'm are currently using an Electromotive >multi-coil ignition system on a '66 Coronet. I happened to be in a GM dealer >about a month ago, and I noticed the very same ignition system on a brand-new >Aurora. Looking further around the showroom, I came to the conclusion that >GM must have bought the Electromotive ignition system. Does anyone know if >this was licensed or simply stolen from Electromotive? Uh, no. Here's what I have heard about this. I think you are confused about the appearance of the TEC II and it similarity to that of the new GM ignition systems. The reason for the similarity is... Electromotive uses the GM twin-tower coils for their ignition sparking, making it look strikingly (ha, what a pun) similar to the GM unit. The lawsuit involves a "technology" whereby the spark timing is controlled nearly independently to the CPU using a digital PLL circuit quite simlar to the Silicon Systems 68Fxxx(?) chip. Since I am convinced that the man who runs Electromotive didn't invent PLL's (or even digital PLL's), I personally think the suit is hogwash. Just a personal opinion. If you can't compete, sue. Ric Rainbolt ricrain@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:14:00 +0000 Subject: Multispark stuff and other thoughts - -> subject of one coil per cylinder. To tell you the truth, I do not - -> see any advantage of one coil per cylinder over one coil per two - -> cylinders. There is no functional difference. However, if your spark curve is under software control, it allows you to dispense with the distributor, which can give a "cleaner" installation. You could also use SAAB or Fordson tractor coils, which just pop on over the spark plug, and dispense with plug wires entirely. ------------------------------ From: Mark Boxsell Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 21:57:13 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! At 05:03 PM 28/03/96 -0800, you wrote: > >>They use "air bags" instead of mechical valve springs. The pneumatics DO NOT >>ACTUATE THE VALVES. > >How do the valves open and close ? Can anyone explain how >the Pneumatic Valves work. It can be addressed just to >prasad@xxx. >Thanks >Krishna > Krishna, with a "normal" camshaft of course !! The pneumatics replace the valve springs only. Normal cam, normal camshaft. The "air springs" solve most of the problems of metal springs. regards, Mark Boxsell MRB Design. ------------------------------ From: "SANDY" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:50:13 UTC-2 Subject: Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts > that you've burnt everything! Jacob's Electronics claim they can do > this with one coil firing many cylinders, but imagine how much better > you can do it if you have an independant circuit for each cylinder. > This is literally on demand multistrike capability and can extend your > lean limits and/or reduce feedgas emissions. Is that system actually installed in any OEM cars yet? Has anyone out there actually USED a Jacobs Electronic system? I've been trying for ages to find out how it really compares throughout the rev range with the MSD, Microdynamics and the multiple coil systems. Any response will be appreciated. With all this talk of lawsuits, any negative comments should possibly be mailed directly to me! Sandy ====================================================================== DR. S.M. WELTAN DEPT OF PHYSIOLOGY Tel. No: (021) 406-6507 UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN Fax No: (021) 47-7669 MEDICAL SCHOOL SOUTH AFRICA e-mail:sweltan@xxx.za ====================================================================== ------------------------------ From: "SANDY" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:50:13 UTC-2 Subject: Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts > that you've burnt everything! Jacob's Electronics claim they can do > this with one coil firing many cylinders, but imagine how much better > you can do it if you have an independant circuit for each cylinder. > This is literally on demand multistrike capability and can extend your > lean limits and/or reduce feedgas emissions. Is that system actually installed in any OEM cars yet? Has anyone out there actually USED a Jacobs Electronic system? I've been trying for ages to find out how it really compares throughout the rev range with the MSD, Microdynamics and the multiple coil systems. Any response will be appreciated. With all this talk of lawsuits, any negative comments should possibly be mailed directly to me! Sandy ====================================================================== DR. S.M. WELTAN DEPT OF PHYSIOLOGY Tel. No: (021) 406-6507 UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN Fax No: (021) 47-7669 MEDICAL SCHOOL SOUTH AFRICA e-mail:sweltan@xxx.za ====================================================================== ------------------------------ From: Bill Lewis Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:17:48 -0500 Subject: Re: VW Bosch injection VW has used several injection systems over the years: D-Jetronic, 1968-197? This system uses manifold pressure and an all analog electronic control box. I think it was first used on 1968 VW Type 3. Also used on Porsche 914, Saab, Volvo, and who knows what else. L-Jetronic, 1975- This system uses an air flow meter (flapper box) and a hybrid analog/digital control box. Available with and w/o an oxygen sensor. I think it was first used on 1974 Porsche 914 1.8. Very common on BMW, etc. Used on VW Bug from 1975 and late Bus / Vanagon. Motronic, This is an all digital control unit, using either an air flow meter or a mass air sensor. I think it was first used on BMW but shows up on just about all European makes. With and and w/o oxygen sensor and knock sensors. Used by VW on the VR6. K-Jetronic, 1973 into the '90s. Commonly called CIS. This started out as a purely mechanical continuous flow system. First used in 1973 Porsche 911T. VW picked it up for the Rabbit. Seen on many European makes. In 1982 it became K-Jetronic Lambda, which incorporated an oxygen sensor, a control unit, and a duty cycle solenoid valve to modify the original mechanical system. About 1985, KE-Jetronic, the duty cycle valve was replaced by a voice coil actuator and a more complicated control unit. Added digital ignition control at the same time. Digifant is a VW invention that's kind of a cross between L-Jetronic and Motronic. Found in things like 1990 Golf and Jetta. Bill ------------------------------ From: FIScot@xxx.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 08:41:18 -0500 Subject: Attachments making post unreadable... Jim ? (JVP@xxx.dat' attachments to your posts! This makes (for me) the post unreadable, and I have to delete all your posts before I can read my mail. Not to mention the 'winmail.dat' files that end up on my hard-drive. Please stop.... Thanks, Scot Sealander FIScot@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Paul Shackleton Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:59:08 -0500 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts > You could also use SAAB or Fordson tractor coils, which just pop on over the >spark plug, and dispense with plug wires entirely. Which models/years of SAAB? ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:09:47 +0500 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts "My biggest interest would be to find a system that would allow me to fire my EFI HO Ford motor on a waste spark system. I've been told by a guy here that he's done this using some weird rotor out of another Ford application that would fire the opposing cylinders." Ford's waste spark system is distributorless, so your friend is 100% BS. Why would you want to fire two plugs at once if you have the new Accel system which is a single coil system? That would fire the coil twice as often and would give you no benefits but would definitely drop your spark energy! Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: "Robert Gallant" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 10:34:54 EST Subject: Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts With all the talk about multispark....Is there any difference between aftermarket coils. The LITTLE MSD coils have a LITTLE price, the BIG Jacobs and Mallory coils have a BIG price. Is there any difference other than $/size. The MSD has a warning about the high voltage out of the box. Does this make difference between coils have more or less of an affect on spark? Thanks for the info. Rob gallant@xxx.mil ------------------------------ From: "Kenneth C. King" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 09:37:06 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts greetings: i decided not to quote the extra-long posts on coil-on-plug setup... question- can't you have your cake and eat it too? put the coil on each plug, but wire them in opposing pairs? you get back to the wasted spark and half as many firing events per revolution. would the plug on the exhaust stroke provide sufficient resistance on the secondary side to shunt the bulk of the primary current into the cyl that's on the combustion stroke? (obviously they need to be wired in paralell, not in series! :) or would too much of the curent be drained by the coil on the exhaust stroke? later, kc (a frustrated ee traped for a decade in the software world! ): - -- "ooooh, crumbs!"if the world is nite, shine my life like a lite"live your life with PASSION"hey waiter, there's a transvestite in my soup"hey mister, are you tall?"all alone in the nite"son of a son of a sailor"John DeArmond fanclub #13 "he's dead, jim"he's not dead, he's electroencephalographically challenged" kc ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:07:01 +0500 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts >That would fire the coil twice as often and would give you no >benefits but would definitely drop your spark energy! Oops, no it would fire the coil just as often, but across twice as many gaps. Still, it doesn't make sense to do that with a system like the one you have. Jeez, now I'm correcting myself! Does that make me pretty sharp or pretty dull? Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: gtk110@xxx.edu Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 16:07:29 GMT Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) >: >:The subject says it all, well most of it anyway. I want to get rid of >:the old unreliable inefficient carb on my 84 F-150 4.9L. (It's my tow >:vehicle so this is sort of Auto-X related). I don't see any reason why >:I shouldn't be able to convert to a TBI system (Throttle Body Injection) >:I just don't know where to start to look. >: >:So if anyone has done this to their vehicle I'd like to hear the pros >:and cons of it based on your experiences. As well as your manufacturer >:and cost. >: >:Thanks. >: > > >I got your address from one of the guys on the autocross list. I have >subscribed and read the welcome and I think that this post fits in with >the purpose of the list. > >I was also contemplating converting to an MSD type of ignition to >totally elimanate the original ECU, it seems from the welcome that it >may be possible to use the original ECU. One of the major problems I am >having is with the EEC_IV system the ignition is electronically adjuting >the timing. Since one or more of my sensors is spewing erroneous >reading I have had to disconnect the SPOUT (or is it the SEA) connector >and I just leave the timing advanced slightly from the Base timing. >Base is 10deg and I have it advanced to 16deg. > >So, that said, any suggestions? > > > >-- >Ron Madurski >rmadursk@xxx.com > > You might be able to adpt the late model FI system from that of a 5.0 mustang... I just happen to have a speed density sysyem lying around...wires ecu and all....the only problem you might run into with this is the process of getting an electronic fuel pump and the fuel rails to mount the injectors...I dont know if you'll be able to use the stock intake but even if you have to use a mustang/cougar plenum (preferably an '87 up plenum), the truck will breath better and make more power plus you get tha added benefit of using mustang hop up parts, including superchargers....all with great idle quality and good mpg. Just some thoughts...oh yeah, emoving the spout connector will also cut down your total advance...this thing must be sluggish. Gannon "Gripping the wheel, his knuckles went white with desire...the wheels of his Mustang exploded on the highway like a slug from a .45... True death... 400 horsepower, maximum performance piercing the night... This is BLACK SUNSHINE!" ------------------------------ From: WERNER_HAUSSMANN@xxx.com Date: Fri, 29 Mar 96 09:27:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Electronic valves Hi Terry Turbo magazine July '94 FDC 50153 ISSN 0894-5039 Suppliers mentioned; Aura Systems Inc, EVA (Elelctronic Valve Actuators) designers 310-643-5300 BC TEchnologies, Team Organizer 714-730-6274 Electromotive inc, electronics 703-378-2444 Pantera Specialists, System Integrators and Seller They advertise a EVA system in Turbo Magazine 714-250-1797 Werner ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Electronic valves > Hi > > BMW? developed a system using piezo-electric stacks about 10-15 years ago. > There was an article in Road &Track about it... but I don't have it. > > More recently (about a year ago) Turbo magazine had an article about > solenoid operated valves. They were operated by electronics from > Electromotive. I think I still have the magazine. When I find it, I'll > give you the date and manufacturer of the head. I also don't remember the > engine under the test. > Thanks, Werner. I'd appreciate greatly if you could dig it up and give me the companie's name, address, and phone/fax numbers. Also, any pertinent highlights from the article. And an issue number /Year and month so I can see if they have back issues in stock. Thanx, Terry ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:35:00 +0500 Subject: Re: Multispark This is a reply to Clint Corbin. I'll try to include as little as possible form his post, so I apologize up front for the generous snipping and clipping. "What is the saturation time of the coil? If you are charging at a fast rate, I still see no advantage with one coil/cylinder over one coil/two cylinders." I do not know the saturation times of "the" coil. Besides, coils are designed to suit different applications(single coils vs eight vs waste spark). If the saturation times are low enough then, true, that's one less reason for going coil per plug. However, the load on a coil per plug is much less than the load on a coil per two plugs (assuming by this you meant waste spark). In addition, half the spark plugs on wastespark systems erode the ground electrode faster than the center electrode, so if you want 100,000 mile tune up intervals, you need double platinum plugs OR customers/dealers/mechanics who are willing to take the care to install the two kinds of single platinum plugs in the correct cylinders. Guess how often we count on them to do it right! Thus, we have to install the fancy plugs in each cylinder to idiot proof the tuneup. "Even with one coil/two cylinders you stil have four times (on a 8 cylinder) the number of coils than the MSD has. Just how high do you need to take the motor anyway?" How does 7 grand stike you? You have to remember that you can't apply an analogy like that to an OEM. I've heard(i.e., this is not fact) that MSD's do not last long. There is a saying in circle track racing about how many MSD units you need: one in the car, one in the pits, and one on the way back to MSD for replacement/repair. OEM stuff has to last much longer than this(and you know it often doesn't!). Again, with waste spark, you have to jump two gaps, meaning during your saturation time, you need to store more energy. "Once more, with the wasted spark system, you could do all of this (combustion sensing) with out a problem." I would debate that since you are trying to sense across two gaps, one of which is exposed to expanded burnt charge and the other to expanding and burning change. Surely ion sensing is easier and more robust across a single gap compared to two in series. "Any again, why does one coil/cylinder do this(independant cylinder knock control) any better than the wasted spark system?" You have me there. That's just a strategy change, so the software guys would complain which is easier/more convenient but they'd live. Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Frank F Parker Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 12:52:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: Independent cylinder knock control > I've heard of the J&S system - it sounded great and if not for my DFI.... > Currently I use a GM sensor hooked into my DFI. I was told to mount it on > the HEAD (!) and am pretty sure I'm getting false knock from the > valvetrain. The sensor uses a small box from GM between it and the > computer. I've seen monitoring boxes for turbo GNs and would love to adapt > one for my system. Anyone have any ideas? I just want to know when it's > thinking it sees knock without having to use my laptop. I've done some > electronics work but it's been years and most of the little bit of design > knowledge I had has drained away.. TIA! > The mounting on the head is a very bad idea. Use the stock GM location on the bottom of block near oil pan rail. The gm box is a crude bandpass filter and works poorly-gives alot of false retard. A number of companies sell a monitor which appear to be a stock gm sensor connected to simple dc meter thru a diode. Frank Parker > > ------------------------------ From: Sandy Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:07:13 -0800 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts I saw some mention the Champion is making a coil-per-plug part in Automotive Engineering a while ago. I have no part numbers, it may just be a replacment or something of that sort. Sandy ------------------------------ From: Date: 29 Mar 96 11:39:55 PST Subject: Uncl: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) From: Lynn Mosher, Industrial Technology, Cal Poly We have been working on a commercial product for about 2 years and will do our beta test on our own electronics on a 62 Corvette tomorrow. More when we get ba ck from our "drive". ------------------------------ From: TAR Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 13:08:10 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! Mark, What about valve float at 'higher' rpm's? I realize the pneumatic system probably has less inertia than metal springs, but I still can't see how they could effectively curb this problem without some type of Desmo system (like that used on Ducati's). Any insight? Todd- On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, Mark Boxsell wrote: > >How do the valves open and close ? Can anyone explain how > >the Pneumatic Valves work. It can be addressed just to > >prasad@xxx. > with a "normal" camshaft of course !! The pneumatics replace > the valve springs only. Normal > cam, normal camshaft. The "air springs" solve most of the problems of metal > springs. > regards, > Mark Boxsell > MRB Design. ------------------------------ From: Hadzic Muhammed <3mh31@xxx.ca> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:07:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: TEC On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 Utgarhoth@xxx.com wrote: > If I were them, I'd sue GM too. I'm are currently using an Electromotive > multi-coil ignition system on a '66 Coronet. I happened to be in a GM dealer > about a month ago, and I noticed the very same ignition system on a brand-new > Aurora. Looking further around the showroom, I came to the conclusion that > GM must have bought the Electromotive ignition system. Does anyone know if > this was licensed or simply stolen from Electromotive? > > > --- R. Andrew Broadhurst > My two cents... I've recently bought the TEC II system from Electromotive and part of thier sales pitch was that GM licenced the design for the coils from them. They claimed that they had the patent rights on the coils. Muhammed ------------------------------ From: Terry Faugno Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:34:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Info on EVA companies. Called Aura and Pantera today. Got ahold of people who actually knew what they were talking about. Aura, tried a permanent magnet system, only went to 7K or so RPM. Switched to electromagnets, say they have signed contracts with Chrysler and other OEMs, expect to see engines with the camless valve train in a few years, possibly 1999 or so. No plans to sell aftermarket kits themselves, but they are *quite* aware of the potential market of enthusiasts and have tentative plans to work with an established aftermarket company to make a retrofit kit. Pantera, talked to owner's son. Had a lot to talk about. Supposedly, Aura bought their magnets or some system component from them. They have a 2.3l Ford engine that showed 10% HP and Torque gain, and 25% emissions decrease. They now have a system that they claim can rev up past 10KRPM safely. They will perform conversions to customer's cylinder heads, but at $1000/valve. Lets out the amatuer enthusiasts, at least for now. They intend to OEM to the big 3 and others, but aren't going to leave the enthusiasts in the cold either. Right now, it's all blue-sky. In 5 years, expect to see VTEC owners selling their cars off, or converting to camless valvetrains. Aura seemed to indicate that their product was mature enough to hand over to Chrysler and let them develop it on their cars. That's all I have on that subject for now. I asked for literature from both companies, and will let you know when it arrives. Later, Terry ------------------------------ From: Ron Madurski Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 21:36:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Uncl: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) : : :From: Lynn Mosher, Industrial Technology, Cal Poly :We have been working on a commercial product for about 2 years and will do our :beta test on our own electronics on a 62 Corvette tomorrow. More when we get ba :ck from our "drive". : Great, I'll tell you what when you get the 'vette running right I'll trade you for my truck and you can work on it :-) Good luck. : - -- Ron Madurski rmadursk@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Ron Madurski Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 21:41:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) :> :> :You might be able to adpt the late model FI system from that of a 5.0 :mustang... I just happen to have a speed density sysyem lying around...wires :ecu and all....the only problem you might run into with this is the process :of getting an electronic fuel pump and the fuel rails to mount the :injectors...I dont know if you'll be able to use the stock intake but even :if you have to use a mustang/cougar plenum (preferably an '87 up plenum), :the truck will breath better and make more power plus you get tha added :benefit of using mustang hop up parts, including superchargers....all with :great idle quality and good mpg. Would the 8 cylinder hardware still work with the 6 cylinder engine? The 4.9L is a straight 6. :Just some thoughts...oh yeah, emoving the spout connector will also cut down :your total advance...this thing must be sluggish. Uhh, yup. It's a pig alright and I'm getting tired of it. How much would you want for the harware you have (if it can be used on my 6Cyl). Thanks for teh reply. : : Gannon : : "Gripping the wheel, his knuckles went white with desire...the wheels : of his Mustang exploded on the highway like a slug from a .45... : True death... 400 horsepower, maximum performance piercing the :night... : This is BLACK SUNSHINE!" : : - -- Ron Madurski rmadursk@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Fred Miranda Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 20:24:42 GMT Subject: Re: Info on EVA companies. At 05:34 PM 3/29/96 -0800, you wrote: > Called Aura and Pantera today. Got ahold of people who actually knew >what they were talking about. > Pantera, talked to owner's son. Had a lot to talk about. Supposedly, >Aura bought their magnets or some system component from them. They have a >2.3l Ford engine that showed 10% HP and Torque gain, and 25% emissions >decrease. They now have a system that they claim can rev up past 10KRPM >safely. They will perform conversions to customer's cylinder heads, but at >$1000/valve. Lets out the amatuer enthusiasts, at least for now. They intend >to OEM to the big 3 and others, but aren't going to leave the enthusiasts in >the cold either. This is pure BS. they did have the Ford engine going but it would hardly rev. maybe saw 5krpm no load. The motor barely ran, I don't know where the got the figures for hp and emissions. Quite a salesman that kid. Fred ------------------------------ From: Terry Faugno Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 22:34:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Info on EVA companies. At 08:24 PM 3/29/96 GMT, you wrote: >This is pure BS. they did have the Ford engine going but it would hardly >rev. maybe saw 5krpm no load. The motor barely ran, I don't know where >the got the figures for hp and emissions. >Quite a salesman that kid. Well, I didn't say I'd seen any proof... I do intend to go up to Orange County and check out the place. They say (again, I'm relaying what I was told) that they have a electromagnet based system that works better than the permanent magnet system. Also, as a Dodge Neon owner, the guy mentioned that they make a replacement PCM for the Neon, which allows full access to the fuel and spark tables and such. He said the basic box starts at $1k... I'd want to see one installed and working. He also indicated that Chrysler bought the rights to the Neon's (and presumably other Chryco cars) DIS system from them... Anyone have any info to contest this claim? I thought that Chrysler designed and built it themselves. I'll have to check with the people on the Neon mailing list. Later, Terry ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #93 **************************** 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".