DIY_EFI Digest Tuesday, 2 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 096 In this issue: [admin] List services (automated monthly post) Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! Re: VW Bosch injection Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Multispark Knock sensors. Injector RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: TEC Re: Knock sensors. Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts RE: TEC knock sensor location Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) FW: RE: Multispark Knock sensor display project. Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection Re: 4.3 V6 Announcement See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jsg (John S Gwynne) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 06:10:10 -0500 Subject: [admin] List services (automated monthly post) This message is post monthly as a reminder of the available list services. For help: Send "help" to Majordomo@xxx. To post: Send to "[list name]@xxx.edu" To subscribe: Send to Majordomo@xxx.edu subscribe [list name] [your email address *only* if different than your "From" address] To unsubscribe: Send to Majordomo@xxx.edu unsubscribe [list name] [your *registered* email address if different than your "From" address] The archives to all the mailing lists are available through Majordomo. Send "index [list name]" to Majordomo@xxx. You will find a file "archive_date_index" whose contents show the period covered by each of the archive files "archive_num_*". Digest mode is available for all of the mailing list. Send "lists" to Majordomo for a listing a mailing lists served. To switch to the digest mode, unsubscribe to the regular list and then subscribe to the digest version (i.e., diy_efi-digest). WWW sites: diy_efi http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~fridman/diy_efi http://www.cim.swin.edu.au/~aden/web-docs/efi332/332_index.html Other related sites: http://devserve.cebaf.gov/~bowling/ http://spbted.gtri.gatech.edu:80/hpe/hpe.html Please send information to be added to this posting to jsg@xxx. John ------------------------------ From: Chris Howard Date: Mon, 01 Apr 1996 22:58:12 +1000 Subject: Re: Pneumatic Valve Springs ! At 21:37 31/03/96 -0800, you wrote: >"Valve float is caused by resonance of the valve spring when it is >excited at its natural frequency or a harmonic thereof." >-Chris Howard > >I always thought it was the inertia of the lifter/valve/partial mass of >the spring. In other words, the valve follows the correct path with >respect to the cam until the region of the largest part of the cam lobe. >But after that, the respective valve train components continue to travel >(now in the wrong direction with respect to the cam) because the valve >spring isn't strong enough to resist the inertia of the components. > Yes this is true. The valve spring must be strong enough to overcome the inertia of the moving valve assembly. At high speeds the effective valve spring force is reduced due to the phenomenon above. A obvious solution is to increase the spring force but this increases the wear rate at the cam - follower interface and indeed this can be a limiting factor as engine speeds reach the stratosphere. For this reason, pneumatic valve springs allow lower spring rates to be used for a given rpm ceiling, or alternatively allow higher rpms to be used for a given allowable spring rate. I really should have said valve float is indirectly caused by valve spring resonance. A reference is an article in Racecar Engineering, Vol 3, No 4 Page 21. Chris Howard Computer Science University of New South Wales email: s2184002@xxx.au Web: http://www.usyd.edu.au/~choward ------------------------------ From: Jens Knickmeyer Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 16:38:33 MET DST Subject: Re: VW Bosch injection wrote: > > VW has used several injection systems over the years: Since last year, VW uses a Weber/Marelli system on the new 1.6l engine, a Motronic on the new 1.4l. No idea why they use so many different systems at a time... Jens ------------------------------ From: gtk110@xxx.edu Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:49:03 GMT Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) > >Would the 8 cylinder hardware still work with the 6 cylinder engine? >The 4.9L is a straight 6. Oh, no, this is a classic case of "I shoulda had a V-8" ..I thought the 4.9L was an 8(since, technically the 302 is a 4.9L)... My advice now is to get a V-8...For the amount of money spent to FI this thing, you may as well buy a junkyard 302 with efi,harness, and computer,plus you won't have to work out as many "bugs". "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: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:57:36 +0500 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts "Why fire two plugs? Waste fire! I'd love to take a shot at burning any unused fuel left in the chamber..." To what end? It will do you no good to burn charge on the exhaust stroke because you won't get any work out of it. You certainly risk burning exhaust valves and other downstream components and if you are convinced that you have burnable charge left in the chamber during the exhaust stroke, you should take actions to prevent that condition, such as running excessively rich. The term wastefire was coined because you waste a spark in unburnable conditions. Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:40:46 +0500 Subject: Re: Multispark "Of course, most of this started out of a discusion about DIY EFI, so the 100,000 mile tune up is kind of irrelevant. But then, you are not looking at this from a diyers point of view." Guilty, as charged. I thought someone asked what's the beef with coil on plugs, and I answered from an OEM's perspective of what's possible. "What problems would there be in having one TPU channel fire two coils?" Okay, now I understand why you(and another poster) want to fire a coil on plug system as if it was wasted spark. This is DIY, and you're trying to save channels/outputs. This is starting to get out my league, so can't comment on how you would do it(latches, AND gates, other stuff I've forgotten from college). BUT electrically(as opposed to electronically), I see only one possible problem: coils made for coil per plug systems are designed for certain rise times based on firing once every two revs. Fire them more often than that and you risk running out of saturation time for the next firing. Now, I'll put my DIY hat on and guess that you would probably use a coil that wasn't made for coil per plug, but instead was designed to fire once per rev or more often. No problem! In fact, some of you would probably test the coil of choice to determine it's saturation time and program yourself some kind of automatic dwell control for the coils you choose so you don't overheat the coil/waste electricity(read, unnecessary alternator load). Certainly it is possible. Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Matthew Beaubien Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:39:47 -0700 (MST) Subject: Knock sensors. With all this talk about knock sensors, I thought that I'd add my two bits. When looking through the Haynes manual for my father's Oldsmobile ('86 Cutlass Ciera) the other day, it mentioned a knock sensor in the electronics section. It stated that when the sensor detected knock, it would go high or low (can't remember). It sounded like the sensor had a filter built in so nothing else was required to detect knock. Would something like this be adaptable to another engine, or would it be too tuned to the particular GM engine? The section didn't mention which engines it was installed on. The Tech 4 (aka Iron Duke) and I think a carbed 3.1 V6 were available that year. Matt. ------------------------------ From: "Jim Staff" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:32:55 GMT Subject: Injector Thanks, I'm on spring break right now, but I'll be back in school after the first week in April. I'll have a envelope sent to you. As for the deduction, it goes right on your 1040 A itemized deduction tax form. Just fill in those deductions at market value (What the OEM would sell them for, not what you got them for) and you've saved yourself some money. Thanks, Jim Staff StaffJ@xxx.us ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:02:13 +0500 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts "and if you are convinced that you have burnable charge left in the chamber during the exhaust stroke, you should take actions to prevent that condition, such as running excessively rich." Oops again. That should have read, "such as NOT running excessively rich". It's okay to run a little rich at WOT, but if you have enough to burn on the exhaust stroke, something is wrong. Ed Hernandez, double negative engineer Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: LotusM50@xxx.com Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:35:49 -0500 Subject: Re: TEC In a message dated 96-03-31 19:47:58 EST, JVP@xxx.com (Jim Pearl) writes: >It looks like a good system - until you take a look at their software >prices! I was VERY close to buying one until I saw the thousand dollars >worth of software I'd want to buy! Whew - almost as much as the rest of the >system! Ouch! Yes, but you don't need $1000 worth of software. ------------------------------ From: Markus Strobl Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 15:29:48 -0600 Subject: Re: Knock sensors. > With all this talk about knock sensors, I thought that I'd add my two > bits. > > When looking through the Haynes manual for my father's Oldsmobile ('86 > Cutlass Ciera) the other day, it mentioned a knock sensor in the > electronics section. It stated that when the sensor detected knock, it > would go high or low (can't remember). It sounded like the sensor had a > filter built in so nothing else was required to detect knock. > > Would something like this be adaptable to another engine, or would it be > too tuned to the particular GM engine? The section didn't mention which > engines it was installed on. The Tech 4 (aka Iron Duke) and I think a > carbed 3.1 V6 were available that year. > > Matt. Don't know about a '86 Olds, but the new GMs (in this case LT1 V8), the knock sensor comes with a special module that goes into the PCM. They are a matched set, and the service manual says to remove the module from the old PCM if you have to replace the PCM for some reason. Markus Strobl 96 Z28 6M Black/grph. Borla, !CAGS, PEG2, QLC Dallas, Texas 1LE driveshaft, Honker, T-tops, CD, leather F-member 9/93 13.87 @xxx.5mpg @85mph ------------------------------ From: Donald Whisnant Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:41:11 -0800 Subject: Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection Ryan Harrell wrote: > >As the original poster of this 4.3 discussion, I'd like to know if anybody >has some information on Vortec's supercharger they are designing for the V6 >engine. I called Fuel Injection Specialities, whose name I found in a >magazine, for info. They stated that Vortech would have a sequential >central-port injection supercharger in a couple of months. > >Also, FI Specialties priced the SCPI kit at $1895 and I was wondering if >anybody knew of a cheaper price anywhere else. I'd like to ask Mr. Spears >how hard would it be to adapt a centrifugal supercharger not designed for >SCPI to it. The reason for this is because ATI Technologies makes an >extremely powerful superchager that I'd like to use. Also, I plan to >racing heads, roller cam, bore out the engine, and just about any other idea >I can find to produce more horsepower (my goal for this engine is around >500-600HP on a $6000 budget) However, I know little about programming EPROMs, >and have no idea on what equipment or software is required for reprogramming >(although I am willing to learn). If you can recommend a book or other >instrucion tool to help me I'd be appreciative. > >Finally, is there any R&D going on for a true port injected 4.3L V6? > >I GREATLY APPRECIATE all the help I've gotten from this mailing-list > I've just recently finished installing a '94 4.3 CMFI V6 into my '85 Grand Prix -- And (even though it was a headache and a half to put in -- mainly because the engine came out of a van instead of a truck) I've been very well pleased with its power and performance in sort of a "stock" condition. I also put on one of those 4L60E trannies too -- and with the way it is presently geared (2.41 -- as designed for a non-od tranny) it will do 80-85 taching only 2000!!! As for mods, I too would be interested in info on superchargers -- though my question would be: How much height if any will it add to the intake?? I'm already about maxed out on the Grand Prix -- any more and I'll have to add a hood scoop.... ... So Ryan, let me know what you find out... As for true port injection, I just bought another intake for the engine (I paid $150 for the complete intake upper/lower halves, and all of the sensors incl. map, tps, tuning valve, etc. -- a heck of a good deal when compared with what the dealer wants for one!!!) ... I plan to do some experimenting with true port injection -- I plan to buy six injectors and do some machining on the intake and see what I can't accomplish ... I would also like to add distribitorless ignition to it too --- I've thaught about using the sensors and general hardware from a 3800 for that, but don't know yet what problems I will get into... Also, as for the eprom code, I'm in the process of completely disassembling the entire eprom from the computer that came with my engine ... After figuring out exactly what processor they used, I wrote a code-seeking disassembler and am now wading through piles of source code trying to decipher all of the code and lookup tables (300+ pages!). ... If anyone out there has any hints, ideas, suggestions, port number pinouts, etc, let me know... Donald Whisnant dewhisna@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Pearl Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:45:39 -0600 Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts I was under the impression that there were benefits to waste fire - else why would anyone have used it at all? As for wasting a spark, I thought it was firing the waste? I'm confoozed here! I have been told that it reduces emissions - is this it's only saving grace? - ---------- >From: Edward Hernandez (R)[SMTP:ehernan3@xxx.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 1996 1:57 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts "Why fire two plugs? Waste fire! I'd love to take a shot at burning any unused fuel left in the chamber..." To what end? It will do you no good to burn charge on the exhaust stroke because you won't get any work out of it. You certainly risk burning exhaust valves and other downstream components and if you are convinced that you have burnable charge left in the chamber during the exhaust stroke, you should take actions to prevent that condition, such as running excessively rich. The term wastefire was coined because you waste a spark in unburnable conditions. Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Jim Pearl Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:57:45 -0600 Subject: RE: TEC True - but I wanted to be able to run MAF, datalog, and be able to FULLY program that sucker. Add it up - it ain't cheap. If I had the list in front of me I'd tell you the packages and their prices - about the only one I DIDN'T want was the one for remote datalogging ala Formula one! (smile) A very nice system though. I've seen their datalogger and it looks far better than the DFI, they actually GRAPH it for you with varying scales and let you scroll through the data. That is one package that's a must for tuning (IMO)... - ---------- >From: LotusM50@xxx.com] Sent: Monday, April 01, 1996 3:35 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: TEC In a message dated 96-03-31 19:47:58 EST, JVP@xxx.com (Jim Pearl) writes: >It looks like a good system - until you take a look at their software >prices! I was VERY close to buying one until I saw the thousand dollars >worth of software I'd want to buy! Whew - almost as much as the rest of the >system! Ouch! Yes, but you don't need $1000 worth of software. ------------------------------ From: jac@xxx.us (john carroll) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 19:04:22 PST Subject: knock sensor location It is my experience that the GM sensors are quite directionaly sensitive. Consistant mounting practice and materials are important. I believe that one stock installation of these sensors is on the front and rear face of V8 heads. GM did not choose this mounting location by accident. The axis of greatest sensitivity appears to be perpendictular to the planes of both valve activity and piston slap. It is threaded into a solid block of cast iron. It may be well to reconsider the advantages of this location. For aircraft engines, I presently mount the sensor on a tab extending from the parting line at the center of the aluminum alloy crankcase. The tab is .125 steel, attached by two bolts. This location is necessary because the heads on the four or six cylinders are all seperate. The parting line is the only location that is equidistant from each of the combustion chambers. The best alternative is to attach a sensor to each head. I get all kinds of noise but am learning to sort it out with the HIP7010. I suspect performance will be improved by making the tab more massive and by attaching it with more bolts. - ---------------------------------------------- jac@xxx.us john carroll ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:11:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) On Mon, 1 Apr 1996 gtk110@xxx.edu wrote: > >The 4.9L is a straight 6. > > Oh, no, this is a classic case of "I shoulda had a V-8" ..I thought the 4.9L > was an 8(since, technically the 302 is a 4.9L)... > My advice now is to get a V-8...For the amount of money spent to FI > this thing, you may as well buy a junkyard 302 with efi,harness, and > computer,plus you won't have to work out as many "bugs". I disagree...Ford has quite a nice EFI system for the 4.9, and the 4.9 is quite a good engine, BTW. Why not just find a Ford pickup at the wreckers and get what you need. BTW, it is not TBI, but MPFI. Jim Davies ------------------------------ From: jac@xxx.us (john carroll) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 96 19:59:13 PST Subject: FW: RE: Multispark I believe that the real advantage of the waste spark system is that it relieves a DIS system of determining and tracking which of two cylinders is at TDC firing and which is at TDC exhaust. A sensor to watch the cam is unnecessy (cheaper, more reliable). There are half as many coils as spark plugs (cheaper, more reliable). The system is probably lighter ( " " ). These systems pulse each injector each revolution, two at a time. One hit comes on the intake stroke, the other on the back of the valve in the power stroke. Each pulse can last longer with out the problems of overlapping injection timing. This greater on-time allows better resolution of the fuel flow. The software and hardware overhead are both reduced. If plating material from one plug electrode or the other is a problem, one can switch the plug leads from one side of the coil to the other occasionally to even out the wear. >I was under the impression that there were benefits to waste fire - else >why would anyone have used it at all? As for wasting a spark, I thought it >was firing the waste? I'm confoozed here! I have been told that it reduces >emissions - is this it's only saving grace? > >---------- >>From: Edward Hernandez (R)[SMTP:ehernan3@xxx.com] >Sent: Monday, April 01, 1996 1:57 AM >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: RE: Multispark stuff and other thoughts > > >"Why fire two plugs? Waste fire! I'd love to take a shot at burning >any unused fuel left in the chamber..." > >To what end? It will do you no good to burn charge on the exhaust stroke >because you won't get any work out of it. You certainly risk >burning exhaust valves and other downstream components and if you >are convinced that you have burnable charge left in the chamber >during the exhaust stroke, you should take actions to prevent that >condition, such as running excessively rich. The term wastefire was >coined because you waste a spark in unburnable conditions. > >Ed Hernandez >Ford Motor Company >ehernan3@xxx.com > > > > ------------------------------ From: Craig Pugsley Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:57:00 +1000 (EST) Subject: Knock sensor display project. Hi, The Australian electronics magazine 'Silicon Chip' has just published a project which applies filtering to a knock sensor signal and displays the severity of the knock on a bar graph display It seems the magazines here are doing more of these sorts of projects, which provides useful information for those of us who don't work professionally in the area and don't have several hundred $ to sift through piles of stuff for the few 'pearls of wisdom'. When I buy the magazine I will post info on where you can buy a kit (for the benefit of those outside Australia without access to the magazine). Craig. PS, perhaps the 'vendor list' should have a section for relevant kits that are available, as this is the third I have found in the last 6 months. ------------------------------ From: Ryan Harrell Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 23:39:08 -0600 Subject: Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection Donald Whisnant wrote: > > Ryan Harrell wrote: > > > >As the original poster of this 4.3 discussion, I'd like to know if anybody > >has some information on Vortec's supercharger they are designing for the V6 > >engine. I called Fuel Injection Specialities, whose name I found in a > >magazine, for info. They stated that Vortech would have a sequential > >central-port injection supercharger in a couple of months. > > > >Also, FI Specialties priced the SCPI kit at $1895 and I was wondering if > >anybody knew of a cheaper price anywhere else. I'd like to ask Mr. Spears > >how hard would it be to adapt a centrifugal supercharger not designed for > >SCPI to it. The reason for this is because ATI Technologies makes an > >extremely powerful superchager that I'd like to use. Also, I plan to > >racing heads, roller cam, bore out the engine, and just about any other idea > >I can find to produce more horsepower (my goal for this engine is around > >500-600HP on a $6000 budget) However, I know little about programming EPROMs, > >and have no idea on what equipment or software is required for reprogramming > >(although I am willing to learn). If you can recommend a book or other > >instrucion tool to help me I'd be appreciative. > > > >Finally, is there any R&D going on for a true port injected 4.3L V6? > > > >I GREATLY APPRECIATE all the help I've gotten from this mailing-list > > > > I've just recently finished installing a '94 4.3 CMFI V6 into my '85 Grand > Prix -- And (even though it was a headache and a half to put in -- mainly > because the engine came out of a van instead of a truck) I've been very > well pleased with its power and performance in sort of a "stock" condition. > I also put on one of those 4L60E trannies too -- and with the way it is > presently geared (2.41 -- as designed for a non-od tranny) it will do 80-85 > taching only 2000!!! > > As for mods, I too would be interested in info on superchargers -- though > my question would be: How much height if any will it add to the intake?? I'm > already about maxed out on the Grand Prix -- any more and I'll have to add > a hood scoop.... ... So Ryan, let me know what you find out... > > As for true port injection, I just bought another intake for the engine (I > paid $150 for the complete intake upper/lower halves, and all of the sensors > incl. map, tps, tuning valve, etc. -- a heck of a good deal when compared > with what the dealer wants for one!!!) ... I plan to do some experimenting > with true port injection -- I plan to buy six injectors and do some machining > on the intake and see what I can't accomplish ... I would also like to > add distribitorless ignition to it too --- I've thaught about using the > sensors and general hardware from a 3800 for that, but don't know yet what > problems I will get into... > > Also, as for the eprom code, I'm in the process of completely disassembling > the entire eprom from the computer that came with my engine ... After > figuring out exactly what processor they used, I wrote a code-seeking > disassembler and am now wading through piles of source code trying to > decipher all of the code and lookup tables (300+ pages!). ... If anyone out > there has any hints, ideas, suggestions, port number pinouts, etc, let me > know... > > Donald Whisnant > dewhisna@xxx.com I don't exactly get what you mean about CMFI injection, so if you could please elaborate I'd be able to help more. As for the supercharger, Accesseble Technologies, Inc. (913-338-2886) stated that their superchager could be adapted to almost any application with some tinkering. However they state that they do not sell a kit (they became quite interested when I told them that Vortec had one in development -- Hmm you never know). I don't know your level of superchager type knowledge, but the type I am talking about installing is a centrifugal superchager. This is a device that looks and mounts (adds no height to the engine) similar to an air-conditioning compressor, whose job is to force as much air into the injectors as possible using a spinning propellor. The air is compressed and sent to the injectors via a hose. What makes ATI's Procharger so special is that they offer a special billet aluminum propellor that allows more airflow than Paxon or Vortec. This allows them to get up to 25 lbs. of boost versus 9 lbs. of boost from steel propellors (Paxon and Vortec). Plus the blower is only $2000. Because all the info on the Sequential Central Port Injection came from mainly this list, could someone please describe how the air intake into the engine is accomplished (how the plumbing is set up). I'll probably end up going to a dealership and looking at one. As far as technical info on the eprom, I have a friend who is a mechanic at a GM dealership. He might be able to get such info. Being a novice programmer (I only know basic BASIC), I wouldn't mind being sent the code that you dissasembled. But I need to know what language you are programming it in as well as what programs you are using. I'll try to be as much help as I can, but I won't make any promises. I'd also like to hear more of your ideas concerning creating a true port-injection system. Could you please tell me what kind of intake you are using. Also, could everyone please elaborate on what mods you have done to your own 4.3 such as boring the block, heads, cam, crankshaft, etc. Finally, I'd also like to know what works and what doesn't. It would be nice to learn from other's mistakes so that they will not be repeated. Ryan Harrell cyborne@xxx.com "Eat my dust", said the modified 4.3 to the IROC Camaro. ------------------------------ From: Ryan Harrell Date: Fri, 01 Apr 1994 23:46:59 -0600 Subject: Re: 4.3 V6 wayne miller wrote: > > Hi, I read your message to diy_efi re 4.3 CPI, I to am interested in the CPI > 4.3, my current project is a 94 4.3 from a van, the wiring is from Howell > Engine Developments, the veh is a 84 S15 Jimmy 4X4 and a BW world class T-5 > . As to eproms I am in the same boat as you but I am learning. I rec > "Experiments with eproms by dave prochnow isbn 0-8306-2962-9". I have just > pur a programmer, and constructed an eraser, it works, if you would like > details I can send. After the engine is installed (summer) I had planed to > pur software from TTS Power systems (310 215 0147) to ex with programming. I > have contacted TTS they were not very helpful, but app have software for > about $300 us. If you are intersted send me an e-mail. Hey, it's nice to find out there are so many 4.3 modifiers out there. Anyway down to business. I would be interested in working with you via e-mail (and this mailing list) on our engines together. Tell me what your plans are for the engine so that together we can come up with a kick ass FI 4.3. Ryan Harrell cyborne@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Ryan Harrell Date: Sat, 02 Apr 1994 00:00:39 -0600 Subject: Announcement Since there seems to be a keen interest in 4.3L V6 postings, I would like to compile a resouce document with as much info as I can find on the engine. So if anybody would like to contribute please personally e-mail me (no sense clogging up the mailing-list). When I get enough info, I plan to post it to the mailing-list as well as the diy_efi homepage. Things I want are prices for perfromance parts from suppliers, tricks tried and succeeded as well as failures, technical info on eproms, and definations for the various types of FI available for the engine. Thanks, Ryan Harrell cyborne@xxx.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #96 **************************** 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".