DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, 3 April 1996 Volume 01 : Number 097 In this issue: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) Uncl: Knock sensors. Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) EFI, waste spark Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Re: Uncl: Knock sensors. RE: TEC RE: Uncl: Knock sensors. FW: Fuel Injection for sale Vortech on 4.3 SCPI Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection Question regarding possible car purchase. Re: Vortech on 4.3 SCPI See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gtk110@xxx.edu Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 09:46:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) > > > >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 > > Yeah, but you'd get more than enough power, and especially torque out of the V-8...I should know, I have an'88 5.0l Mustang and it's hard to pull out of a stop without spinning the wheels (and this is on my 'calm' days) This guy did want to use the truck for towing, as I recall. "Gripping the wheel, his knuckles went white with desire...the wheels of his Mustang exploding on the highway like a slug from a .45... True death... 400 horsepower, maximum performance piercing the night... This is BLACK SUNSHINE!" ------------------------------ From: Date: 02 Apr 96 07:57:44 PST Subject: Uncl: Knock sensors. From: Lynn Mosher, Industrial Technology, Cal Poly Mant knock sensors are in effect tuning forks that vibrate at specific frequenc ies, the vibrations caused specifically by knock, and then generate a current o r disturb a signal from the ECU. The knock frequency would be the same for most engines. ------------------------------ From: Corey Cole Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:24:12 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Switching from carb to FI on a Ford (fwd) On Tue, 2 Apr 1996 gtk110@xxx.edu wrote: > Yeah, but you'd get more than enough power, and especially torque out of the > V-8...I should know, I have an'88 5.0l Mustang and it's hard to pull out of > a stop without spinning the wheels (and this is on my 'calm' days) > This guy did want to use the truck for towing, as I recall. > Not to start a flame war, but the V-8 to get for towing is the 351...I believe that the I-6 has a higher torque rating (at a lower RPM even) than the 302. The I-6 is a real stump puller. If I wanted to, I could drive around town all day with only 3rd through 5th. The problem with the 302 is that it has such a short stroke compared to the 300 (4+ inches for the 6 compared to 3 inches for the 8) That's my $.02. Corey Cole colec@xxx.edu '65 Skylark "Knowledge is power...but cubic inches help." Go #24!!!!! I was drunk the day my mom got out of prison and I went to pick her up in the rain. But before I could get to the station in my pick up truck, she got runned over by the darned old train... David Allen Coe Steve Goodman ------------------------------ From: ehernan3@xxx.com (Edward Hernandez (R)) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:20:07 +0500 Subject: EFI, waste spark "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." Thanks for the compliment. For the record, however, the Fordspeak term is SEFI(sequential EFI) or just EFI for couple years we built bank to bank firing systems. And what everbody else calls TBI we called CFI(Central FI). And what we call the 5.0L V8 is actually a 4.9L V8. And I'm still convinced that Scott Adams(Dilbert) works here somewhere... The big reason we use waste spark systems is because we went distributorless, and didn't want to buy four, six or eight coils for each engine. Waste spark lets us use half the number of coils. For SEFI engines, we still need the cam sensor, but we don't need it for plain EFI(bank to bank) systems as John Carroll indicated in his post. Ed Hernandez Ford Motor Company, king of acronyms ehernan3@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Brad Sheridan Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:51:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Multispark stuff and other thoughts Jim Pearl wrote: > > 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? The reason its used in motorcycles is that it cuts the need for a cam position sensor. All you need is a crank sensor, since you're firing the plug every rotation instead of every other one. Also, on a inline 4, you can make do with two coils and two trigger signals, when you'd need four of each doing it the other way, or a distributor. It doesn't help power output, I don't know about emissions. Later, Brad ------------------------------ From: atsakiri@xxx.com Date: Tue, 02 Apr 96 14:54:32 -0500 Subject: Re: Uncl: Knock sensors. > The knock frequency would be the same for most engines. Engine blocks vibrate in many different modes and are exposed to many different forcing functions. The trick is to put the sensor in a place that a) "sees" the vibration forced by knock and b) is immune to the vibration forced by non-knock sources. Anthony Tsakiris The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Hadzic Muhammed <3mh31@xxx.ca> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:55:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE: TEC On Sun, 31 Mar 1996, Jim Pearl wrote: > 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! > > ---------- You would be shocked to know the price I paid for the system. I won't get into how or exactly how much but it was legal. The software cost me about half what you would expect and the system was discounted also. Muhammed ------------------------------ From: Jim Pearl Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:52:20 -0600 Subject: RE: Uncl: Knock sensors. Thanks to all for straightening me out on waste fire (doesn't Electromotive tout this?) and knock sensors. Don't know where I'm going to mount that sucker but it sounds like it needs to be moved ASAP. Thanks! - ---------- >From: atsakiri@xxx.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 1996 1:54 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Cc: atsakiri@xxx.com Subject: Re: Uncl: Knock sensors. > The knock frequency would be the same for most engines. Engine blocks vibrate in many different modes and are exposed to many different forcing functions. The trick is to put the sensor in a place that a) "sees" the vibration forced by knock and b) is immune to the vibration forced by non-knock sources. Anthony Tsakiris The opinions expressed are my own and not necessarily those of my employer. ------------------------------ From: Jim Pearl Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 19:49:51 -0600 Subject: FW: Fuel Injection for sale Thought someone here might like this setup..... - ---------- >From: CHADRECORE@xxx.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 1996 11:54 AM To: fordnatics@xxx.com Subject: Fuel Injection for sale * Forwarded by the Fordnatics mailing list * * Author retains copyright -- ask permission before forwarding * I have a complete fuel injection manifold, injectors, rails, and upper air plenum from a 1988 5.0 HO Mustang engine. It has about 40,000 miles on it. I was wondering if there would be a possibility of anybody needing such parts? I would consider any offers because I mostly hate to see it sit....besides I'm still hooked on carbs. Hope someone has a use for it. * Posting address: fordnatics@xxx.com * * Sub/unsub address: fordnatics-request@xxx.com * ------------------------------ From: john spears Date: Tue, 2 Apr 96 21:17 EST Subject: Vortech on 4.3 SCPI Ryan, I haven't been on here for a while do to workload, but this is in response to your post of a few days ago. I honestly haven't done any performance work on the 4.3. Mainly just custom wiring harnesses for engine projects. I make wiring harnesses for new engines and get them up and running for a local engine components manufacturer that uses 30 engines for their component testing. I also do alot of TPI and LT1 conversions on cars. IMO, I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt the Vortech to the 4.3, since it's very similar to the V8 it was made from. It seems to be a very popular modification on Z28's, etc. these days. As far as EPROM programming goes, when adding a blower or a turbo to an application that didn't originally have it, it's much easier to add some additional controllers i.e., BTM (boost timing module) and FMU (fuel management unit), then to completely remap a stock EPROM to account for a pressurized intake system. These add-on units are programmable for timing retard vs. boost and additional fuel vs. boost, and usually add 2 or 3 extra injectors to the system. The price of $1895 doesn't sound to bad depending on the completeness of the kit. I know of no work going on for a true port injected 4.3L V6 at this time. The only one was the Syclone/Typhoon from a few years back. The GM truck guys seem to have some strange ideas on what they choose for powerplants. I don't know why they didn't just drop the LT1 in the 96 trucks instead of these odd SCPI Vortec V8's. Good luck! John Spears Speartech Fuel Injection Systems ------------------------------ From: Donald Whisnant Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:28:53 -0800 Subject: Re: 4.3 multi-port fuel injection Ryan Harrell wrote: > Donald Whisnant wrote: > >> 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. > Sorry for the long post (and reposting -- I didn't want to loose anyone in the conversation) ... But Ryan: CMFI stands for Central Multi-port Fuel Injection -- i.e. GM's term for their fuel injection system that has a single injector and 6 poppet valves for fuel delievery ... The intake I'm using is the Vortec intake (not to be confused with Vortec superchargers) that GM uses standard with the CMFI (or CFI, etc) system in some S-10 pickups, Astro/Safari vans, and some Blazers... The intake is a tuned intake with a tuning valve that the computer opens/closes for making either a split plenum or single plenum... The intake runners converge to a single opening at the front where the throttle valve is located... ... This is also the intake type I plan to do the experimenting with to see if I can replace the 6 poppet valves with 6 individual injectors, build my own computer system, and make it a sequential port system... The required Fuel pressure, for reference, on the '93 version of the poppets is a massive 65 psi... by the '94 release, they dropped it to about 45-50 psi... Versus a typical 35psi for many sequential systems... (for whatever difference that really makes) As for languages used, the entire code that I'm disassembling from GMs computer is, of course, in the assembly language of the processor ... And my disassembler program I wrote in Borland Pascal (I emphasize the Borland part, because I do make use of its object oriented capabilites --- "OOP"s the ONLY way to program!)... As for the disassembled code, since it is taking so much time and effort, I don't plan to "give" it away -- but I can't really sell it either (you know, copyrights and legalities with GM) ... So, I will probably offer it either in whole or in part in exchange for either other info or pieces and parts to play with... ... For example, I have one person interested in the code for the LT1 GM computers -- which is my next reverse engineering task (since I want to do some modifying and reprogramming on my '95 Formula Firebird) -- In exchange for some info about the code and/or a system or method to do custom reprogramming, he has offered in advance to provide me with several LT1 computer systems to play with... As for the disassembler, supported copies of the executable file will be given for similar information exchange --- it is a code-seeking disassembler (i.e. it actively sorts out code versus data) and is targetted toward the AS68xx assemblers written by Alan Baldwin at Kent State Univerity (those assemblers are available from ftp to kent state, Circuit Cellar BBS, the CUG distribution CDs, Programming Tech-Tools CD, and many other sources -- a real nice assembler/linker system)... I'm presently not releasing source code on the disassembler because of the Generic Disassembler I'm working on (that uses similar technology) to disassemble all microprocessors (with simple additive opcode programming) as well as do emulation, chip-id, and many other neat things that reverse engineers have longed for... ... For those interested, I do have (or did last time I checked) have my older 6809 disassembler with source code posted on the Circuit Cellar BBS -- it too does code-seeking... Now back to the supercharge topic ... As for the ATI supercharger that you mention, which you say will do up to 25 psi boost, with that type of boost level, what problems are encountered with spark knocking/pre-detonation?? Most of the ones only doing 9-12psi boost encounter such problems starting around 7-8psi... Reports I've heard say that the boost gains gets depleted by having to retard the ignition to prevent the knocking... ... So I guess what I'm asking is: what do they do so special to obtain that high of a boost? Is it in their cooling techniques, or what? Donald Whisnant dewhisna@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Terry Faugno Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 20:36:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Question regarding possible car purchase. I may be switching cars soon. Going from a Dodge Neon to a Dodge Stealth R/T TT. Are there mods out there for this car to increase the effeciency of the FI system, or is it pretty much as good as it's going to get?? Thanx, Terry ------------------------------ From: Terry Faugno Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:20:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Vortech on 4.3 SCPI At 09:17 PM 4/2/96 EST, you wrote: >of no work going on for a true port injected 4.3L V6 at this time. The only >one was the Syclone/Typhoon from a few years back. The GM truck guys seem to >have some strange ideas on what they choose for powerplants. I don't know >why they didn't just drop the LT1 in the 96 trucks instead of these odd SCPI >Vortec V8's. Uhrrr? A V8 Syclone? Weren't they the 3800/231 Buick V6, of the late,lamented Buick Grand National/GNX? That's my understanding. GMC decided to tweak the suspension on an S-15, drop the GNX turbo-intercooled V6 into it, and voila', a pickup that outhandled and out-accelerated the base Vette, but not the ZR-1. Terry ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #97 **************************** 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".