DIY_EFI Digest Friday, 23 August 1996 Volume 01 : Number 242 In this issue: Re: EGO Sensors and linearity re: Auto Tool Definitions Boost retard Re: Data Logging Re: Why not an E.F.Air.I. RE: Why not an E.F.Air.I. Re: Data Logging Re: EFI musings Re: Boost retard Re: Re[3]: Truck parts Dynamometer. Re: Re[2]: Truck parts Dynamometer. RE: Why not an E.F.Air.I. Re: EFI musings Re: EFI musings Re: EFI musings Re: EFI musings EFI Conv. See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Fredrik Skog Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:17:35 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: EGO Sensors and linearity Hello! I was just wondering if anyone out there knows how to build an ignition retard device. We have a 4 cyl BMW engine with turbo which we use for dragracing, and we are interested in getting boost at the start.If you retard the ignition heavily and pump the gas, the boost will start to rise. The only problem is that I don't know how to build such a device. MSD has one in their MSD6BTM. If anyone has a clue, please don't hesitate to answer. Bye! ############################################################################## Fredrik Skog '70 2002 ti O==00==O \\\ Amiga 1200 Email: c95fsg@xxx.se \\\ /// WWW: http://www.ts.umu.se/~skog/ \\X// ------------------------------ From: SRavet@xxx.com Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 16:11:53 CDT Subject: re: Auto Tool Definitions adh@xxx.us Wrote: | | | an oldie but a goodie... enjoy! | | | Automobile Tool Definitions excellent list! I saw it once before but deleted it instead of saving it... thanks - --steve Steve Ravet sravet@xxx.com Baby you're a genius when it comes to cooking up some chili sauce... ------------------------------ From: Fredrik Skog Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:22:45 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Boost retard Hello! Sorry I got the wrong subject in my last message:) I was just wondering if anyone out there knows how to build an ignition retard device. We have a 4 cyl BMW engine with turbo which we use for dragracing, and we are interested in getting boost at the start.If you retard the ignition heavily and pump the gas, the boost will start to rise. The only problem is that I don't know how to build such a device. MSD has one in their MSD6BTM. If anyone has a clue, please don't hesitate to answer. Bye! ############################################################################## Fredrik Skog '70 2002 ti O==00==O \\\ Amiga 1200 Email: c95fsg@xxx.se \\\ /// WWW: http://www.ts.umu.se/~skog/ \\X// ------------------------------ From: Doug Robson Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 07:49:48 +1000 Subject: Re: Data Logging David Crocombe wrote: > > >> If the engine is in a car, all you need is a stopwatch, a tach, a tape > >> recorder, and a hill. > > > Why not use some kind of data logger connected to the tachometer (or > > speedometer), > > a spreadsheet program and a straight road? Out of this info, you would > > easily be able to calculate the power with a good enough precision. > > Anyone who has tried to build such a logger? > > > /Jonas > > One of my long term aims is to produce an engine data logging system. > I am at the early learning stages at the moment. > > I thought by reading this list I would pick up some ideas. > > So I would measure the same things as EFI systems, only log the results > instead of using it to do EFI. I am thinking of using an accelerometer > as well. > > Another interest is to add to the above system a control for nitrous > oxide injection. > > Not quite the normal EFI, but EFI none the less. > > Regards, > > David Crocombe. > Sydney, > Australia. quite often efi systems have codes to send info around the circuit. Between Fred Miranda and I we wrote a basic data logger for the Autronic SMC. Ifd you had ony specs about request codes it would not be hard to do. regards - -- |===============================================================| | When I die, | | I want to go in my sleep, like my grandfather, | | not screaming like the passengers in his car. | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | Doug Robson (H) mailto:doug@xxx.au | | (W) mailto:Doug.Robson@xxx.com | | Sydney, Australia http://www.cia.com.au/doug | |---------------------------------------------------------------| | Club Car Racing Register of NSW | Thank God | | 1992/93 Under 2 litre State Champion | for | | http://www.cia.com.au/doug/ccrrnsw.html | Gravity | |===============================================================| ------------------------------ From: John Napoli Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Why not an E.F.Air.I. We already have a large tank of air at a fairly constant pressure to draw from. It's called the 'atmosphere'!! Seriously, the size and weight of the tank you'd need for anything but the smallest engines running for the shortest times make this impractical. And what do you do to refill? And how long would that take? In space liquid oxygen is carried -- tricky to handle and it puts a real limit on the operations fueled by it (you can't afford to carry as much as you'd like). John On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Joe West wrote: > Hello all. > > Being new to this area of expertise I have a question that might seem silly > but then again. > > Why not have a system that injects a measured amount of air at a set or > variable pressure into the cylinder. (for racing purposes only) Just compresed > air not any specific oxidizer, like nitrous for example. > > The system could use the best of both carb and EFI. Say that you had a > SCUBA tank 80cuft at 3000 psi which was pressure regulated and would send > a pulsed charge to each cylinder individualy. Passing over a fuel inlet > jet before reaching the combustion chamber. Now you have the vapor of a > carb. and the regulation of an EFI. Not the mention the boost of a supercharger. > > Or use the tank to maintain a fixed pressure in the manifold runners ? > > The CFM rate might be a problem in anything but drag racing. > > Just an idea, but then again. > > Joseph D. West > Electronics Lab. Supervisor > College of Mechanical Eng. > Ohio State University > > (614) 292-2845 > Fax (614) 292-3163 > > ------------------------------ From: John.Beggs@xxx. Beggs) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 15:46:59 PDT Subject: RE: Why not an E.F.Air.I. >Why not just inject liquid oxygen. Extremely explosive. Just look back to the Mercury space disaster. John W. Beggs, BC Hydro, 6911 Southpoint Dr., Burnaby, BC, V3N 4X8, Canada. Voice: (604)528-2776, FAX: (604)528-1883, EMail: john.beggs@xxx.ca ------------------------------ From: Fredrik Skog Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 01:50:52 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: Re: Data Logging Hi! Have you guys ever looked at http://proffa.cc.tut.fi/~k124775/revpro.html It's a program for estimating your HP and torque for the Amiga. You simply hook a tape recorder to the ignition coil and record it. Then you sample it in your computer and it calculates the torque. I've tried it on a few cars and it seems to give a pretty correct result. Maybe he will hurry up with the PC version if a lot of people shows interest in it. Bugg him:) Hope this helps! ############################################################################## Fredrik Skog '70 2002 ti O==00==O \\\ Amiga 1200 Email: c95fsg@xxx.se \\\ /// WWW: http://www.ts.umu.se/~skog/ \\X// ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:44:19 -0500 Subject: Re: EFI musings At 08:39 AM 8/22/96 -0500, you wrote: > >"George M. Dailey" wrote: "chomp" >>Simple, If you buy an already engineered system off of an junked car and >>retrofit to your carbed vehicle, you get that excellent mix if very low >>price & DIY satisfaction plus 14mpg city (plain HT-350 though). >> >> >>GMD >> > >George, > >Thank you. A few of the posts I take the time to print and save (and >share). Yours is one of those. You've struck a chord with me -- >what you've done is what seems to me to be the most logical >course of action. >My problem is that the Ford EEC-xx don't seem to be very 'loser friendly'. >Someone mentioned using a GM unit, and I can see that that might >not be such a bad idea -- mixing the Ford manifold, etc. with a >GM controller. (Hey, I've (very slightly) even considered putting >a GM 350 back into my Bronco for the simple reason there is so much >stuff available for it.) > >While I'm on this subject: Hey, Ed Hernandez. You're with Ford. >Why don't those guys promote more stuff for the car afficianado, huh ?? > >Thanks, >Tom Cloud Thanks Tom, my head swells at the seams! I think you hit the nail square this time. I recommended this to a 351 Ford man some months ago. He ruptured an internal organ from his histerical laughter. I may have even posted this once also. I can't think of any major reason why the GM TBI would not be an easy swap. Think about it: use the GM seven terminal HEI module connected to the Fords's pick up coil leads (calm down Ed). I done Datsun 280ZX(s) this way, ignition only, with no problems. Except that, the $200.00 savings using the GM module allowed my buddy to go on a two day drinking marathon ;} Fab the adapter plate from 5/16 plate. I think the differences between the two engines (GM 350 and Ford 351) are so slight that the sohpisticated code in the ECM will compensate. Every thing else is childs play! Question Ed, Why is the early Ford ignition module so big when compared to the GM HEI IC? Good luck Tom. GMD ------------------------------ From: "William A. Sarkozy" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 20:03:40 -0700 Subject: Re: Boost retard At 11:22 PM 8/22/96 +0200, you wrote: > >Hello! > >Sorry I got the wrong subject in my last message:) > >I was just wondering if anyone out there knows how to build an ignition >retard device. We have a 4 cyl BMW engine with turbo which we use for >dragracing, and we are interested in getting boost at the start.If you >retard the ignition heavily and pump the gas, the boost will start to rise. >The only problem is that I don't know how to build such a device. MSD has >one in their MSD6BTM. > >If anyone has a clue, please don't hesitate to answer. > >Bye! >############################################################################## >Fredrik Skog '70 2002 ti O==00==O \\\ Amiga 1200 >Email: c95fsg@xxx.se \\\ /// >WWW: http://www.ts.umu.se/~skog/ \\X// > > Get hold of a book by Hugh McInnes titled TURBOCHARGERS. He devotes an entire chapter to ignition systems, including boost retard mechanisms. You'll probably find the rest of the book interesting as well. Bill ------------------------------ From: pantera@xxx.com (David Doddek) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 19:39:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Re[3]: Truck parts Dynamometer. > Terry wrote: >What about the surplus DC generators they use for welders? They are 400 Amp >units -- what horsepower would they use up? > Since I repair welding equipment as a side line ($35 per hour) I can say that 20 hp is all that is needed for 250 amps, and 400 amps only takes about30 to 35 hp. Think about it 400 amps by 30 volts is only 12kw. Not all that much power. David J. Doddek |pantera@xxx.com Owner SGD Electronics & Development Engr for Caterpillar |h 309 685-7965 Formula SAE Team Sidewinder 94-95 |w 309 578-2931 89 T-bird SC, 69 Fairlane w/SGD EFI |fx 217 428-4686 74 Pantera w/Electromotive Tec-II Twin turbos and Nitros | Hey, If you are going to go fast, go REEEAAL FAST. | ------------------------------ From: Craig Pugsley Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:12:25 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Re[2]: Truck parts Dynamometer. > Someone on the hotrod list a long time ago suggested putting a hall effect > type sensor at the both ends of the driveshaft and measuring how much it > twists. How about mounting the engine with some sort of spring loaded engine mounts and measure the deflection under load. Perhaps even a strain guage on the standard engine mounts would work? The Nissan Skyline GTR in Japan has a torque guage on the dash.. I'll try to find out how it works. (Probably done somewhere in the highly complex transmission) Cheers, Craig. ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:05:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RE: Why not an E.F.Air.I. On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, John W. Beggs wrote: > >Why not just inject liquid oxygen. > > > Extremely explosive. Just look back to the Mercury space disaster. > John W. Beggs, Junkers and others used it in WW2, both in A/C engines ( as a followon to NOX) and they ran the Junkers/Wankel torpedo V8 on exhaust gas and oxygen, plus gasoline. There is some info on the A/C engines in Janes Victory Edition. Jim Davies ------------------------------ From: "John Faubion" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:04:15 -0500 Subject: Re: EFI musings > Sounds like some awfully expensive carbs and astoundingly cheap > electronics. Well Dave with some prudent shopping you could have done it cheaper too. I picked up a GM #730 ECM, harness and most of the sensors from an '88 Beretta for free (the car was wrecked and I was able to snag any of the part I wanted). The fuel rail, 35#/hr injectors, fuel regulator, and throttle valve from a 1980 Cadilac V-8 was another $25. The big block Chevy Torker 2-O intake was $50 at a swap meet. I still need to find a CalPak from a '90-'92 F-Body which uses the speed density system. By using the Caddy injectors and adjusting the fuel pressure I can compensate for the increased displacement of the 427. Also I will have to build an injector driver circuit since the Caddy injectors are the peak and hold type and the ECM needs saturated type injectors. Though I should be able to do this for less than $50. I have made arrangements to do the machine work to adapt the fuel injectors to the manifold myself. I need to weld some bosses to the manifold first but I have the ability to do that as well. The throttle valve bolts directly to the Torker intake but I think the bores may be a bit small for my 427. I'm working on adapting a TPS to an old Holley 750 carb. I'm thinking of using just the body and throttle plate assembly with the venturi boosters removed. This makes connecting the linkages easy and with the booster gone it should flow somewhere around 900 CFM. I think I can probably get mine running for around $200-$300 or so. Granted I live in Mayberry RFD and the wrecking yards don't know what EFI parts are worth yet. An un-rebuilt Rochester Q-Jet still brings $100-$150 here though. I also picked up a fuel rail, injectors and pressure regulator from a GM 3.0L V-6 for $10. Unfortunately I had my numbers wrong and they were the wrong size for my application. I think if I had used a 350 Chevy I probably could go to a TBI system for even less money. EFI can be cheap especially if you can adapt factory parts. Ford and GM already spent the money to make them reliable, why not use them? John Faubion jfaubion@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:18:14 -0500 Subject: Re: EFI musings At 12:08 PM 8/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>While I'm on this subject: Hey, Ed Hernandez. You're with Ford. >> Why don't those guys promote more stuff for the car afficianado, huh >?? > >Excellent question. Wish I knew. And it's not just Ford, the aftermarket >seem to place a premium on Ford bits IF they offer them at all. And most >'open' rags seem to have more Chevies than Fords(ie, Hot Rod, PHR, etc). >Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing, but I still wish I knew the answer >to your question. I have suspicion$, but I can't elaborate. > >Still collecting responses...;) > >Ed Hernandez >Ford Motor Company >ehernan3@xxx.com Ed, I think I can answer this one. IMHO, I perfer to modify GM vehicles because there's greater parts commonality between models, divisions, componets, and engines. When a caddy tilt tellescopic wheel can be directly bolted in a chevy truck with 'plug n drive' harness connections, a DIYer can't refuse the option to mix and match. From 1955-1996 the small block really hasn't changed much. This gives the after market suppliers a large base to grow on. Once the momentum starts, there no stoping. Transmissions from GM seem to fit any GM vehicle. I had a few Ford friends that almost commited suicide while trying to swap transmission. Oh, one more analogy for those Ford fans that are still holding lunch in there stomachs. IBM gave there PC operating systems away. Not because they were fine christine folks, but because they did not think it would ammount to any thing anyway. Apple on the other hand, did not even tell there maintenance people how their machines worked, let alone give anybody software. As a result most of us are communicating on IBM compatables. Most experts say the Mac is the better platform, but the IBM machine had the infrastructure of many different people working to improve it and, more importantly, push it. But then,..... I could be wrong. GMD ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:16:17 -0500 Subject: Re: EFI musings At 12:08 PM 8/22/96 -0400, you wrote: >>While I'm on this subject: Hey, Ed Hernandez. You're with Ford. >> Why don't those guys promote more stuff for the car afficianado, huh >?? > >Excellent question. Wish I knew. And it's not just Ford, the aftermarket >seem to place a premium on Ford bits IF they offer them at all. And most >'open' rags seem to have more Chevies than Fords(ie, Hot Rod, PHR, etc). >Maybe it's a chicken and egg thing, but I still wish I knew the answer >to your question. I have suspicion$, but I can't elaborate. > >Still collecting responses...;) > >Ed Hernandez >Ford Motor Company >ehernan3@xxx.com Ed, I think I can answer this one. IMHO, I perfer to modify GM vehicles because there's greater parts commonality between models, divisions, componets, and engines. When a caddy tilt tellescopic wheel can be directly bolted in a chevy truck with 'plug n drive' harness connections, a DIYer can't refuse the option to mix and match. From 1955-1996 the small block really hasn't changed much. This gives the after market suppliers a large base to grow on. Once the momentum starts, there no stoping. Transmissions from GM seem to fit any GM vehicle. I had a few Ford friends that almost commited suicide while trying to swap transmission. Oh, one more analogy for those Ford fans that are still holding lunch in there stomachs. IBM gave there PC operating systems away. Not because they were fine christine folks, but because they did not think it would ammount to any thing anyway. Apple on the other hand, did not even tell there maintenance people how their machines worked, let alone give anybody software. As a result most of us are communicating on IBM compatables. Most experts say the Mac is the better platform, but the IBM machine had the infrastructure of many different people working to improve it and, more importantly, push it. But then,..... I could be wrong. GMD ------------------------------ From: "John Faubion" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 23:42:42 -0500 Subject: Re: EFI musings > >While I'm on this subject: Hey, Ed Hernandez. You're with Ford. > > Why don't those guys promote more stuff for the car afficianado, huh >?? > > Excellent question. Wish I knew. And it's not just Ford, the aftermarket > seem to place a premium on Ford bits IF they offer them at all. And most > 'open' rags seem to have more Chevies than Fords(ie, Hot Rod, PHR, etc). Well Ed think of it this way, the small block Chevy was built for almost forty years with very few parts that were not interchangeable. The Ford 289-351W is probably the closest engine to this kind of interchangeability. Mot engine don't even come close. Now consider you are a manufacturer of parts. You don't want to limit your available market do you? So you look at all of the engines available. Now if you make an intake manifold for a small block Chevy, and there are 10 million of them out there on the road, then you have a potential market of 10 million units. Granted you may only sell 0.5% of that market but that's still 50,000 units! Now if you made a similar manifold for the Ford 351 Cleveland (which if I remember correctly, there were only about 900,000 total made??) and you sell that same half percent that's only 4500 units. But your development costs were probably about the same for both manifolds so the price per unit to make them is now more. Does anyone not understand why Chevy engines are cheaper and also more common than for others? John Faubion jfaubion@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: peter paul fenske Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 21:33:49 -0700 Subject: EFI Conv. Hi All Well the subject of the throttle body conversions is rather interesting. While I have been working with GM tpi recently and so far rather successfully I have done some throttle body work. There are 4 barrel to throttle body adapters available commercially. I believe even GM lists one for the early 454SS. At swap meets have seen the whole throttle body setup for less than 200$ including all sensors and ECM. There are some restrictions to it use which can be overcome. First off a lowpressure? fuel pump must be used. 15 lbs is the nominal pressure. Most EFI pumps are in the 50 lb range. Gm pumps are available although usually tank mounted. I have converted these to rail mnt but since they weren't designed for this I can't vouch for their reliability in this mode. Also a VSS signal is required. I have used a taxi read switch which mounts between the tranny speedo and speedo cable. This device costs in the 50$ range. Important too is the MAP signal. An engine with 16 inches of vacum would operate marginally with the system. Any less would be a catastrophy. With the GM throttle body system in question Air flow is about 500 CFM for a 5.7 derived system. A 454 SS throttle body is more but rare. As for reprogramming the system I believe there was some folks on this group that had reverse engineered a 91 GM ECM from a gm truck. Maybe someone could look them up. About the only info I have is the idle table location and the spark table. I have not investigated the fueling. Well hope that helps a bit. GL all: peter ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V1 #242 ***************************** 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".