DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 5 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 190 In this issue: Re: [Fwd: Re: O2 sensor fooler] Re: Knock Sensors Re: Knock Sensors Re: Knock Sensors Re: Knock Sensors Re: Knock Sensors 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: Knock Sensors Re: efi fuel tank baffle [admin] list service restored Return Fuel Line Plumbing O2 sensor mounting Re: efi fuel tank baffle Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: O2 sensor mounting 8096 / 8061 machine code, etc RE: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Re: O2 sensor mounting RE: 8061 / 8063 op-codes RE: GM ALDL codes & questions RE: 8061 / 8063 op-codes efi problem did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: efi problem Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ross Myers" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 01:51:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: O2 sensor fooler] > > Ross Myers wrote: > > > > > That's a good question, and I can't argue with you either way. Perhaps > > > you can tell me. When I have a scan tool hooked up and floor it, I still > > > get a reading and the status does not change to open-loop. I must admit I > > > was under the impression the ECM monitored the O2 reading at WOT, and my > > > scan tool seemed to bear that out. Am I missing the boat, here? Keep in > > > mind this engine is a HO Quad4 from a 1990 Beretta GTZ. > > > Wouldn't it be wise to always monitor the O2 reading...especially at > > > WOT? I didn't write this!!!, people need to get a grip on thier Mailers when replying to threads please!!, I'm sure It was not intentional , but it is annoying when I start getting replys to something I didn't even post. Thnaks Ross Myers Melbourne, Australia ponty@xxx.au ------------------------------ From: Jim Lill Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 16:25:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Knock Sensors On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Aron Travis wrote: > I was browsing the DIY_EFI web site and read the statement that knock > sensors are 'engine sensitive', implying that they are unique to the > particular engine that they are designed for. > Is it possible retrofit a knock senser? Carter used to make a box that was an aftermarket add-on. It used a common microphone/sensor for all # of cyclinder and had a 4/6/8 switch. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim Lill jpl@xxx.com http://www.vectorbd.com/users/jpl wa2zkd@xxx.na ------------------------------ From: Kevin Crain Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 12:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Knock Sensors The knock sensor on my '82 Chevy Z-28 threads into the block in place of one of the coolant drain plugs, and uses a single conductor into the ECM. Mechanism seems to be some kind of vibration sensor. I'd guess "engine sensitive" refers to the ECM a respective knock sensor is designed for, with respect to the voltage or resistance it uses to communicate knock detection to the ECM. - -Kevin Crain On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Aron Travis wrote: > I was browsing the DIY_EFI web site and read the statement that knock > sensors are 'engine sensitive', implying that they are unique to the > particular engine that they are designed for. > Is it possible retrofit a knock senser? > If not, why? > If so, any recomendations to junkyard sources? > -Aron Travis- > "always in a automotive frenzy" > ------------------------------ From: "Watson, Bill" Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:43:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Knock Sensors Jim Lill writes; Carter used to make a box that was an aftermarket add-on. It used a common microphone/sensor for all # of cyclinder and had a 4/6/8 switch. - -------------- I used to have one and it DID work well. Until the car wouldn't start one day and I disconnected it. Aftermarket stuff just wasn't robust in the 70's and 80's IMO. But it did do the job! bw ------------------------------ From: Carter Hendricks Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Knock Sensors On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Jim Lill wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Aron Travis wrote: > > > I was browsing the DIY_EFI web site and read the statement that knock > > sensors are 'engine sensitive', implying that they are unique to the > > particular engine that they are designed for. > > Is it possible retrofit a knock senser? > > Carter used to make a box that was an aftermarket add-on. It used a common > microphone/sensor for all # of cyclinder and had a 4/6/8 switch. And I have one of the controllers, here, never used, which I would happily send off to a new home for the value of a nice bottle of wine or scotch. --Carter ------------------------------ From: Trevor Boicey Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 14:25:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Knock Sensors Kevin Crain wrote: > I'd guess "engine sensitive" refers to the ECM a respective knock sensor > is designed for, with respect to the voltage or resistance it uses to > communicate knock detection to the ECM. I would argue that a knock sensor, being essentially a microphone, is engine sensitive because the actual acoustics of a knock depend on the engine construction and very much on the mounting point of the microphone. A ping will sound a certain way on a certain engine to a microphone in a certain spot. A different block with a different placement will not. Since engines are noisy things, the knock sensor electronics are tuned to listen for a very specific sound to pronounce it as "knock". Too much off this, and it might never trigger, or worse, it might trigger on noises that are normal for that engine. - -- Trevor Boicey Ottawa, Canada tboicey@xxx.ca http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/ ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:39:59 +0000 Subject: 8061 / 8063 op-codes I've "found" a list of op-codes for the 8063. The processor in the eec-iv is supposed to be an 8061 -- don't know the difference --- anybody out there know ? actually, what I have are mnemonics only, no definitions or machine code -- could use some help here ...... ADCB ADCW AD2B AD2W AD3B AD3W AN2B AN2W AN3B AN3W ASRB ASRDW ASRW BANK0 BANK1 BANK2 BANK3 CALL CLC CLRB CLRVT CLRW CMPB CMPW CPLB CPLW DECB DECW DI DIVB DIVW DJNZ EI INCB INCW JB JC JE JGE JGT JGTU JLE JLEU JLT JNB JNC JNE JNST JNV JNVT JST JUMP JV JVT LDB LDSBW LDW LDZBW ML2B ML2W ML3B ML3W NEGB NEGW NOP NORM ORRB ORRW POPP POPW PUSHP PUSHW RET RETEI ROMBANK SBBB SBBW SB2B SB2W SB3B SB3W SCALL SEXB SEXW SHLB SHLDW SHLW SHRB SHRDW SHRW SIGND SJMP SKP STB STC STW XRB XRW The bank selection opcodes are 8063 -- as that is the difference between them, memory bank selection capabilities... 8061 Interrupt Vectors and Priorities: Priority: Interrupt 16-Bit Address Highest High-Speed Input #0 0x201E High High-Speed Input #1 0x201C High HSO Port Output Interrupt #1 0x201A Low External Interrupt 0x2018 Low HSI Port Input Data Available 0x2016 Low A/D End-Of-Conversion 0x2014 Low Master I/O Timer Overflow 0x2012 Lowest HSO Port Output Interrupt #2 0x2010 At Reset, PC = 0x2000 in Memory Bank #8 ============================ Okay, it's time for a little help ..... surely someone out there knows some more that can help the rest of us get off dead center -- I want to program this thing. Let's get some info on the instruction set and on the chip set, please. I guess my next move will be to line the menmonics up with the 8096 stuff I posted awhile back and see if I can make sense of it. Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Mike Wesley Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 18:26:52 -0400 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Tom Cloud wrote: > > I've "found" a list of op-codes for the 8063. The processor > in the eec-iv is supposed to be an 8061 -- don't know the > difference --- anybody out there know ? > > actually, what I have are mnemonics only, no definitions > or machine code -- could use some help here ...... > Um, the 8063 never made it to production as far as I know. Somebody snuck that info out of Intel(Toshiba/Motorola) or Ford. I'd be a bit wary of using information like that. Ford thought I was and it cost me a buttload of money to prove I wasn't. They watch these lists. Mike... ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:33:59 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Knock Sensors Been there, done that. I used a GM 3.8L V6 knock sensor on a early model GM 5.7L V8 converted to an late model OEM TBI. Worked great. I think I got lucky on it though. GMD At 09:18 AM 6/3/97 -0700, you wrote: >I was browsing the DIY_EFI web site and read the statement that knock >sensors are 'engine sensitive', implying that they are unique to the >particular engine that they are designed for. >Is it possible retrofit a knock senser? >If not, why? >If so, any recomendations to junkyard sources? >-Aron Travis- >"always in a automotive frenzy" > > George M. Dailey gmd@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 18:00:37 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: efi fuel tank baffle John, I believe you will run into some warpage problems if you try to weld baffles into the pre-fabed tank. It can be done with the right welding techniques though. You must be extremely carfull to restrain the metal while meticilusly welding the baffle in. Sa far as the baffle design, KISS (keep it seductively simple). I would weld 2" tall strips to the tank (width wise) to create a 4 - 5" wide "pump well". I would drill two 3/8" or so wholes (before welding), on each side of the baffle near the side walls. This would be four holes total. The tank would function as follows: On a hard turn, fuel will bank on one of the side baffles until it spills over into the pump pit. As this is happening, a smaller ammount of fuel will be leaking out of the 3/8" holes on the low end and some fuel will be flowing over the lower baffle. All of this will buy you time as the fuel migrates from one end to another while you pull 14 g's on the skid pad. My home built has three seperate tanks. One burn tank and two ballast tank. I've burnt many hairs off of my head thinking about simple and effective baffle designs. This is the best that I could come up with. George "spare the gas tank welding comments" Dailey At 11:26 AM 6/2/97 -0400, you wrote: >-------- > >First, p lease don't turn this thread into a discussion on how you >should or should not weld to a gas tank... > >I have a 22 gal stainless steal "regular" gas tank. I intend to add a >few internal baffle plates to reduce the amount fuel slosh as the tank >nears empty. I would like some comments and suggestion as to what >might work best (geometry, orientation, sizes....). Thanks. > > John S Gwynne > Gwynne.1@xxx.edu >_______________________________________________________________________________ > T h e O h i o - S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y > ElectroScience Laboratory, 1320 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA > Telephone: (614) 292-7981 * Fax: (614) 292-7297 >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > George M. Dailey gmd@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: "John S. Gwynne" Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 10:41:59 -0400 Subject: [admin] list service restored - -------- Coulomb suffered a disk failure which had interrupted the list service. We should be back up now. The archive at http://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu has he official archive. Check there if you feel you have lost some of the posts. John S Gwynne Gwynne.1@xxx.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ T h e O h i o - S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ElectroScience Laboratory, 1320 Kinnear Road, Columbus, Ohio 43212, USA Telephone: (614) 292-7981 * Fax: (614) 292-7297 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Aron Travis Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 12:26:18 -0700 Subject: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Is there any particular better place to plumb in a fuel return line to a stock gas tank? Above or below the average fuel line, top/bottom, submerged/not, etc. - -Aron Travis- "always in a automotive frenzy" ------------------------------ From: Greg Woods Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:26:01 -0500 Subject: O2 sensor mounting I have an exhaust manifold that does not have a tapped hole for an O2 sensor but their is what looks to be like a spot that is tapped out when this manifold was used on FI type engines. Does anyone know what is involved in tapping an O2 sensor hole? I think I read somewhere that you can't just drill it and tap it with a normal tap because of sealing issues between the sensor and the manifold once the assembly gets up to temp. Has anyone done anything like this? Any and all comments welcome! TIA Greg Woods gwoods@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Frank Swygert Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 21:47:53 -0400 Subject: Re: efi fuel tank baffle James Weiler wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, John S. Gwynne wrote: > > > I have a 22 gal stainless steal "regular" gas tank. I intend to add a > > few internal baffle plates to reduce the amount fuel slosh as the tank > > nears empty. I would like some comments and suggestion as to what > > might work best (geometry, orientation, sizes....). Thanks. > > Ohhh.. damn good question!! I'm interested too. First does anybody have > an info on how much of a problem this really is? > jw I'll second that! I'm new to the group. I have two main interests: installing a fuel injected engine (specifically a Jeep 2.5L four or preferrably a 4.0L six) in my 1963 Rambler, or converting a standard carb 258 six (AMC/Jeep) to a throttle body type injection (direct port would be nice, but TBI probably easier). I never considered the gas tank as a possible problem, though I did know I'd need a special fuel pump. To add to this, Holley and another company (can't remember off the top of my head right now!) both make add-on TBI units. I have considered one of these, but write a small magazine on Motorola based computers (6809 and 68K... mainly OS-9 real-time OS), and the idea of building my own system has its own lure. Point is, neither of these kits mention anything about gas tank modifications. I guess one would experience some pressure loss near empty, but I have that with my 87 Pontiac 6000! Park it on an incline while less than 1/8 tank and it may not start!! Frank Swygert farna@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: Ron Madurski Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:26:09 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting : : :I have an exhaust manifold that does not have a tapped hole :for an O2 sensor but their is what looks to be like a spot :that is tapped out when this manifold was used on FI type :engines. : :Does anyone know what is involved in tapping an :O2 sensor hole? I think I read somewhere that you can't just drill :it and tap it with a normal tap because of sealing issues :between the sensor and the manifold once the assembly gets :up to temp. Has anyone done anything like this? : I got a boss for the O2 sensor from a speed shop and had it welded in to my existing header. :Any and all comments welcome! :TIA : :Greg Woods :gwoods@xxx.com : : - -- Ron Madurski rmadursk@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 14:53:54 +0000 Subject: Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing >Is there any particular better place to plumb in a fuel return line >to a stock gas tank? >Above or below the average fuel line, top/bottom, submerged/not, etc. soldered "U" shaped 3/8" brake line into the metal neck on my Bronco (pack that sucker with salt or sugar and then bend it around a piece of pipe or something with the radius you want -- then you can dissolve the filler with hot water, and no little pieces hang around like with sand) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Michael Manry Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting O2 sensors are 18 X 1.5 mm thread and use a crush washer like some spark plugs. You can buy a weld-on boss from Jeg's or Summit but it would have to go on the exhaust pipe itself and not the cast iron manifold. Mike M. ShadeTree Racing On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Ron Madurski wrote: > : > : > :I have an exhaust manifold that does not have a tapped hole > :for an O2 sensor but their is what looks to be like a spot > :that is tapped out when this manifold was used on FI type > :engines. > : > :Does anyone know what is involved in tapping an > :O2 sensor hole? I think I read somewhere that you can't just drill > :it and tap it with a normal tap because of sealing issues > :between the sensor and the manifold once the assembly gets > :up to temp. Has anyone done anything like this? > : > > I got a boss for the O2 sensor from a speed shop and had it welded in to > my existing header. > > :Any and all comments welcome! > :TIA > : > :Greg Woods > :gwoods@xxx.com > : > : > > > -- > Ron Madurski > rmadursk@xxx.com > ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 15:25:08 +0000 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes I wrote: >> >> I've "found" a list of op-codes for the 8063. The processor >> in the eec-iv is supposed to be an 8061 -- don't know the >> difference --- anybody out there know ? >> >> actually, what I have are mnemonics only, no definitions >> or machine code -- could use some help here ...... and then Mike wrote: > >Um, the 8063 never made it to production as far as I know. Somebody >snuck that info out of Intel(Toshiba/Motorola) or Ford. I'd be a bit >wary of using information like that. Ford thought I was and it cost me a >buttload of money to prove I wasn't. They watch these lists. to which I respond: - first, it is my understanding that the newer Ford ECM's now use the 8063 instead of the 8061 (I've also noticed that the mnemonics for the 8061/3 are a good bit different from the 8096; the interrupt vectors are different; and I understand the pinouts and port designators are different) - second, the info I posted I found by being very persistent. If someone snuck it out of wherever, I didn't do it and I don't know about it - third, I'm not looking to compete or profit by any of this information ..... I think all or most of us already OWN these units and we just want to know how they work !! - fourth, mnemonics can be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean that they can't be published -- I just can't use them to build my own processor (besides, the mnemonics are so standard, I don't see how they could even be copyrighted, and "trade secrets" aren't covered by any patent, copyright or trademark protections) - in the same vein as the above, the "Harvard architecture" can't be copyrighted or patented -- it is the standard architecture we are familiar with for the confuzers of today -- op-codes, registers, memory, addressing modes, etc - you can't patent or copyright op-codes (i.e. numbers) -- that's how AMD is able to make the 80486 but can't make a "Pentium" - you can't be prevented from "reverse engineering" something you own (and I don't know the current status of the legal maneuver that says you're only "leasing" something you bought, but I suspect it's been thrown out by the courts) - you CAN stop someone from using your ideas (that you've copyrighted, trademarked or patented) "against" you or to make a profit -- i.e., as I understand, I could build a copy of an eec-iv or a macintosh computer for myself if I wanted to (I could not "copy" their software, however, as it's covered by copyrights -- but if its modified 20% or more I can) - BTW, are you familiar with "Sams PhotoFacts"?? Back in the forties and fifties, all electronics mfgrs kept their schematics secret, so no one could work on anything. Howard W. Sam (think that was his name) started taking radios and TV sets and reverse engineering the schematics, parts lists and signal levels so they could be worked on. He sold those (still does) to repair shops. Don't know if he got sued, but he probably did. Obviously, he must've won! Obviously, it can't be illegal to reverse engineer schematics (or op-codes) for that matter. I know that some companies try to say that it's illegal to reverse engineer their software -- even put that in their license agreements, but I don't believe it's enforcable (???). ********************** - and lastly, all the above (and any following) statements are mine alone and are probably a bunch of uninformed crap ;-) ********************** [I understand why Ford hides its code, but I don't understand why they keep the data about the hardware secret. They could make quite a bundle with people buying eec units to run their vehicle's engine (why not make them usable as an after-market sort-of add-on??>) -- and even then, if people cracked their code, the market shows that that doesn't necessarily hurt them. Yeah, it gives the competition access to their investment in development, but I'll bet the competition already has their code, and vice-versa. I can get schematics for the radio and I can get data on virtually everything else on the car, so why not the ecu? How is revealing ALL the details of the eec going to impact Ford at all? I guarantee you GM and the other competitors already have all the data about it they want -- this is not a new product we're trying to figure out. If we're successful, I think it'd actually make Ford some money (though an insignificant amount in comparison to their other sales).] Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Chris Cleeland Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 16:38:52 -0500 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Cloud writes: Tom> [I understand why Ford hides its code, but I don't understand Tom> why they keep the data about the hardware secret. [...] Tom> I'll bet the competition already has their code, and Tom> vice-versa. I can get schematics for the radio and I can get Tom> data on virtually everything else on the car, so why not the Tom> ecu? How is revealing ALL the details of the eec going to Tom> impact Ford at all? I suspect that, from the perspective you place, revealing these details would likely not impact Ford negatively, especially since this is a dead product now (no new ones being produced, right)? Tom> I guarantee you GM and the other competitors already have all Tom> the data about it they want -- this is not a new product Tom> we're trying to figure out. If we're successful, I think Tom> it'd actually make Ford some money (though an insignificant Tom> amount in comparison to their other sales).] I would bet there are two issues that prevent them from doing what you want: * Cost of support: it costs money to create documentation, proof it, keep it correct, etc. You (probably correctly) state that Ford won't make much money off this deal, so where's the benefit to Ford of doing this? * Fear of liability: there are many EEC-IV cars trekkin' in the US and abroad. What if somebody looked at all the info and said "hey, there's this giant bug in here that Ford is ignoring!" You and I both know the ambulance-chasing lawyers would have a hayday with that, bring a class-action suit, which Ford would have to defend, etc. Plus, I sincerely doubt that all the information you want is documented anywhere except in some engineer's notes or, worse, some engineer's head. Working in the software industry has shown me that unless regulations exist REQUIRING this level of documentation, eventually corners WILL be cut and code is blown whose only docs are in the brain of the author. If the two issues above are the only things holding the company back from releasing the information, it is often possible to obtain the information on a case-by-case basis simply by signing some non-disclosure legal forms. I don't know how one would go about doing that within the colossus of Ford Corporate, but maybe some Ford people could tell you. Just my perspective, - -cj - -- Chris Cleeland, cleeland@xxx.edu/~cleeland/ Associate Researcher, Washington University Dept. of Computer Science "Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads." ------------------------------ From: Mark Eidson Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 14:53:00 PDT Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting Text item: I took my cast iron manifold to my machine shop and they drilled a hole for the standard mounting boss and welded it into the hole for $20.00. me ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: O2 sensor mounting Author: owner-diy_efi-outgoing@xxx.edu at SMTPGATE Date: 6/4/97 12:26 PM I have an exhaust manifold that does not have a tapped hole for an O2 sensor but their is what looks to be like a spot that is tapped out when this manifold was used on FI type engines. Does anyone know what is involved in tapping an O2 sensor hole? I think I read somewhere that you can't just drill it and tap it with a normal tap because of sealing issues between the sensor and the manifold once the assembly gets up to temp. Has anyone done anything like this? Any and all comments welcome! TIA Greg Woods gwoods@xxx.com Text item: External Message Header The following mail header is for administrative use and may be ignored unless there are problems. ***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***. Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Precedence: bulk Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Encoding: 16 TEXT Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:26:01 -0500 Subject: O2 sensor mounting To: "'diy_efi@xxx.edu'" From: Greg Woods Message-Id: <01BC70E2.97F7CAD0@LOCUTUS> Received: by LOCUTUS with Microsoft Mail id <01BC70E2.97F7CAD0@LOCUTUS>; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:26:57 -0500 Received: from [38.242.16.38] by gateway.symtx.com with SMTP (1.38.193.4/16.2) id AA15988; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 12:25:12 -0500 Received: from gateway.symtx.com by coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu via SMTP (940816. SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) for id NAA01311; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 13:29 :39 -0400 Received: by coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu (940816.SGI.8.6.9/940406.SGI) for diy_efi-outgoing id RAA01316; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:29:44 GMT Received: from coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu by thalia.fm.intel.com (8.8.4/10.0i); Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:47:11 GMT Received: from thalia.fm.intel.com (thalia.fm.intel.com [132.233.247.11]) by fmm ail.fm.intel.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA24993 for ; Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: owner-diy_efi-outgoing@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:34:08 +0000 Subject: 8096 / 8061 machine code, etc the 8096 and the 8061/3 mnemonics have been posted to the list -- the 8096 in some detail. Now, the 8061 set needs to be fleshed out with registers, flags, etc affected and the actual machine code for each needs to be determined. Who wants to head up that committee ?? Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 19:09:42 -0400 Subject: RE: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Aron, It really shouldn't matter since the engine's fuel return is typically higher than the tank... the gas is pushed back due to the regulator allowing the additional pressure out of the F.I. fuel rail, so its forced back just fine. Most production cars run the fuel line to and from the tank on the same side of the car, on the inside of the frame. Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut On Wednesday, June 04, 1997 3:26 PM, Aron Travis [SMTP:atravis@xxx.net] wrote: > Is there any particular better place to plumb in a fuel return line > to a stock gas tank? > Above or below the average fuel line, top/bottom, submerged/not, etc. > -Aron Travis- > "always in a automotive frenzy" ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:10:00 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting - -> plugs. You can buy a weld-on boss from Jeg's or Summit but it would - -> have to go on the exhaust pipe itself and not the cast iron manifold. The simplest method is to buy a "non-fouler" from the local parts store for $1.50 or so, drill out the bottom, and weld it in. Much cheaper than the special bungs. ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 19:40:27 -0400 Subject: RE: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Hey Tom... > - you can't patent or copyright op-codes (i.e. numbers) -- that's > how AMD is able to make the 80486 but can't make a "Pentium" Exactly :) > - you can't be prevented from "reverse engineering" something > you own (and I don't know the current status of the legal > maneuver that says you're only "leasing" something you bought, > but I suspect it's been thrown out by the courts) I used to be in outside sales for a NJ-based computer store in the late 80's, mostly selling to corporate accounts in Northern NJ, Rockland County, NY, and NYC. A particular giant Japanese electronics firm (which moved into NJ back in the early 80's) used to to be a constant source of entertainment. Every time a competitor came out with a new laptop, luggable PC, or something remotely similar, they'd come in with corporate credit cards and buy three of each :). Good for commissions :) Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 19:51:10 -0400 Subject: RE: GM ALDL codes & questions > It should be all wired up by Wednesday if time alots. Unfortunately, I > have just started a new job and have been travelling and training, so , > with all of that I have not had much time to finish but this week should > be the week. Once It's put together I am going to test it in my 87 Park > Avenue. Also, once I test it I will post all results I have as a reply > to this message. Hey Mark! How did you make out might I ask? Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 19:48:46 -0400 Subject: RE: 8061 / 8063 op-codes > * Cost of support: it costs money to create documentation, proof it, > keep it correct, etc. You (probably correctly) state that Ford > won't make much money off this deal, so where's the benefit to Ford > of doing this? Howdy CJ... I would imagine Ford would ::have:: to have accurate documentation in order to revamp and improve the units over time. Of course, if its like any other fortune XXX company, in all likelyhood, its a large amount of post-its spread across three cubicles . > * Fear of liability: there are many EEC-IV cars trekkin' in the US > and abroad. What if somebody looked at all the info and said "hey, > there's this giant bug in here that Ford is ignoring!" You and I I think its more of a support issue... consider this. 1. Ford sells a lot of "cookie cutter" cars. Seemingly millions? Well, its more than #2 below. 2. Lets assume everyone on this list wants to move to EEC-IV fuel injection. Lets also be kind and assume we represent about 3% of the FI population who would want to do this. That results in about 200 /.03 = 60,000 units sold max. For Ford to publish pretty documentation and develop a global marketing strategy, probably wouldn't be worth the effort. Of course I'm making up numbers here, just to make a point, but the idea is sound. The have perfected the art of mass-production vehicles, just as Chrysler and GM have. Its in the numbers these days. > If the two issues above are the only things holding the company back > from releasing the information, it is often possible to obtain the > information on a case-by-case basis simply by signing some > non-disclosure legal forms. This be true... and most companies larger than a breadbox will consider this, especially if a fee is paid. > I don't know how one would go about doing > that within the colossus of Ford Corporate, but maybe some Ford people > could tell you. I'd start by calling the Ford Regional offices, which have 800 numbers across the US at least... start from there! Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Graham Hughes Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 10:12:57 +1000 Subject: efi problem Could you give me some ideas on a problem on a XF Ford 4.1 efi manufactured 9/1987 using BOSCH EEC-1V injection. The car up to now has been running well with normal maintenance. Then it started to consume heaps of fuel and blowing black smoke like an untuned diesel. Took the car to Ford for investigation and they said it must be the injectors need cleaning...this was done and the car was worse. Ford said and was confirmed by a second injection specialist that all the voltage inputs to the computer were correct and so the computer was replaced but to no avail. The injectors should open between 2-10mS but on mine the minimium is 4mS. It appears to me to be an input telling the computer to enrichen the fuel mixture.......as the injectors are directly connected to the output of the computer. Checking all wiring and vacuum tubes now. After that I guess I'm lost. Would be very thankful for any idears Graham Hughes Australia hughesy@xxx.au > ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Hey, did everyone get a copy of the o2 sensor fooler? Maybe it was a victim of the listserv failure, I mailed out the schematic as a .gif @ 15kb or so. Did anyone get it? If not, I'll repost it Seth ------------------------------ From: Fred Miranda Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 20:41:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting What's a 'non fouler"? I just picked up an 18mm nut from the hardware store today for my new downpipe. Can't get much simpler than that. Fred At 06:10 PM 6/4/97 -0500, you wrote: > The simplest method is to buy a "non-fouler" from the local parts store >for $1.50 or so, drill out the bottom, and weld it in. Much cheaper >than the special bungs. > > > ------------------------------ From: "Jeffrey Engel" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 19:48:50 +600 Subject: Re: efi problem Graham, I had a similar problem when I replaced my engine. Ran OK, then started blowing black smoke, etc. In my case the fuel pressure regulator was bad. My guess is (I returned the unit so no disection was possible): trash from the fuel line (new) plugged the return line and the fuel pressure went out of sight. It doesn't have anything to do with inject times, but you didn't mention measuring fuel pressure. . . Good luck! > From: Graham Hughes > Could you give me some ideas on a problem on a XF Ford 4.1 efi > manufactured 9/1987 using BOSCH EEC-1V injection. > The car up to now has been running well with normal maintenance. > Then it started to consume heaps of fuel and blowing black smoke like > an untuned diesel. > Took the car to Ford for investigation and they said it must be the > injectors need cleaning...this was done and the car was worse. > Ford said and was confirmed by a second injection specialist that all > the voltage inputs to the computer were correct and so the computer was > replaced but to no avail. > The injectors should open between 2-10mS but on mine the minimium is > 4mS. > It appears to me to be an input telling the computer to enrichen the > fuel mixture.......as the injectors are directly connected to the output > of the computer. Checking all wiring and vacuum tubes now. > After that I guess I'm lost. > > Would be very thankful for any idears > > Graham Hughes > > Australia > > hughesy@xxx.au je jengel@xxx.net "I can resist anything but temptation" Mark Twain ------------------------------ From: Mark Romans Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 19:15:57 -0700 Subject: Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Seth Allen wrote: > > Hey, did everyone get a copy of the o2 sensor fooler? Maybe it was a > victim of the listserv failure, I mailed out the schematic as a .gif @ > 15kb or so. > > Did anyone get it? > > If not, I'll repost it > > Seth Hi Seth, It looks great! Now I just have to figure out how to have the ecm control it using a map of throttle position and rpm! Mark. ------------------------------ From: Webb Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 18:24:34 -0800 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Chris Cleeland wrote: > > >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Cloud writes: > > Tom> [I understand why Ford hides its code, but I don't understand > Tom> why they keep the data about the hardware secret. [...] > Tom> I'll bet the competition already has their code, and > Tom> vice-versa. I can get schematics for the radio and I can get > Tom> data on virtually everything else on the car, so why not the > Tom> ecu? How is revealing ALL the details of the eec going to > Tom> impact Ford at all? > > I suspect that, from the perspective you place, revealing these > details would likely not impact Ford negatively, especially since this > is a dead product now (no new ones being produced, right)? > > Tom> I guarantee you GM and the other competitors already have all > Tom> the data about it they want -- this is not a new product > Tom> we're trying to figure out. If we're successful, I think > Tom> it'd actually make Ford some money (though an insignificant > Tom> amount in comparison to their other sales).] > > I would bet there are two issues that prevent them from doing what you > want: > * Cost of support: it costs money to create documentation, proof it, > keep it correct, etc. You (probably correctly) state that Ford > won't make much money off this deal, so where's the benefit to Ford > of doing this? > * Fear of liability: there are many EEC-IV cars trekkin' in the US > and abroad. What if somebody looked at all the info and said "hey, > there's this giant bug in here that Ford is ignoring!" You and I > both know the ambulance-chasing lawyers would have a hayday with > that, bring a class-action suit, which Ford would have to defend, > etc. > > Plus, I sincerely doubt that all the information you want is > documented anywhere except in some engineer's notes or, worse, some > engineer's head. Working in the software industry has shown me that > unless regulations exist REQUIRING this level of documentation, > eventually corners WILL be cut and code is blown whose only docs are > in the brain of the author. > > If the two issues above are the only things holding the company back > from releasing the information, it is often possible to obtain the > information on a case-by-case basis simply by signing some > non-disclosure legal forms. I don't know how one would go about doing > that within the colossus of Ford Corporate, but maybe some Ford people > could tell you. > > Just my perspective, > -cj > > -- > Chris Cleeland, cleeland@xxx.edu/~cleeland/ > Associate Researcher, Washington University Dept. of Computer Science > "Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads." I'm not familiar with the "8061" - are you sure you don't mean the "8051" instead. That is a standard microcontroller that has been around for 200 years or so. The date on the die - viewed through the quartz window with a microscope is 1979. Anyway - complete documentation for the 8051/8096 and many later generation derivatives - is available on the "Siemens" web page - they'll even send a CD ROM for free. Ron ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #190 ***************************** 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".