DIY_EFI Digest Friday, 6 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 192 In this issue: Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: O2 sensor mounting Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Need Information Re: efi problem Re: Need Information Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Generic PID controller Re: Generic PID controller Re: Generic PID controller Nissan 300 ZX Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Re: Nissan 300 ZX Re: Nissan 300 ZX Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes FW: Generic PID controller See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ben C. Wong" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:41:24 +0800 Subject: Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Hi Seth, Yes...I got it and Thank You for your effort Benjamin At 06:06 PM 6/4/97 -0700, you 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 > > ------------------------------ From: Mike Wesley Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 07:47:43 -0400 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Tom Cloud wrote: > > 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 > 8065. I remember seeing documents about the 8063, but the part never came about as far as I know. > (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) Yeah, some big differences. To this day, Ford says it's impossible to figure out the 8061/65 without some inside information. > > - 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 Doesn't matter. The data was never published to where the general public can get to it. Everything was done internal to Ford and/or it's suppliers. Ford was somewhat pi$$ed when I told them I had seen some Intel ads for the 8096 where they referenced the Ford EEC-IV and that's where I got my start reverse engineering the thing. From what they told me (true or not, don't know), it's like if you bought a laptop from someone. Cops come by and say it was stolen, you didn't know about it, you still have the potential for trouble. > > - 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) Not sure. We didn't get into all of that. > > - 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" Yup. > > - 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) Right. This was the basis of most of my case. I reverse engineer EVERYTHING. All of my friends always kid me about not having the covers to any electronic device I have. The circuits are always exposed. (in fact I probably couldn't find 90% of the screws I took out of all of this stuff!). I go through batteries in my DMM like water. Test probes on my logic analyzer only last a few months. Reverse engineering is totaly legal. One tricky part about the EEC is (and we fought somewhat over ownership of the thing), is you cannot dump the EEC legally. Once a copy is made (to your hard drive, to RAM in your PC, to a buffer box, whatever...) you've broken the law. Now who owns the EEC your trying to dump..you or Ford. You bought the car, or the EEC from another source. Law says you can make a backup of software. Isn't there software inside the EEC? Yes. What can you do with this backup? Nothing. We went round and round for awhile on this and got nowhere. Ford's pockets were MUCH deeper than mine. I could have fought them on this one and won, but at what cost. When your in Federal Court, who is right and who is wrong comes down to who has the most money. A company with a big bankroll can 'win' even if they are totaly wrong. What they do is drag it out legally until you cannot afford the fight anymore. I won't say how much it cost me...6 figures for sure. Money I didn't (still don't) have. > > - 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) You sure can. We didn't get into the 20% thing as I was just doing data (which is NOT copyrightable). Ford did say they 'might' try to get data in the EEC-V copyrighted. Not sure it will fly, but they were pretty ticked at my for even thinking of doing EEC-V equippped vehicles. They do put a copyright notice in the data section of the EEC-V. > > - 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 (???). I sure am. I have Photofacts for all kinds of things around here. I started drawing PS/2 schematics before Sam's or anyone else had them available. IBM was a bit upset. We were using them for internal use..to repair PS/2's. IBM gave very little information about the hardware itself. Most of the computer was filled with PAL's and custon IC's with IBM part #'s. I spent months hacking them apart and developed some pretty detailed schematics of the entire PS/2 line. A year or so later, SAM's had some schematics of the smaller models (full of errors which they later fixed). I think at that time, GTE was the only company IBM wanted repairing them. A friend of mine came up with a way to use an off the shelf hard drive to replace the ultra-expensive IBM models (which were off the shelf drives with some code stuck in a EEPROM that the BIOS looked for). IBM was not happy about that either. Allthough they didn't threaten a lawsuit or anything, we 'paid' for it. > > ********************** > > - 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).] > They don't see it the way you and I do. They are not in the business of selling EEC's, just cars. They spent untold amounts of money developing this stuff. One message had said something about bugs in the Ford code. They do exists. I've found some rather useful ones. There could possibly be things in there that Ford doesn't want anyone to know about...like the EPA. Companies have been caught before putting checks in thier code looking for FTP cycles and modifying the engine when they detect the EPA drive cycle. I remember a company who got caught with a subroutine that looked for the car being driven with the door open (which is how you used to have to do an FTP cycle to be able to acess the cell computer). If Ford has something like that in thier code, they wouldn't want anyone to know about it. I had told Ford what I am doing INCREASES their potential for sales. They didn't see it that way. Liability, warranty, things like that is all they would talk about. I got into warranty on their transmissions. The way they slip them, it burns them up. I decrease the slippage and increase the life of the trans (been proven by police fleets I work on). They still didn't see it that way. I probably know more about the EEC than most of Ford (that probably didn't sound too good). Ford says the EEC in a Mustang is good for 7300 RPM..PERIOD. They say that over that RPM, the EEC runs out of time. Wrong. We just got one to go 8000 RPM successfully. They way I get into the EEC, I learn it's little quirks and how it works from the hardware level up. I drew schematics of their EECs, their MAF sensor, their DIS and EDIS controllers, all kinds of things. This is all I do all day(and night) long. But I still constantly look out my window to see if someone is following me again, tapping my phone lines, whatever. I don't talk about things Ford might say are proprietary. I know the 8061 instruction set as well as the 8065. I know how the code works. I wrote my own disassembler (not planning an assembler..but who knows). I learned all this stuff the hard way. Years of poking at the thing. I also know I do not want to be back in Federal Court defending myself again. Doesn't matter if I'm right or not, it costs ALOT of money either way. Ford (well the lawyers they had) told me when I was agruing my case with them, that they could go on for years and outspend me to death. That's true, very true and very common. They have to protect whatever rights they feel they have and will do it. Just about everything you said is true (legal stuff, copyrights...). I don't want to 'scare' anyone away from reverse engineering the thing. I did it and it's fun. What I'm trying to do is warn people of things I went through. That was not fun. Be careful of what you say and where you get information. But keep at it. I'll help where I can. Mike... ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 06:47:00 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting - -> I just picked up an 18mm nut from the hardware store today for my new - -> downpipe. Can't get much simpler than that. Driving several hundred miles to a hardware store that had metric nuts would be a hassle, though. Metrics in hardware stores. It is to laugh... When I need metric fasteners I call a friend in Colorado, where every hardware store seems to carry an enormous supply. He then mails them to me... ------------------------------ From: scicior@xxx.com (Steve Ciciora) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 06:58:14 -0600 Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting At the local Checker Autoparts, they have a 'Help!' rack full of stuff, like springs, clips, knobs, etc. They also have 'Spark Plug anti'fouler' adaptors. The plug screws into the adaptor, the adaptor into the head. I cut them in half, grind off the plating, drill a hole in the exhaust pipe, and weld it in. Put an old spark plug in first to help prevent it from warping. Steven Ciciora > : > > :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: Justin Albury Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 23:31:50 -0700 Subject: Re: O2 sensor mounting Dave Williams wrote: > > -> I just picked up an 18mm nut from the hardware store today for my new > -> downpipe. Can't get much simpler than that. > > Driving several hundred miles to a hardware store that had metric nuts > would be a hassle, though. > > Metrics in hardware stores. It is to laugh... > > When I need metric fasteners I call a friend in Colorado, where every > hardware store seems to carry an enormous supply. He then mails them to > me... > ummmmmm i love AUSTRALIA.......metric.....AF.....BSA......WITWORTH....what ever ya need one can almost get it anywhere.... Juz! ------------------------------ From: dzorde@xxx.com (dzorde) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing I used one of the air vent lines on the tank, was in the top front corner, and this works great. Dan dzorde@xxx.com >>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: Wilkrod@xxx.com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:55:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes I have run into the same situation with Robert Bosch co. I requested schematics for the ecu in my Esprit Turbo. I was given a very stern lecture on how those documents are proprietary, and would only be available to authorized service centers. These companies should be aware that they only piss off their customers when they assume these attitudes. I am an engineer by profession, and I always encourage others to review my designs, to hopefully find ways to improve on what I've done. Well I'm done venting. Have fun out there. Jeff ------------------------------ From: dzorde@xxx.com (dzorde) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 07:50:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Return Fuel Line Plumbing I had a similar problem with my surge tank, this is only a small tank (about 5L), and the fuel returned into this while being constantly recirculated into the main tank from the low pressure feed pump. However, on hot days when spending time stuck in traffic, the fuel in the surge tank would heat up so much that you could actually hear it start to make that boiling bubbling sound, and every time I'd fill up the car there would be lots of water droplets on the inside of the petrol cap and filler neck (not a nice thing to have), had to use lots of water dispersant in the fuel to get rid of the water in the tank. Ended up fixing the problem by adding the biggest Dayco oil cooler I could get into the engine fuel return line as a fuel cooler. The fuel is now nice and cool by the time it is returned to the surge tank. Dan dzorde@xxx.com > One thing I'd like to mention about fi return fuel lines- I had a >wierd problem where my air- cooled VW bus would 'skip' in power on really >hot days when I had less than a 1/4 tank full. Turned out there was a >leak in my cooling tins, blowing hot air on the metal fuel rail. >Presumably the fuel got warm, and not having a lot of cool gas in the >tank to dillute it, warm enough to create vaperous bubbles that leaned >out the mixture, made the engine run hotter...etc. > Most of you obviously won't see that bad a problem, but fuel must be >alowed to cool(dumped back into the main tank)- or never be alowed to get >heated(insulated fuel lines). Just something to keep in mind if anyone is >thinking about an auxillary tank. > >Mario T. >mailto:Freshmar@xxx.com-----'76 VW Camper FI A/T,,'79 Fiat X1/9 > > > >----------geoboundary-- > ------------------------------ From: Wilkrod@xxx.com Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:58:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? Hi Seth I got the schematic, going to build it this weekend for use on my Lotus. Thanks Jeff ------------------------------ From: Yustinus Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:37:59 -0700 Subject: Need Information Hi all, I want to learn a Electronic Fuel Injection. I need more informations detail for single or multi port injections and ignition, What is microcontroller used ? How they worked ? if you have the book about Design Electronic Fuel Injection, include Hardware and Software, would you please tell me. Thanks for your attention, please email me back. Regards, yustinus@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: dzorde@xxx.com (dzorde) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 08:05:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: efi problem Check your fuel pressure, then check your temp sensor. If this has a bad connection or is stuffed, the unit may be running on permanent cold enrichment, this could explain why the injector pulses are longer than what they should be. Dan dzorde@xxx.com >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: "steve ravet" Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 10:54:47 +0000 Subject: Re: Need Information > Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 00:37:59 -0700 > From: Yustinus > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Need Information > Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Hi all, > I want to learn a Electronic Fuel Injection. I need more > informations detail for single or multi port injections and > ignition, What is microcontroller used ? How they worked ? if you > have the book about Design Electronic Fuel Injection, include > Hardware and Software, would you please tell me. > > Thanks for your attention, please email me back. Look on the DIY_EFI www page, the latest version of the EFI reference list is there. It lists a bunch of books, dealing with everything from combustion fundamentals, to the specifics of Bosch, GM, or other EFI systems. Actually, it's not the very latest. The very latest is stuck on a backup tape that I can't read anymore... - --steve > > Regards, > yustinus@xxx.com > > ------------------------------ From: Alain Toussaint Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 12:16:31 -0400 Subject: Re: did eveyone get the o2 sensor fooler? no,i did not received it !! 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 ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 17:39:54 +0100 Subject: Generic PID controller Howdy Guys, can anyone out there help me source the following Gizmo? I need a generic PID controller which is required to control fuel rail pressure via a PWM modulated pressure regulator (about 2-3A at 100%). The input is a 0-5V ratiometric pressure sensor. It is mobile therefore needs to be powered by the standard 12V auto electrical system. The main requirements (apart from the above) are: - I don't want to develop hardware or software, just wire it and tune the PID constants - similar in size and power consumption to an ECU - low(ish) cost - off the shelf - prefer digital, analogue at a pinch. Can anyone point me in a good direction? TIA Andrew Rabbitt PS: I hope this makes sense, this 'spec' was written off the top of my head in about 1 min! ------------------------------ From: Kurt Bilinski Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:13:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Generic PID controller At 05:39 PM 6/5/97 +0100, you wrote: >Howdy Guys, > >can anyone out there help me source the following Gizmo? > >I need a generic PID controller which is required to control fuel rail >pressure via a PWM modulated pressure regulator (about 2-3A at 100%). >The input is a 0-5V ratiometric pressure sensor. It is mobile therefore >needs to be powered by the standard 12V auto electrical system. The >main requirements (apart from the above) are: I think more information is required. Why not use a mechanical regulator? Curious, Kurt ------------------------------ From: Ric Rainbolt Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 15:04:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Generic PID controller >I need a generic PID controller which is required to control fuel rail >pressure via a PWM modulated pressure regulator (about 2-3A at 100%). >The input is a 0-5V ratiometric pressure sensor. It is mobile therefore >needs to be powered by the standard 12V auto electrical system. The >main requirements (apart from the above) are: Tell me more about this PWM controlled pressure regulator. I need this for a non-automotive project. How much and where can I get one? Thanks, Ric Rainbolt ------------------------------ From: Roy Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:19:07 +0100 Subject: Nissan 300 ZX Hi There to all I am working with my Nissan 300ZX and want to remap some of the fuel and ignition settings having raised the boost pressure and fitted a larger intercooler. The module is a JECS unit that has two processors, both are 68 pin devices one marked with " HD63C03YCP" the other " HD63140CP". The Rom I have replaced with a 256 Eprom so as I can Access the code. Does anybody have any idea who manufactures these processors and any software that can help with the remapping. Thanks Roy. ------------------------------ From: Roy Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:33:43 +0100 Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes Tom Cloud wrote: > > 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 The processor used is the 8065 along with several supporting peripheral chips like the DUCE chip which can provide up to 8 PWM outputs and the DARC chip which has 6 channels of timer capture inputs. This control unit is more suited to a history class than modern engine management systems. All of the functions within the EEC apart from the actual power drivers are now found within the micro controller such as the 68332 and 336. ------------------------------ From: marchildon@xxx.net Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 20:13:45 -0400 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 No please send me one Thank's // marchildon@xxx.net // // Alain Marchildon // ------------------------------ From: Frank Swygert Date: Thu, 05 Jun 1997 21:06:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Nissan 300 ZX Roy wrote: > > Hi There to all > > I am working with my Nissan 300ZX and want to remap some of the fuel and > ignition settings having raised the boost pressure and fitted a larger > intercooler. > > The module is a JECS unit that has two processors, both are 68 pin > devices one marked with " HD63C03YCP" the other " HD63140CP". The Rom I > have replaced with a 256 Eprom so as I can Access the code. > > Does anybody have any idea who manufactures these processors and any > software that can help with the remapping. > > Thanks Roy. The 63xxx processors are Hitachi manufactured clones of Motorola 68xxx parts. Hitachi is the source for most Motorola CMOS parts. The HD63 means it is an Hitachi manufactured MC68 equivalent. Programming and pinout should be the same as the Motorola MC6803 and 68140. The "C" at the end means it is a CMOS part (static sensitive!). The P stands for "Plastic" packaging. The C in the middle of the 63C03 means it is a 3MHz part (6803 is 1MHz, 68A03 1.5MHz, 68B03 2MHz, and the C 3MHz). After the little stir when Hitachi "improved" the 6809 (6309 is exact compatible, but also has some extra registers and other goodies built in, unauthorized by Motorola! Hitachi didn't change the dies, but was "gagged" by Motorola and couldn't publish anything about the extra features. But the info eventually was "leaked" in Japan and later found its way here. I'm a 6809 machine user, and have an opsys that takes advantage of all the extras in real time... makes quite a speed difference!), I doubt Hitachi made any changes. Get programming info from Motorola web sites. ------------------------------ From: Orin Eman Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 19:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Nissan 300 ZX > The 63xxx processors are Hitachi manufactured clones of Motorola 68xxx > parts. Hitachi is the source for most Motorola CMOS parts. The HD63 > means it is an Hitachi manufactured MC68 equivalent. Programming and > pinout should be the same as the Motorola MC6803 and 68140. The "C" at > the end means it is a CMOS part (static sensitive!). The P stands for > "Plastic" packaging. The C in the middle of the 63C03 means it is a 3MHz > part (6803 is 1MHz, 68A03 1.5MHz, 68B03 2MHz, and the C 3MHz). After the I have an Excel spreadsheet for the opcodes of the 6303. I was under the impression that it isn't the same as the 6803 and has some extra instructions too. Orin. ------------------------------ From: Carter Hendricks Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 21:25:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 8061 / 8063 op-codes On Thu, 5 Jun 1997 Wilkrod@xxx.com wrote: > I have run into the same situation with Robert Bosch co. I requested > schematics for the ecu in my Esprit Turbo. I was given a very stern lecture > on how those documents are proprietary, and would only be available to > authorized service centers. Jeff-- You might be lucky. When I've tried to get info from Bosch, they've given me answers, which were false. Other questions were forwarded to Stuttgart, then unanswered. Ever read any Kafka? --Carter ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:05:33 +0100 Subject: FW: Generic PID controller > ---------- > From: Kurt Bilinski[SMTP:kurt.bilinski@xxx.COM] > Sent: 05 June 1997 19:13 > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Generic PID controller > > At 05:39 PM 6/5/97 +0100, you wrote: > >Howdy Guys, > > > >can anyone out there help me source the following Gizmo? > > > >I need a generic PID controller which is required to control fuel > rail > >pressure via a PWM modulated pressure regulator (about 2-3A at 100%). > >The input is a 0-5V ratiometric pressure sensor. It is mobile > therefore > >needs to be powered by the standard 12V auto electrical system. The > >main requirements (apart from the above) are: > > > I think more information is required. Why not use a mechanical > regulator? > This is a mechanical regulator in a sense, it's just that the pressure set-point is electrically (PWM) modulated, from 0.35 to 12 MPa. (50-1750 psi). It's for a gasoline direct injection (GDI) system and is made by Bosch. (Not sure how much Ric) ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #192 ***************************** 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".