DIY_EFI Digest Tuesday, 10 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 196 In this issue: RE: vacuum with blower RE: Re[2]: FW: Generic PID controller RE: vacuum with blower EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Re: brake booster check valve Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Re: Nissan 300 ZX bhp Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Re: brake booster check valve Re: bhp bhp Re: brake booster check valve Re: brake booster check valve Re: vacuum with blower RE: bhp Info on HEI module Re: bhp Re: Info on HEI module Re: bhp Re: bhp Re: bhp Re: Info on HEI module Da Delete struck again. Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: John Hess Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:12:31 -0500 Subject: RE: vacuum with blower Use a vacuum pump! - ---------- From: Geoff Watts[SMTP:geoff@xxx.au] Sent: Monday, June 09, 1997 4:27 AM To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu' Subject: RE: vacuum with blower What if you got a stuck throttle? - i'd go and put some 1-way valves in geoff - -----Original Message----- From: jpearl@xxx.com] Sent: Sunday, June 08, 1997 5:56 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: vacuum with blower >There is a check valve in the brake booster to prevent pressure from entering the booster on many cars. Under boost >you loose all effects of the brake booster as there is no vacuum to draw from. Unless you drive with your foot on the >brake at full boost, you are not likely to ever experience this. As soon as you let off the gas pedal, you have >instant vacuum to power your brake booster. My $.02 - my car has NO such "checkvalve" and no special considerations were made concerning boost and it's effect on the brakes. ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:36:14 +0100 Subject: RE: Re[2]: FW: Generic PID controller > Are you going to set fuel pressure based manifold MAF or MAP? If so > are you > intending to control this from the computer? Are you going to need a > fuel > pressure sensor as an input to the control algorithm? me > Yup, it will eventually be controlled by the ECU, but for now a constant pressure system is the interim goal. The system has a 0-12MPa pressure sensor already installed. The regulator is not really a regulator in the truest sense in that it relies on a closed-loop controller to maintain the pressure to the set-point value. It's really just a valve (sorry if I mis-lead somebody about that before) Andrew Rabbitt ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 17:29:48 +0100 Subject: RE: vacuum with blower Any blown car will still create loads of useful vacuum at idle. Almost all cars have check valves in the vacuum booster unit. That's why when you switch the engine off, you still have at least a couple of applications of the brakes with some (if not full) assistance. I think whoever was describing this problem, probably has a faulty vacuum booster unit. > Use a vacuum pump! > > > ---------- > > > What if you got a stuck throttle? - i'd go and put some 1-way valves > in > > geoff > > > My $.02 - my car has NO such "checkvalve" and no special > considerations > were made concerning boost and it's effect on the brakes. > ------------------------------ From: triad@xxx.net (William Moffitt) Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 12:33:01 -0500 Subject: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm Although I intended to direct this question to Al Grippo, I would appreciate everyone's inputs to the following subject: Does the EFI332 project plan on implementing an algorithm to control the fuel pump (relay)? From what I understand about OEM ecmm's, they turn off the fuel pump if the engine hasn't started for X seconds. I would be interested in knowing if they still implement this, and if so, what other factors contribute to controlling the fuel pump? Thanks, - -- Bill ------------------------------ From: Todd King Date: Mon, 09 Jun 97 10:56:00 PDT Subject: Re: brake booster check valve <<< >There is a check valve in the brake booster to prevent pressure from entering the booster on many cars. Under boost >you loose all effects of >>> On the plus side these valves are just inexpensive plastic valves available anywhere; they go inline with the hose to the booster (at least on GM- don't know about other) so really ought to be easy to have one... Todd_King@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Albert Grippo Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 15:00:41 EDT Subject: Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm > > Does the EFI332 project plan on implementing an algorithm to > control the fuel pump (relay)? From what I understand about > OEM ecmm's, they turn off the fuel pump if the engine hasn't > started for X seconds. > There is a simple algorithm in the efi code on the web site which checks for crank motion during the attempt to get synch. If there has been no motion for x seconds (x a user input), then the pump is turned off via a relay controlled by the octal serial chip. When synch is achieved, the pump is turned back on and stays on as long as there is synch. If the crank were to stop, there would be loss of synch and the logic would return to the 'get synch' loop and again cut off the pump if no motion in x seconds. An alternate way of checking would be to use a watchdog timer. As for the timeout, I believe Electromotive uses 20 seconds. I don't know what the oems use - but FORD has an inertia switch to kill the pump in the event of an accident; since I have a **very** high flow pump, I intend to implement this idea also. > I would be interested in knowing if they still implement this, > and if so, what other factors contribute to controlling the > fuel pump? Other than safety, the only other things I can think of are fuel pressure, which would be done through the pressure regulator, and to cut back on consumption of electricity (since I don't need the full flow of my pump I will pulse width modulate it ). Al Grippo ------------------------------ From: "steve ravet" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:50:11 +0000 Subject: Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm > Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 12:33:01 -0500 > From: triad@xxx.net (William Moffitt) > Organization: Triad Spectrum, Inc > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm > Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Although I intended to direct this question to Al Grippo, I would > appreciate everyone's inputs to the following subject: > > Does the EFI332 project plan on implementing an algorithm to > control the fuel pump (relay)? From what I understand about > OEM ecmm's, they turn off the fuel pump if the engine hasn't > started for X seconds. > > I would be interested in knowing if they still implement this, > and if so, what other factors contribute to controlling the > fuel pump? > > Thanks, > > -- > Bill ------------------------------ From: "steve ravet" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:55:44 +0000 Subject: Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm > Although I intended to direct this question to Al Grippo, I would > appreciate everyone's inputs to the following subject: > > Does the EFI332 project plan on implementing an algorithm to > control the fuel pump (relay)? From what I understand about > OEM ecmm's, they turn off the fuel pump if the engine hasn't > started for X seconds. > > I would be interested in knowing if they still implement this, > and if so, what other factors contribute to controlling the > fuel pump? Both my GM TBI engines have this. The '86 2.8L would start the pump when the key was turned to on, and shut it off after 10 seconds if the engine wasn't started. My '91 5.7L is the same, except it only runs the pump for 3 seconds. I assume it starts the pump again if the key goes to start... The only other FP thing I know of is the oil pressure sensor relay. The ECM controls one ground to the fuel pump, and the oil pressure relay controls another. So if the ECM dies, but there is still oil pressure the fuel pump keeps working. sorry about that empty reply, hit the wrong button. - --steve > > Thanks, > > -- > Bill ------------------------------ From: Orin Eman Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Nissan 300 ZX > Okay, I know for sure about the 6809. It is possible that Hitachi got > permission to add the extra instructions and registers to the 6303, or > it could be the same as the 6309... "undocumented but there", and > UNSUPPORTED by Motorola or Hitachi... officially. Where did you get the > opcodes? I don't remember. The 6303 is used in the mid to late 80s Audi turbo computers. As part of tweaking my computer, I gathered various listings, a disassembler etc.. I can't remember off-hand who gave me the 6303 spreadsheet. There is also an assembler out there somewhere which has support for the 6303 - I found it mentioned doing a web search on 6303. >If you got them from an official source (Moto or Hitachi), then > there was obviously some agreement between the companies. All I can say > is that the 63xx series is supposed to be 100% compatible with the 68xx > series. The 6309, for instance, has a "compatible mode", which is active > when the processor is first powered up, and a "native" mode, which must > be selected through a special instruction. I'm a hardware man, not a > programmer, but I can find the info if someone needs it. The extra instructions are mostly bit-manipulation - and/or/xor/tst immediate with memory. There is also exchange D with X. Does anyone have documentation on the 6303/6803? In particular, on-chip IO ports. Orin. ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 14:20:49 +0000 Subject: bhp help .... I've started a firestorm on the Bronco list when I said I'd observed in a '77 Motors Manual that the bhp ratings on all Ford/Mercury full-size vehicle engines dropped 100+ hp from '71 to '72 and that the hp stayed down until '77. Was the way bhp calculated or measured changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason for the drop ???? If the way it was measured is what changed, then why have all the bhp numbers now risen back to the pre-'72 numbers and in fact many engines have even higher bhp outputs. (I really want to know 8^) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:16:22 +0000 Subject: Re: EFI332 Fuel Pump On/Off Algorithm >> >> Does the EFI332 project plan on implementing an algorithm to >> control the fuel pump (relay)? From what I understand about >> OEM ecmm's, they turn off the fuel pump if the engine hasn't >> started for X seconds. >> > > There is a simple algorithm in the efi code on the web site > which checks for crank motion during the attempt to get synch. > If there has been no motion for x seconds (x a user input), > then the pump is turned off via a relay controlled by the > octal serial chip. When synch is achieved, the pump is turned > back on and stays on as long as there is synch. If the crank > were to stop, there would be loss of synch and the logic > would return to the 'get synch' loop and again cut off the pump if > no motion in x seconds. An alternate way of checking would be > to use a watchdog timer. As for the timeout, I believe Electromotive > uses 20 seconds. I don't know what the oems use - but FORD has > an inertia switch to kill the pump in the event of an accident; > since I have a **very** high flow pump, I intend to implement > this idea also. the Holley ProJection uses pulses from the ignition -- if none after something like 10 seconds, then the pump relay opens (a retriggerable 555 or 74123 monostable will achieve this) and some use the oil pressure switch -- loss of pressure kills the pump (AND-ed with the ignition switch, so it'll run while starting and then timing out and looking for oil pressure). Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:16:21 +0000 Subject: Re: brake booster check valve > <<< > >There is a check valve in the brake booster to prevent pressure from entering > the booster on many cars. Under boost >you loose all effects of >>> > > On the plus side these valves are just inexpensive plastic valves available > anywhere; they go inline with the hose to the booster (at least on GM- don't > know about other) so really ought to be easy to have one... same on Ford -- and if you don't know what to look for, you'll not know they're there .... they're shaped about the size of 1-1/5 nickels together with a go-zinga and a go-zouta tube in the center on each side. Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: George Najarian Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 13:34:02 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp Tom, I can't tell if that is a serious question or not. If it is, the reason the hp ratings of today have reached the level of the hp ratings of 71 and before is that modern engines are >much< more efficient (ve) than in the old days, and they are built for higher rpm operation (higher operating rpm = more hp for less torque). If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers now use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth at least 50hp+. At 02:20 PM 6/9/97 +0000, Tom Cloud wrote: >help .... I've started a firestorm on the Bronco list >when I said I'd observed in a '77 Motors Manual that the >bhp ratings on all Ford/Mercury full-size vehicle engines >dropped 100+ hp from '71 to '72 and that the hp stayed >down until '77. Was the way bhp calculated or measured >changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason >for the drop ???? If the way it was measured is what >changed, then why have all the bhp numbers now risen >back to the pre-'72 numbers and in fact many engines >have even higher bhp outputs. > >(I really want to know 8^) > >Tom Cloud > > George Najarian | '95 Ford Mustang GTS Cobra (14.07/100.81) najay@xxx.0/92) http://users.deltanet.com/~najay/ Team.Net (Solo II E/SP) Najay Engineering - Custom EEC reprogramming service available. ------------------------------ From: "Watson, Bill" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 13:42:00 -0700 Subject: bhp Pre '72 was SAE Gross 72 and later is SAE Net. Most of the power 'loss' was the way in which it was measured. gains in last 25 years are technology. Overall; Gross; 59?F, dry air, sea level. Power at flywheel. Open manifolds/ headers, no air filter assy req'd, no accessories. Net; 77?F, 32% humidity, sea level (This is already a 3% loss) Power also at flywheel. Full factory exhaust system as installed in car. Full intake system with air filter, et al. All accessories (including things like mechanical fans that were conveniently forgotten in the 60's) installed but not taking more than 'straight line' power. A/C, P/S, Smog pump, Alt..... Typical drop in measuring of 'identical' engines in 71-72 was not 100 HP, but around 25% from what I've studied. More in g-curve user's manual. Bill ------------------------------ From: Matt Sale Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:48:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: brake booster check valve > > > <<< > > >There is a check valve in the brake booster to prevent pressure from entering > > the booster on many cars. Under boost >you loose all effects of >>> > > > > On the plus side these valves are just inexpensive plastic valves available Supposedly, the new Mustangs have a system called "hydroboost" that takes the power-brake boost from the power-steering pump instead of engine vacuum. I've not investigated it, but saw mention of it in a Mustang magazine. - -- Matthew D. Sale ------------------------------ From: Orin Eman Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 15:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: brake booster check valve > > > > > <<< > > > >There is a check valve in the brake booster to prevent pressure from entering > > > the booster on many cars. Under boost >you loose all effects of >>> > > > > > > On the plus side these valves are just inexpensive plastic valves available > Supposedly, the new Mustangs have a system called "hydroboost" that > takes the power-brake boost from the power-steering pump instead of > engine vacuum. I've not investigated it, but saw mention of it in > a Mustang magazine. Ha ha ha! What a lovely can of worms they've opened there. This is one of the less reliable features of the Audi 5000/200... wonder if they have a hydraulic accumulator to go bad and leaky power steering pumps due to the high pressure required too! Orin. ------------------------------ From: "Gary Derian" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 19:08:25 -0400 Subject: Re: vacuum with blower (lots of snipped messages regarding check valves for brake boosters) Even though the engine can run under boost at full throttle, there is still a throttle which is partially closed under cruise conditions and the engine operates under vacuum during this time which is most of the time. During 3/4 throttle or so, there can be vacuum between the throttle and turbo yet boost between the turbo and engine. The vacuum is stored in the brake booster and also in auxiliary reservoirs to operate the air conditioning ducts in the dashboard. Even without a turbo, all cars should have a check valve in the brake booster. Cadillacs from the early 80's had an electric vacuum pump to assist the brake booster and other minor vacuum controls. Low vacuum and poor brake boosting has caused many manufacturers to seek hydraulic brake boosters. GM used a Hydroboost on Diesels and station wagons (still used on Hummvees), a power steering pump driven hydraulic brake booster. This turned out to be a bad idea since power steering hydraulics have an open center valve which constantly circulates fluid. This meant the hydroboost had to be plumbed in series with the steering gear. Every time the brakes were applied, the steering tugged a little. Later GM cars used a Powermaster, an electric driven hydraulic brake booster, used on Grand Nationals and station wagons. This was a good idea but was bad execution. ATE had a similar system on several German cars and Audis used a power steering based system with its own circuit. Gary Derian ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:09:13 -0400 Subject: RE: bhp > down until '77. Was the way bhp calculated or measured > changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason > for the drop ???? If the way it was measured is what The method for calculating horsepower changed... it used to be measured at the back of the flywheel, then changed to at the rear wheels. So I was told by a pal of mine. No warranty expressed or implied . But yes, almost every Chilton's book shows engines dropping about 30% around the early mid-70's somewhere. Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Simon Bosworth Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:36:51 -0500 Subject: Info on HEI module I am considering using a couple of (4 pin) HEI modules to power two coil packs for a 4 cyl. distributorless ignition system. It would appear that these can be had quite cheaply from a parts store....BUT of course the parts store will want to know a vehicle make, model, phase of the moon it was manufactured under etc. Can anyone give me the required information ? Also one of the later modules with the retard feature might be useful. Thanks, Simon - -- - ------------------------ Simon Bosworth simonb@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Sandy Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 19:46:18 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp At 01:34 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote: >Tom, I can't tell if that is a serious question or not. > >If it is, the reason the hp ratings of today have reached the level of the >hp ratings of 71 and before is that modern engines are >much< more >efficient (ve) than in the old days, and they are built for higher rpm >operation (higher operating rpm = more hp for less torque). > >If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers now >use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth at >least 50hp+. Split fire plugs do nothing, and I doubt that slick 50 does much except clog the oil filters (no flames) just sounds a bit JC Whitney-ish, as 50 free HP from that alone is on the edge of a bad joke. > >At 02:20 PM 6/9/97 +0000, Tom Cloud wrote: >>help .... I've started a firestorm on the Bronco list >>when I said I'd observed in a '77 Motors Manual that the >>bhp ratings on all Ford/Mercury full-size vehicle engines >>dropped 100+ hp from '71 to '72 and that the hp stayed >>down until '77. Was the way bhp calculated or measured >>changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason >>for the drop ???? If the way it was measured is what >>changed, then why have all the bhp numbers now risen >>back to the pre-'72 numbers and in fact many engines >>have even higher bhp outputs. Look for compression drop, smog equipment, etc. Also I can't recall, but I thought that the way the HP was measured was changed at one point or another. But i can't really remember for sure. Sandy ------------------------------ From: grpruett@xxx.edu (Greg Pruett ) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 00:55:17 +0600 Subject: Re: Info on HEI module >I am considering using a couple of (4 pin) HEI modules to power two coil >packs for a 4 cyl. distributorless ignition system. It would appear >that these can be had quite cheaply from a parts store....BUT of course >the parts store will want to know a vehicle make, model, phase of the >moon it was manufactured under etc. Can anyone give me the required >information ? 1975 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 350 4bbl or 1977 Chevy Malibu 350 4bbl Either one oughta work fine since they both use 4 pin HEI modules. Greg Pruett ------------------------------ From: George Najarian Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:38:31 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp >>If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers now >>use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth at >>least 50hp+. > >Split fire plugs do nothing, and I doubt that slick 50 does much except >clog the oil filters (no flames) just sounds a bit JC Whitney-ish, as 50 >free HP from that alone is on the edge of a bad joke. uh ... that was the point ... ;^) George Najarian | '95 Ford Mustang GTS Cobra (14.07/100.81) najay@xxx.0/92) http://users.deltanet.com/~najay/ Team.Net (Solo II E/SP) Najay Engineering - Custom EEC reprogramming service available. ------------------------------ From: "Robert Harris" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 22:39:48 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp Re Slick 50 - Jeff Hartmans book on High Performance fuels and lubricants will leave you slick willyed if you slick 50'd. Does far more damage than just clogging thing - like prematurely wearing your engine out!!!! RTFB, then dump the slick gump as quick as you can. If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter. Robert Harris - ---------- > From: Sandy > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: bhp > Date: Monday, June 09, 1997 7:46 PM > > At 01:34 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Tom, I can't tell if that is a serious question or not. > > > >If it is, the reason the hp ratings of today have reached the level of the > >hp ratings of 71 and before is that modern engines are >much< more > >efficient (ve) than in the old days, and they are built for higher rpm > >operation (higher operating rpm = more hp for less torque). > > > >If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers now > >use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth at > >least 50hp+. > > Split fire plugs do nothing, and I doubt that slick 50 does much except > clog the oil filters (no flames) just sounds a bit JC Whitney-ish, as 50 > free HP from that alone is on the edge of a bad joke. > > > > > >At 02:20 PM 6/9/97 +0000, Tom Cloud wrote: > >>help .... I've started a firestorm on the Bronco list > >>when I said I'd observed in a '77 Motors Manual that the > >>bhp ratings on all Ford/Mercury full-size vehicle engines > >>dropped 100+ hp from '71 to '72 and that the hp stayed > >>down until '77. Was the way bhp calculated or measured > >>changed in '72 or was the EPA-mandated changes the reason > >>for the drop ???? If the way it was measured is what > >>changed, then why have all the bhp numbers now risen > >>back to the pre-'72 numbers and in fact many engines > >>have even higher bhp outputs. > > Look for compression drop, smog equipment, etc. Also I can't recall, but I > thought that the way the HP was measured was changed at one point or > another. But i can't really remember for sure. > > Sandy ------------------------------ From: Johnny Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:46:25 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp Sandy wrote: > > At 01:34 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Tom, I can't tell if that is a serious question or not. > > > >If it is, the reason the hp ratings of today have reached the level of the > >hp ratings of 71 and before is that modern engines are >much< more > >efficient (ve) than in the old days, and they are built for higher rpm > >operation (higher operating rpm = more hp for less torque). > > > >If the question was not serious, then the reason is the manufacturers now > >use split fires and slick-50 for their dyno testing, which are worth at > >least 50hp+. > > Split fire plugs do nothing, and I doubt that slick 50 does much except > clog the oil filters (no flames) just sounds a bit JC Whitney-ish, as 50 > free HP from that alone is on the edge of a bad joke. Uh, it was a joke Sandy... I think. You been drinkin' coffee again? ;) - -j- ------------------------------ From: Sandy Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 23:19:32 -0700 Subject: Re: Info on HEI module Try just about any GM car from the 80's. You could also get an Accel or other hot rod ones. Accel uses the module on almost all of the cheaper low cost distributers, yes, FORDS TOO ;-). I don't know much about them, but I was thinking that they might make an really good coil driver, but I don't know much about the control and how it does dwell. Can it be driven by a TTL level signal? Sandy At 07:36 PM 6/9/97 -0500, you wrote: >I am considering using a couple of (4 pin) HEI modules to power two coil >packs for a 4 cyl. distributorless ignition system. It would appear >that these can be had quite cheaply from a parts store....BUT of course >the parts store will want to know a vehicle make, model, phase of the >moon it was manufactured under etc. Can anyone give me the required >information ? > Also one of the later modules with the retard feature might be >useful. > >Thanks, >Simon > >-- >------------------------ >Simon Bosworth >simonb@xxx.com > > ------------------------------ From: "Robert Harris" Date: Mon, 9 Jun 1997 23:35:29 -0700 Subject: Da Delete struck again. The infamous delete key struck again. A while ago, some one posted that Fel Pro was now making an EFI kit with a wide range oxygen sensor. I saved the data, then in a house keeping frenzy, I deleted it. Did anyone save it and if they did, could you E-mail the data. Tanx If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter. Robert Harris ------------------------------ From: Richard Cartledge Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:04:19 +0100 Subject: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) Hello, I have a 1986 BMW 525i, this car has the BOSCH L-Jetronic with a fuel transfer pump in the gastank which provides the suction/pickup for the main pressure pump which is beside the fuel tank. The transfer pump is dead, and a new BMW pickup assembly costs =A3250, I know that a Chevvy Vega's AC Delco pump will fit may pickup assembly and only costs $30, but we don't have Chevrolets in the UK, if anyone knows of a similar transfer pump from a Jap/Euro car, I'd be very grateful if you could let me know. The Pump is a cylinder shape, abot 4 inches long and 1 3/4 inch dia. Thanks for any info. Richard ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #196 ***************************** 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".