DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, 11 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 197 In this issue: Re: Info on HEI module Fel-Pro fuel injection system (fwd) RE: bhp Re: bhp 2 Eproms Re: Fel-Pro fuel injection system (fwd) Delete me off your efi list Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) HEI questions Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) Re: bhp Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) RE: bhp Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality RE: bhp See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Simon Bosworth Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:26:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Info on HEI module Greg Pruett wrote: > > > 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 Greg, thanks for the info. Simon - ------------------------ Simon Bosworth simonb@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Jody Shapiro Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:53:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Fel-Pro fuel injection system (fwd) Robert Harris wrote: >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 I sent out the original message - here it is again... - -- 97 Blue Vortech Z28 http://www.bit-net.com/~jshapiro/z28/ - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:11:06 -0500 (EST) From: Jody Shapiro To: f-body@xxx.edu Subject: Fel-Pro fuel injection system In the May '97 issue of Hot Rod on page 141, there's a write-up on Fel-Pro's new fuel injection system. It says: "When it comes to computer technology, nothing stays the same for long. The state of the art has a nasty tendency to expand and improve. At least that's what's happening at a new company called FP Performance. Though the name isn't familiar, the parent company Fel-Pro, should be. Fel-Pro is branching out and has moved into Electronic Fuel Injection systems. FP Electronic's head man, John Meaney, is a pioneer of EFI. He's the man who founded Digital Fuel Injection (DFI). His latest ventue is a new EFI business and a new box intended for upscale street engines and all-out race motors. The most impressive feature of the FP Performance box is its ability to work with an NGK, wide-range oxygen sensor tha allows tuners to enger an air/fuel ratio into the software will result in extremely accurate, closed-loop control over wide open throttle (WOT) air/fuel ratios. In concept, this is similar to current factory EFI boxes for closed-loop control of the 14.7:1 part-throttle air/fuel ratio. Unfortunately, the factory oxygen sensors aren't compatible with WOT air/fuel ratio control at, for example, a 12.5:1 air/fuel ratio. The basic controller (with wiring harness) sells for $800. The wide-range oxygen sensor feature is a $400 option, and the base system can be upgraded at a later date to sequential fuel injection. For those who want the whole enchilada immediately, FP offers a Sequential Electronic Fuel Injection (SEFI) box for $1200. Other features include one electronic injector driver cylinder and bank-to-bank cylinder firing - where two cylinders per bank fire simultaneously instead of all injectors firing at once. The advantage of the bank-to-bank program is more stable fuel pressure. The FP Performance box includes a waterproof case that controls the electromagnetic interference (EMI). The system also incorporates individual cylinder timing and fuel controls (in sequential mode) without the need for a distributor-less ignition system. in fact, individual timing can be incorporated with an MSD box. All the software is DOS-based, icon-driven, and can be run in a Windows shell. There will also be specific controls for two-stage nitrous (with one timer for both stages) and a seperate ignition retard. The best attribute of electrnic fiel injection is that as computer technology imporves, it will lead to less expensive hardware that "poor" hot rodders like us can use." There's also a few photos of the software screen-shots, the hardware itself, etc. One thing that's interesting is this statement regarding the fuel map (where the value of the cells is the desired air fuel ratio), "Instead of using a number to represent pulse width for the injector, this map uses MAP rate (a representation of load) on the vertical scale, and rpm value on the horizonatal scale. This design makes tuning easier because the map allows infitine command of the air/fuel ratio rather than a guesstimate" The contact info is: "As of press time, FP Performance's new facility was still under construction. In the interim, contact: FP Performance, c/o TCI Automotive 1 TCI Dr. Ashland, MS 38603 601-224-8972" ------------------------------ From: John Hess Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:32:42 -0500 Subject: RE: bhp Can you imagine how out of tune an auto would have to be for ANY spark plug change to give an additional 50 Horsepower? - ---------- From: Sandy[SMTP:sganz@xxx.net] Sent: Monday, June 09, 1997 9:46 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu 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: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:42:16 +0000 Subject: Re: bhp At 08:24 AM 6/10/97 -0400, Dave Compton wrote: >SAE Net was measured at the crank, however the engine was saddled with all >it's normal accessories and the exhaust it would be used with in the car. > >SAE Gross was just the motor. open exhaust, no alternator etc. > >Concurrently, compression dropped to reduce emmisions. And then a black >hole period of about 13 years ensued before they figured out how to tune >them for reduced emmisions. > >BTW, ALL of the EFI enhancements were to keep the A/F ratio right at >stoichmetric (sp?), so the catalytic converter would efficiently work, and >not die. So we can THANK cat cons for our cool EFI. > >Enhanced spark systems, headers, and the ram tuning stuff was just good >engineering. > >Dave >DCompton@xxx.COM thanks Dave .... I think you've put what I've deduced into the most succinct form -- that means, whether it's true or not, I agree with it ;-) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: "Peter Rueb" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 15:30:02 +0200 Subject: 2 Eproms Does anybody know if there exists a newer efi that uses 2 eight bit eproms parallel in one ECU? If so, are the adress lines completely seperated or are they used together for the two eproms. I heard that some new efi use the 80166 with a 16bit eprom as well. I am planning a eprom simulator that can handle eproms up to 128kB/8bit and allows online memory editing while simulating in a efi. I want to know if i should include the option to control two eproms in even/odd mode and the 16 bit option. One more question to that: The memory editing while in simulation mode should work like this: - Wait until there is no valid adress signal from the ECU. - Seperate the lines from socket to ram and switch on a buffer to store a adress that may come up. - Write the other stored value to ram. - Re connect the lines again that the data can flow to where it is needed. This is all done by hardware and i am calculating with each ns delay of the used ICs. How much time do i have to seperate the lines until an error occurs in the ECU? Is this timeout error hardware or software sensitive? Let4s say i use the digifant 2 with hc11 and internal clock of 2Mhz. I have not gone into mc details that much and i try to build this little tool independant from any special mc. Thanks, Peter s68558@xxx.de ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:00:02 +0000 Subject: Re: Fel-Pro fuel injection system (fwd) >In the May '97 issue of Hot Rod on page 141, there's a write-up on >Fel-Pro's new fuel injection system. > >It says: >"When it comes to computer technology, nothing stays the same for long. >The state of the art has a nasty tendency to expand and improve. At least >that's what's happening at a new company called FP Performance. Though >the name isn't familiar, the parent company Fel-Pro, should be. Fel-Pro >is branching out and has moved into Electronic Fuel Injection systems. > >FP Electronic's head man, John Meaney, is a pioneer of EFI. He's the man >who founded Digital Fuel Injection (DFI). His latest ventue is a new EFI >business and a new box intended for upscale street engines and all-out >race motors. [snip ] >The contact info is: > >"As of press time, FP Performance's new facility was still under >construction. In the interim, contact: >FP Performance, c/o TCI Automotive >1 TCI Dr. >Ashland, MS 38603 > >601-224-8972" fel-pros home page is http://www.fel-pro.com/ it's very interesting, but there's no mention of FP Performance Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: "Harper, Kevin" Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:38:50 -0700 Subject: Delete me off your efi list >---------- >From: Simon Bosworth[SMTP:simonb@xxx.com] >Sent: .eng.ohio-state.edu >Subject: unsubscribe >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Please unsubscribe me from the efi list. please delete my name. no more messages. ------------------------------ From: Kevin Rutledge Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 07:55:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) At 09:04 AM 6/10/97 +0100, you wrote: >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. > The description sounds like most "pre-pumps" Many European cars use them, Volvo, Saab, BMW, etc. The pumps are usually a AC Delco low pressure/high volume pump. =20 You should be able to find something that will work Kevin Rutledge Saab Techncian ------------------------------ From: Greg Woods Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:45:43 -0500 Subject: HEI questions I have a question on the ~ 86 GM distributer / coil setup. my question pertains to the dual plug coil models. Their are 4 wires coming from this coil. 2 go to the wiring harness (1 of which is ignition +12V, and the other which is tach), and 2 go to the distributer. These distributer wires are the ones I'm confused about. Ones pink and ones black I believe and they are of course trigger wires coming from the GM HEI module. But what does the signal look like on these lines? I would expect one line to be 12V and then go low whenever the coil is supposed to fire. is this what happens? howcome it takes 2 wires? Also, the timing is controlled by the ECM. The rotor looks to me like its permenantly attached to the spindle which is turned by the cam shaft, right? How does the ECM change the timing if it can't alter the rotor position?? I'm kind of a newbie so if these questions are stupid please be gentle!:) I am doing a GM FI swap to my JEEP which has a MSD ignition unit and am trying to figure out how to wire all this together. TIA greg woods gwoods@xxx.com austin tx 86XJ ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 10:24:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Richard Cartledge wrote: > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:04:19 +0100 > From: Richard Cartledge > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > The Pump is a cylinder shape, abot 4 inches long and 1 3/4 inch dia. >=20 > Thanks for any info. >=20 > Richard >=20 Richard, try the transfer pump in a VW golf MKII, I get em in the US for=20 $55. But the reliability is a bit iffy- mine went dead after 100,000=20 miles, and I hear that a life for them is more like 100,000km. Still=20 cheaper that "beemer" parts Seth ------------------------------ From: Sandy Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 11:41:21 -0700 Subject: Re: bhp At 10:46 PM 6/9/97 -0700, you wrote: Yep, I was really wound out...or is it strung out! >Sandy wrote: >> >Uh, it was a joke Sandy... I think. You been drinkin' coffee again? ;) > >-j- > > ------------------------------ From: Richard Cartledge Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 21:09:30 +0100 Subject: Re: Fuel Pre-pump/transfer pump (BMW) Kevin Rutledge wrote: > The description sounds like most "pre-pumps" Many European cars use them, > Volvo, Saab, BMW, etc. The pumps are usually an AC Delco low pressure/high > volume pump. > > You should be able to find something that will work > > Kevin Rutledge > Saab Techncian Thanks for your reply, it sounds as though I should be able to find something if I go to the right places and ask the right questions - Thanks again, Richard ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 19:23:29 -0400 Subject: RE: bhp On Tuesday, June 10, 1997 9:33 AM, John Hess [SMTP:JohnH@xxx.net] wrote: > Can you imagine how out of tune an auto would have to be for ANY spark > plug change to give an additional 50 Horsepower? The purpose of the plug is to ignite the fuel. In some circumstances, different materials are more or less prone to oxidation in heated environments, so yes, in theory, different plugs might make a difference. Also, plugs come in temperature ranges, different gap settings, different insulator materials. I've honestly never figured out technically the reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not a plug, I'm all ears :) Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Website: http://members.aol.com/fjb203/index.htm Email: frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com Bridgeport, Connecticut ------------------------------ From: Shane Moseley Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:56:18 -0500 Subject: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality Since there has been some recent talk about Air/Fuel ratios, Heat/Energy content of various fuels/additives, & other fuel delivery related topics, I would like to get some opinions on the following: 1. Re: Optimum A/F ratios I understand that most O2 sensors have a fairly narrow band of operation and give primarily indications of 'too rich' or 'too lean'. I assume that for this reason, they are used mostly (some say always) at either idle or cruise. Most agree that they are useless at WOT & part throttle (agrees w/earlier assumption). A recent post in one of these lists mentioned a new spin-off of Fel-Pro called FP Performance that has a computer-controlled FI setup with a wide-range O2 sensor (high dollar option?) that can sense a 12.5 (or whatever the optimum WOT A/F is). If this is so - then wouldn't it be best to be in closed loop almost always? (after engine has reached operating temp of course) Anyone with experience here? I was thinking seriously about running down to Ashland, MS (home of FP Performance & about 40 min drive from Memphis 8-) and insisting they hire me on. 2. Re: Optimum conversion of fuels potential for energy (combustion) After being intrigued for many years about engine intake designs - nothing mixes up conversation better than Smokey Yunick (& other Otto-cycle designs) and his miracle engines that got 50-60 mpg with no performance loss (40% gains instead 8-) by HEATING the incoming A/F mixture to around 400 degrees. Most say 'yeah right - then why are the factories all producing intercoolers?' Well, I have read many of Smokey's articles and have the one with the design drawings of his Fiero experiment in Hot Rod June '84. I understand that internal combustion engines probably average around 25% efficiency of converting fuels potential for energy (BTU's?) into actual usable energy (read flywheel horsepower). And that current designs might be between 30-40 percent in optimum conditions (read hardly ever). Seems to be alot of room for improvement here! This is the basis for Smokey's design. Further - according to several sources (nice one at http://www.autoshop-online.com/auto101/fuel1.html about all sorts of things including description of operation of Chrysler X-Ram intakes) the optimum condition of the incoming mixture are something like: "Dry fuel vapor is an ideal form of fuel charge, but present-day fuel prevents this unless the mixture is subjected to high temperature." Attempts to achieve a greater conversion rate (efficiency) are commonly known as supercharging & turbocharging that 'pump up' the incoming mixture causing a side effect (cant remember exact mixture condition/problem) thus the need for intercoolers (say what? contradiction?), additives, etc. for correction. Seems kinda confusing I know - Why not skip the whole mechanical attempt at regulating all these variables and let a computer control all (especially temperature/condition of incoming mixture) for an optimum (under all conditions 8-) conversion/combustion/BURN! Comments welcome! "We have the technology... We can build it..." - -- Shane Moseley Home: http://www.netcom.com/~smoseley Systems Analyst Work: http://www.healthsphere.com '96 Indy Ram Play: http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/3067/indyram.html '74 Challenger <- 2 360 engines (magnum & non) 245hp each dying for flog time! ------------------------------ From: Seth Allen Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Shane Moseley wrote: > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 21:56:18 -0500 > From: Shane Moseley > To: mml > Cc: diyefi > Subject: Optimizing A/F Mixture & Quality > > Since there has been some recent talk about Air/Fuel ratios, Heat/Energy > content of various fuels/additives, & other fuel delivery related > topics, I would like to get some opinions on the following: > > 1. Re: Optimum A/F ratios > > I understand that most O2 sensors have a fairly narrow band of > operation and give primarily indications of 'too rich' or 'too lean'. I > assume that for this reason, they are used mostly (some say always) at > either idle or cruise. Most agree that they are useless at WOT & part > throttle (agrees w/earlier assumption). A recent post in one of these > lists mentioned a new spin-off of Fel-Pro called FP Performance that has > a computer-controlled FI setup with a wide-range O2 sensor (high dollar > option?) that can sense a 12.5 (or whatever the optimum WOT A/F is). If > this is so - then wouldn't it be best to be in closed loop almost > always? (after engine has reached operating temp of course) Anyone with > experience here? I was thinking seriously about running down to > Ashland, MS (home of FP Performance & about 40 min drive from Memphis > 8-) and insisting they hire me on. You are right about the relative resolution of the two styles of o2 sensors, but not exactly correct in the application. A standard o2 sensor goes from about 200mV at lambda of 1.005 to 800mV at lambda of .995. The output is only from 0-1V. The lean side of the curve (lamda above 1.1 or so is flat. The rich side has a small slope and can be used to tune to a slightly rich condition with mediocre resolution. A "linear" oxygen sensor has uniformly mediocre resolution everywhere. It is much less sensitive than a regular o2 sensor at lambda=1, but is very good for controlling lean burn. A combination of the two would be ideal. You could get a consistent lean burn at cruise and half throttle, then go to stoichiometric as the load ( and NOX levels rise) then go rich for maximum power and reduced NOX emissions. But the linear o2 sensor cannot replace the conventional one for use when good emissions control is needed to use a three way catalyst. > 2. Re: Optimum conversion of fuels potential for energy (combustion) > > After being intrigued for many years about engine intake designs - > nothing mixes up conversation better than Smokey Yunick (& other > Otto-cycle designs) and his miracle engines that got 50-60 mpg with no > performance loss (40% gains instead 8-) by HEATING the incoming A/F > mixture to around 400 degrees. Most say 'yeah right - then why are the > factories all producing intercoolers?' Well, I have read many of > Smokey's articles and have the one with the design drawings of his Fiero > experiment in Hot Rod June '84. I understand that internal combustion > engines probably average around 25% efficiency of converting fuels > potential for energy (BTU's?) into actual usable energy (read flywheel > horsepower). And that current designs might be between 30-40 percent in > optimum conditions (read hardly ever). Seems to be alot of room for > improvement here! This is the basis for Smokey's design. Further - > according to several sources (nice one at > http://www.autoshop-online.com/auto101/fuel1.html about all sorts of > things including description of operation of Chrysler X-Ram intakes) the > optimum condition of the incoming mixture are something like: > > "Dry fuel vapor is an ideal form of fuel charge, but present-day fuel > prevents this unless the mixture is subjected to high temperature." > > Attempts to achieve a greater conversion rate (efficiency) are commonly > known as supercharging & turbocharging that 'pump up' the incoming > mixture causing a side effect (cant remember exact mixture > condition/problem) thus the need for intercoolers (say what? > contradiction?), additives, etc. for correction. > > Seems kinda confusing I know - Why not skip the whole mechanical attempt > at regulating all these variables and let a computer control all > (especially temperature/condition of incoming mixture) for an optimum > (under all conditions 8-) conversion/combustion/BURN! > > Comments welcome! > > > "We have the technology... We can build it..." > Smokey Yunick can be a bit misleading at times, would you ever expect the straight truth from a guy who built a 7/8 scale stock car to reduce drag? Clever, surely, but honest, no. Heating the fuel to a dry gas can help at small throttle openings. At large throttle openings, the gaseous fuel can displace air in the inlet tract, contribute to detonation, and in some two strokes, piston seizure. If you have a 500 CID caddy that you never use full throttle, then try it, but the gains will mostly be in emissions, perhaps a bit with cruising fuel economy. > > -- > Shane Moseley Home: http://www.netcom.com/~smoseley > Systems Analyst Work: http://www.healthsphere.com > '96 Indy Ram Play: > http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/3067/indyram.html > '74 Challenger <- 2 360 engines (magnum & non) 245hp each dying for > flog time! > REPLY AND OPINION courtesy of Seth Allen ------------------------------ From: Andrew Rabbitt Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 08:51:01 +0100 Subject: RE: bhp > > Can you imagine how out of tune an auto would have to be for ANY > spark > > plug change to give an additional 50 Horsepower? > > The purpose of the plug is to ignite the fuel. In some circumstances, > > different materials are more or less prone to oxidation in heated > environments, so yes, in theory, different plugs might make a > difference. > Also, plugs come in temperature ranges, different gap settings, > different > insulator materials. I've honestly never figured out technically the > reasons why, but if someone on the list can explain why a plug is not > a > plug, I'm all ears :) > The spark energy influences the power (by increasing the burn rate) more than the spark plug itself, and this is related to the stored coil energy and not necessarily the plug specification. 50 hp sounds like a lot, but if you've got a 2000 hp Merlin XX then it seems feasible. In the real (automotive) world, you might see a 2-3% change. Andrew Rabbitt ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #197 ***************************** 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".