DIY_EFI Digest Monday, 30 June 1997 Volume 02 : Number 220 In this issue: RE>OBC Manual Scans On Website Re: 2.5 L engines Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold fuel rail needed TPI on a 6cyl Re: fuel rail needed Re: Big overlap cams and EFI Re: Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold Re: Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold Re: fuel rail needed Supra MAF ----> MAP or bigger MAF See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Richard Cartledge Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 18:24:31 +0100 Subject: RE>OBC Manual Scans On Website jwolf@xxx. >Question? Can anyone please tell me how to use the keypad on my 84 733i as >an alarm? I have heard that you can punch in a code that will disable the >engine if someone tries to steal the car. I would look it up in my manual >but the book got wet at some time in its life and the pages that cover the OBC.are stuck together. - -- If anyone has lost the instructions for the OBC rev 1 ('79-84) or 2 ('84-87), I have scanned the Owner's manual for both types, and the GIFs are on my Web-Page at URL: http://www.innotts.co.uk/~fac51/main.html These print off quite clearly, but can appear unreadable on the screen unless you use zoom-capable graphics software. Hope it helps, Richard ********************************************* Richard Cartledge Apple Powerbook 5300c fac51@xxx.uk/~fac51 ********************************************* ------------------------------ From: "Gary Derian" Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 20:11:47 -0400 Subject: Re: 2.5 L engines Hey Jim, relax. I agree that the 2.2 and 2.5 engines were new designs, its just that they bear a strong resemblance to the Rabbit engines, and the Omni bears a resemblance to the Rabbit. Gary Derian > > On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Gary Derian wrote: > > > The 2.2 Chrysler engines used in front wheel drive vehicles are overgrown > > copies of the VW 1.6 used in the Rabbit. > > Wrong. The 2.2 and 2.5 were new designs from Chrysler...got the SAE paper > around here somewhere. > > > AMC later changed to its own 2.5 based on the 4.0 6 cyl. Chrysler > > continued to use the 2.5 AMC engine for a while in Jeeps. I'm not sure > > what 4cyl they use today. > > > The 2.5 Chrysler engine is not around anymore; they sold a line to China, > maybe it was their only production line (I don't know) The 2.5 pushrod > x-AMC 4 is still used, now it's also in Daks. > > Jim Davies ------------------------------ From: Daniel Burk Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:04:31 -0700 Subject: Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold I'm in the process of porting my intake manifold and was wondering if anyone else has done this. So far I have about four to five hours worth of porting done on the first of the eight ports. I'll try to describe what I've done so far. I've gasket matched the intake gasket area which involved grinding substantial material away from around the roof of the port around the injector boss. There seemed to be a "lip" of some sort that I hope wasn't an air deflector 'cause it's gone now. The overall port size now matches the gasket perfectly. The runner gasket area was really weird: Kind of shaped like a trumpet, so that the opening was already larger than the gasket, but necked down to the gasket diameter over about a radius of 2 mm. The gasket is a perfect fit to the runner, which is smaller than the intake opening. I have opened up the port to the diameter of the intake opening to remove the "trumpet" look. Substantial material was ground out into the port about 3cm. As the port proceeds towards the intake gasket area, it makes a rather abrupt turn to straighten and turn into the cylinder head. I've found that the material in this area is a good .200" thickness, so I have ground out about half, about .100" to increase the inside radius of the turn. Lastly, I have noted that about .200" material exists in the roof of the port, so I have raised the roof of the port around the injector boss about .050 - .100 ". I have also lowered the floor of the port at the runner entrance about .050" to .100" in order to again smooth the bend. Now I DID have one incident that scared me almost ot death: I hit a pore in the aluminum. It made me think that I had perhaps ground into a water jacket, but as I examined it, I decided to continue grinding. (What the hell, I thought, I'll have to weld anyway if it's through.) Luckily, I ground the pore out and it stopped. Now, Has anyone attempted to port one of these things, and if so, do these procedures sound like the right thing to do? I don't have access to a flow bench to test them, but would like feed back from experienced porting people. Dan. ------------------------------ From: James Weiler Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 19:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: fuel rail needed I priced fuel rail (made by MSD) at my local speed shop andd they wanted $50 for 2 feet. I'm doing a V8 so that's $100 !!!!! Is this is line with what everybody else has paid? Any body got a cheaper source? thanks jw ------------------------------ From: Thomas Wright Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:42:22 -0400 Subject: TPI on a 6cyl Hi, I've been on this list for a few months now, trying to absorb all the information and ideas that have been floating around. I have a 76 Jaguar XJ6C with the original engine, which I do NOT plan on trading for a V8. The basic engine, drive train, chassis, etc. on these cars are great, it's all the auxiliary crap that they put on these things that causes the problems. Anyway, I plan on replacing as much of this stuff as possible, little by little, including the fuel injection system. The car originally had carbs, which I have already replaced with the Bosch L-Jet system from an 81 Jag. The next step is to replace the L-jet with something that can keep up with the modifications that I have already made, and will make to the car. The L jet system is very restrictive ,and from what I have read, stops increasing the supply of fuel after 4000 RPM. The modifications to my engine so far are: a freer flowing exhaust, gas flowed head, hotter cams and a TH700R4 tranny. After following this list for a while, I have decided that making my own fuel injection system from scratch is way over my head, and an aftermarket system is way over my budget. Therefore, I would like to try and adapt the system from another care to mine. I was thinking about a TPI system with an Mass Air Flow meter. Although an MAF may be somewhat restrictive, it's got to be better than the air flow meter on my L-Jet, and it would eliminate some of the tuning problems I would have trying to adapt a MAP based system. I have about a thousand and one questions, but I will limit them to just a few, since I have rattled on long enough already. Am I right in assuming that if I match a MAF to the right sized injectors, then all else aside, It would eliminate most tuning problems (from an A/F stand point)? It is my understanding that MAF systems are calibrated to a certain max HP. Therefore I would need a system from a 350 V8. (I estimate my HP potential right now to be about 225HP, and more in the future.) But I have a 6cyl. I figure the 6cyl ignition signal being sent to an ECM that thinks it is getting a signal from an 8cyl would throw the injection timing off. Is there a way around this? (I am not looking to control the ignition timing.) Is there a common MAF system (i.e. not Buick GN) for a 6cyl that can handle 200 - 300 HP range? Late eighties Chevy IROCs are easy to come by for salvaging parts, therefore I would prefer to adapt one of these V8 systems. I have many more specific questions, but I'll just leave it to these basic ones, first. Thanks Tom Wright ------------------------------ From: David Chambers Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:59:57 +1000 Subject: Re: fuel rail needed James Weiler wrote: > > I priced fuel rail (made by MSD) at my local speed shop andd they wanted $50 > for 2 feet. I'm doing a V8 so that's $100 !!!!! Is this is line with what > everybody else has paid? Any body got a cheaper source? > > thanks > jw For the actual injector rail I used 1/2" square steel tube and screwed 1/8 BSP x 5/16th barbs into it for the injectors. I then welded washers to the end of the rail so that i could screw a barb in each end for the inlet and outlet hoses. Imagine a straight rail with the inlet at one end and the outlet at the other with the injectors at right angles to the rail. David ------------------------------ From: pantera@xxx.com (David Doddek) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:02:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Big overlap cams and EFI >At 06:55 PM 6/27/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Joe Boucher >> You can use the remote vacuum pumps [external] that came on many of the GM >>cars of the 80s if you have a low vacuum. >>Good Luck >>Greg Abarr >> >That's not what I'm getting at. The ECM goes nuts and won't manage the >fuel properly. Why? > >Joe Boucher >70 RS/SS Camaro 81 TBI Suburban >Bedford, TX > > The computer algorithms are not written to handle the low vaccuume at idle that a large cam causes. That takes a special programing. It ammounts to running our of adjustment in the maps to compensate. David Doddek pantera@xxx.com/~pantera 217-422-3722 69 EFI Fairlane, 89 T-bird SC, 74 Twin turbo NOS EFI Pantera #6825 If you are going to go fast, go real fast. ------------------------------ From: Thomas Wright Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:09:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold I have one small piece of advice, Gasket matching head is OK, but gasket matching the intake manifold is risky. Your better off just smoothing it out and enlarging it only a little. If you gasket match the head AND the intake manifold, there is no guarantee that they will match up perfectly when bolted together. There will always be some play when mounting the manifold (and the gasket) on the head, and if there is even the smallest area where the incoming air hits an even slightly protruding edge of the manifold gasket or head, then all your porting work will be undone. ALWAYS leave the intake manifold port slightly smaller in diameter than the head port. Moving from a smaller port to a larger one won't disrupt the flow in any measurable sense, and in addition, the anti-reversion properties are more beneficial than a perfectly matched port (which is next to impossible to achieve anyhow.) Tom Wright Daniel Burk wrote: > I'm in the process of porting my intake manifold and was wondering if > anyone else has done this. > > So far I have about four to five hours worth of porting done on the > first of the eight ports. I'll try to describe what I've done so far. > > I've gasket matched the intake gasket area which involved grinding > substantial material away from around the roof of the port around the > injector boss. There seemed to be a "lip" of some sort that I hope > wasn't an air deflector 'cause it's gone now. The overall port size > now > matches the gasket perfectly. > > The runner gasket area was really weird: Kind of shaped like a > trumpet, > so that the opening was already larger than the gasket, but necked > down > to the gasket diameter over about a radius of 2 mm. The gasket is a > perfect fit to the runner, which is smaller than the intake opening. > I > have opened up the port to the diameter of the intake opening to > remove > the "trumpet" look. Substantial material was ground out into the port > > about 3cm. > > As the port proceeds towards the intake gasket area, it makes a rather > > abrupt turn to straighten and turn into the cylinder head. I've found > > that the material in this area is a good .200" thickness, so I have > ground out about half, about .100" to increase the inside radius of > the > turn. > > Lastly, I have noted that about .200" material exists in the roof of > the > port, so I have raised the roof of the port around the injector boss > about .050 - .100 ". I have also lowered the floor of the port at the > > runner entrance about .050" to .100" in order to again smooth the > bend. > > Now I DID have one incident that scared me almost ot death: I hit a > pore in the aluminum. It made me think that I had perhaps ground into > a > water jacket, but as I examined it, I decided to continue grinding. > (What the hell, I thought, I'll have to weld anyway if it's through.) > Luckily, I ground the pore out and it stopped. > > Now, Has anyone attempted to port one of these things, and if so, do > these procedures sound like the right thing to do? I don't have > access > to a flow bench to test them, but would like feed back from > experienced > porting people. > > Dan. ------------------------------ From: pantera@xxx.com (David Doddek) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:25:49 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Info needed on porting details for a stock Tuned Port Intake manifold >I'm in the process of porting my intake manifold and was wondering if >anyone else has done this. > >So far I have about four to five hours worth of porting done on the >first of the eight ports. I'll try to describe what I've done so far. > >I've gasket matched the intake gasket area which involved grinding >substantial material away from around the roof of the port around the >injector boss. There seemed to be a "lip" of some sort that I hope >wasn't an air deflector 'cause it's gone now. The overall port size now >matches the gasket perfectly. > >The runner gasket area was really weird: Kind of shaped like a trumpet, >so that the opening was already larger than the gasket, but necked down >to the gasket diameter over about a radius of 2 mm. The gasket is a >perfect fit to the runner, which is smaller than the intake opening. I >have opened up the port to the diameter of the intake opening to remove >the "trumpet" look. Substantial material was ground out into the port >about 3cm. > >As the port proceeds towards the intake gasket area, it makes a rather >abrupt turn to straighten and turn into the cylinder head. I've found >that the material in this area is a good .200" thickness, so I have >ground out about half, about .100" to increase the inside radius of the >turn. > >Lastly, I have noted that about .200" material exists in the roof of the >port, so I have raised the roof of the port around the injector boss >about .050 - .100 ". I have also lowered the floor of the port at the >runner entrance about .050" to .100" in order to again smooth the bend. > >Now I DID have one incident that scared me almost ot death: I hit a >pore in the aluminum. It made me think that I had perhaps ground into a >water jacket, but as I examined it, I decided to continue grinding. >(What the hell, I thought, I'll have to weld anyway if it's through.) >Luckily, I ground the pore out and it stopped. > > >Now, Has anyone attempted to port one of these things, and if so, do >these procedures sound like the right thing to do? I don't have access >to a flow bench to test them, but would like feed back from experienced >porting people. > > Dan. > Probably would of been easier to have it Extrude Honed. Since the intake is hard to get inside of it is hard to port and polish. David Doddek pantera@xxx.com/~pantera 217-422-3722 69 EFI Fairlane, 89 T-bird SC, 74 Twin turbo NOS EFI Pantera #6825 If you are going to go fast, go real fast. ------------------------------ From: pantera@xxx.com (David Doddek) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:27:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: fuel rail needed > >I priced fuel rail (made by MSD) at my local speed shop andd they wanted $50 >for 2 feet. I'm doing a V8 so that's $100 !!!!! Is this is line with what >everybody else has paid? Any body got a cheaper source? > >thanks >jw > > Went up a bit, When I bought mine, it was $10 per foot. But that was 7 years ago. David Doddek pantera@xxx.com/~pantera 217-422-3722 69 EFI Fairlane, 89 T-bird SC, 74 Twin turbo NOS EFI Pantera #6825 If you are going to go fast, go real fast. ------------------------------ From: Brock and Jennifer Fraser Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 01:45:36 -0500 Subject: Supra MAF ----> MAP or bigger MAF >Does anyone know of a larger mass airflow sensor available for >93-on Toyotas, namely the Supra? > What most Supra owners do is replace the MAF with a device from >HKS called a VPC (vein pressure converter) when upgrading to a larger >turbo, etc.,hanging the fuel system to a speed-density system. It's >basically a MAP sensor with a black box that sends the proper signal to >the ECU. The box contains several adjustment knobs for fuel pulse, >gain, and idle mixture. Only problem with this device is the constant >need to readjust the VPC when there is a large change in air temperature >and humidity. At what point does the factory MAF system run out of fuel metering capacity (Hp level)? Is the primary goal to upgrade the injectors, or to eliminate the MAF as an inlet restriction? I've never heard of a Toyota-specific MAF upgrade. > If there is no available upgraded MAFs, how hard would it be to >use MAF from a Mustang? A friend of mine has the chance of getting a >larger aftermarket Mustang MAF that has the proper interface required to >work with his 95 Eagle Talon TSi, would the work required to do the same >for a Toyota run a lot more than $1000 (usuall price for a VPC)? Any idea what the output signal is like on the Toyota sensor? I'm pretty sure that Fords use a 0-5V output, although I'm just familiar with the GM frequency-based sensors. If the Toyota sensor is a voltage proportional sensor, then it might be straightforward to use a Ford-esque sensor, with some tweaks. Brock ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #220 ***************************** 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".