DIY_EFI Digest Friday, 18 July 1997 Volume 02 : Number 242 In this issue: Re: Fw: injector flow rates Re: an eec plan Re: an eec plan Re: Fuel pressure guage isolator 16V Eprom Programming language Re: Programming language Re: an eec plan RE: an eec plan MSD fuel management sample pics ionline Fw: Fw: injector flow rates RE: Programming language 68HC11 EFI Re: an eec plan Re: an eec plan Re: 700R4 ratios RE: Programming language Re: 700R4 ratios RE: 68HC11 EFI See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rich Mauruschat Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:42:02 +0100 Subject: Re: Fw: injector flow rates At 13:18 11/07/97 +0200, you wrote: >Here are some Values. All Fuel injectors are on one microfiche every bosch >dealer should have. The numbers are from 0 288 150 203 up to about 900. >So that would be too much to copy complete. Many injectors have the the >same parameters but different sizes, and some of them are for CH 20v3 Gas >or Heptane. >Hope this helps. >---------- >> Von: Rich Mauruschat >> An: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu >> Betreff: injector flow rates >> Datum: Donnerstag, 10. Juli 1997 10:25 >> >> Does anyone have details of flow rates (static and dynamic at specified >> pressure) for Bosch injectors? >> The part numbers I am particularly interested in are: > flow rate ccm/1000 cyc. p(bar) > (ccm/min) > >> 0 280 150 203 185 5.05 2.5 > 0 280 150 204 167 4.6 2.5 > 0 280 150 205 170 4.08 2.5 > 0 280 150 206 167 7.9 2.5 > 0 280 150 207 107 7.9 2.5 > 0 280 150 208 133 3.15 2.5 >> 0 280 150 209 167 3.96 2.5 > 0 280 150 210 133 3.15 2.5 >> 0 280 150 211 146 3.37 3.0 > 0 280 150 213 300 8.77 3.0 > 0 280 150 214 185 4.38 3.0 > 0 280 150 215 214 5.77 2.5 > 0 280 150 216 214 5.77 2.5 > 0 280 150 217 167 5.17 2.5 > 0 280 150 218 217 9.7 2.5 >> 0 280 150 219 167 4.95 2.5 > 0 280 150 220 146 3.45 3.0 > 0 280 150 221 149.6 (CH20v3) > 171 (Heptane) >> 0 280 150 227 >> 0 280 150 702 189 3.95 3.0 >> 0 280 150 703 149 3.1 3.0 >> 0 280 150 725 170 3.6 2.5 >> 0 280 150 727 131 4.1 2.5 >> 0 280 150 734 200 4.3 2.5 >> 0 280 150 744 214 7.1 2.5 >> A longer list would be great! >> >> Cheers, >> Richard > >Peter Rueb >s68558@xxx.de > Peter, Many thanks for this list, fantastic. I shall try to track down this microfiche in the UK, I was not aware of its existence, even having spoken to Bosch. Do you know how the dynamic test (ccm/1000cyc.) is defined - ie what is the 'ON' time for each cycle? Not even Bosch were able to explain this to me. Comparing the static flow and dynamic flow rates on this list, there are some large differences between some injectors eg. 0 280 150 215: 0 280 150 744; both have the same static flow but very different dynamic figures - different pull-in time perhaps? Any ideas welcome Richard ------------------------------ From: Dan Stokes Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 08:19:14 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: an eec plan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, The other G Man! wrote: > > Does anyone know the min and max values returned from sensors in terms > of voltage? > They're almost all 0 .. 5V. The only exception is some of the "digitial" information return .. mainly ignition signals and the like. If it has to go into an A to D its 0 to 5V - -Dan ------------------------------ From: Joe Boucher Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:28:21 -0500 Subject: Re: an eec plan You've hit the same nail I've wanted to hit right on the head. With all the OEM equipment floating around in salvage yards, I've wanted to use that as a parts well for EFI development. But since I'm a late '70's educated Mechanical Engineer, I have virtually no skills to offer without a lot of self study. Joe Boucher '70 RS/SS Camaro '81 TBI Suburban Bedford, TX ------------------------------ From: cloud@xxx.edu (Tom Cloud) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:52:31 -0500 Subject: Re: Fuel pressure guage isolator >>>What I am in need of is a device I can plumb into the >>>fuel rail, and hook a standard oil or air pressure >>>guage to the other side, so that fuel can never >>>get into to cabin, even if the feeder hose is cut. ... >>look in the Summit or Jegs catalog -- they sell isolators. >> >>also check out the pressure transducers in the Digi-Key >>catalog (p. 454 in May-June). The Measurement Specialties >>SS xducer costs ~ $85 and will work, but you're going to >>have to have some electronics (i.e. op-amp signal >>conditioning) to make it work ... >Beware if using semicondutor type transducers (ie no stainless interface >diaphragm), they often do not take kindly to being exposed to liquid petrol, >the sensing element is often only protected by a silicone gel barrier. >Sometimes you can get away with it - worth bearing in mind though. >Richard good point, but the unit I specified from Digi-Key is SS (see above) and is specified safe with solvents, etc Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: "Peter Rueb" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 16:55:28 +0200 Subject: 16V Eprom Can anyone mail me the eprom readout of a Golf/Corrado etc. 2.0l 16V engine? I need to know the structure of the ignition table for our new 2.0l 16V/G60 engine, so i do not knock it to death :-). Thanks, Peter Rueb s68558@xxx.de ------------------------------ From: "Christopher E. Hill" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:05:17 -0400 Subject: Programming language Hello, I am wondering what is the best language for doing engineering type work is. What I would like to have is the abilty to do basic multiplication, exponents, logs, inverse trig functions, and dot and cross product. I also would like to have the program run under windows, or at least DOS. Any and all help is appreciated!! Thanks, Christopher E. Hill--chill6@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: "Steve Meade" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:45:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Programming language - ---------- > From: Christopher E. Hill > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Programming language > Date: Thursday, July 17, 1997 9:05 AM > > Hello, > I am wondering what is the best language for doing engineering type > work is. What I would like to have is the abilty to do basic > multiplication, exponents, logs, inverse trig functions, and dot and cross > product. I also would like to have the program run under windows, or at > least DOS. Any and all help is appreciated!! > I think it depends largely on what you plan on "interfacing" your programs with. If you are just looking for a relatively easy to program environment (all languages can do complex math ['cept maybe Logo]) that let's you make DOS and Windows programs than I would spend $89 and get Borland Delphi 3.0. If you want to write stuff and compatibility with others' work is of utmost performance, than I'd go with Borland C Builder since it's more of the "standard." However, there is a steeper learning curve for C. > Thanks, > > Christopher E. Hill--chill6@xxx.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steve Meade smeade@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: George Najarian Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 09:57:31 -0700 Subject: Re: an eec plan What about replacing the 8061 and proprietary EPROM with a 68332 and flash? We can eliminate all of the uncertainty of the 8061, and are only left with reverse engineering the analog stuff (and writing EFI code, of course). This might be a more reasonable course of action, and avoid all the nasty copyright issues. I have heard of this being done to as least one EEC (please don't bug me for details ... I can't provide them). At 09:24 PM 7/16/97 -0500, Tom Cloud wrote: > >what do most of us (with Fords) want? > >For myself, I'd like to be able to fiddle with all the >things I used to be able to do when it was carbs and >points. Actually, it's more fun now -- if one could >get to the software and knew what the hardware was. > > >I propose: > > - a "generic" eec replacement .... one that plugs onto >the cable and takes inputs and gives outputs ... one where >the software is public domain (sorta like the efi-332 project) > > - I propose that it is most logically a modified eec-iv that >will accomplish this end > > >advantages: > > - you could do what I said above -- and get as sophisticated >as you wanted > > - if the software was public domain, the knowledge would >spread beyond our group(s) and the sophistication of performance >freeks, in general, would go up -- and that's a good thing, though >there will be whineys that will worry about so much knowledge >in the hands of "hot-rodders" > > - we'll actually finally be free to experiment and perfect >our vehicles like we want to -- and not be limited by someone >else's contraption -- no matter how well thought out -- that >will never quite do exactly what "I" want it to (plus >I'll only have myself to blame when it doesn't work ;-) > > >disadvantages: > > - replacement eec's will become very scarce 8^) > > - lotsa work to pull this together, including finding out >how all the little gizmos in different years and models >work so the software can be made to read them and so the >hardware can drive them > > - probably a major software project ?? (there's lots >of knowledge out there already) consider that, IMHO, >probably 80% of the code in the eec-iv is unrelated to >making your car "GO" -- it's probably related to the >"adaptive learning" (darn, *I* do that now) and diagnostic >features (and who knows what else) of the eec. Don't >get me wrong, I'd love to have all those things, but >they're not necessary. To get yourself way up the curve >of diminishing returns, all you really need is sensors >for rpm, tps and MAP. Then you need fuel maps or some >other way of modifying the fuel flow for specific engine >and hop-up configurations. That's just the software. >Obviously, the hardware would be more difficult -- but >we've already got an eec-iv. Now if only we could >know about the hardware in it and how to program it ??? > > - assuming that the hardware in the eec-iv is similar >enough across all models that we can find one or several >that will work for most applications (that could be >a daunting task in itself) we'd have to have basic code >that'd run the vehicle in at least a basic mode until >refinements could be made -- but consider that even a >MAF vehicle could have a SD program in it that just ignored >the MAF (the only serious problem I see with this would >be puffers) > > > >miscellaneous thoughts: > > - All I'm saying is that, given reasonable objectives, I >think we can crack the eec-iv and put our own code into >it and have a resultant that is superior to, and far less >expensive than, any aftermarket system (I'm not talking about >engine mods like heads and cams and stuff -- you'd have to do >those with any other system you bought). > > - This is possible using the GM controller (there's lots >of data on it and people who've already put it onto >Ford products, replacing the eec-iv -- and one I know >of (on diy-efi ... George, it's you, isn't it?) that swears >by this method) > > - heck, something like the efi-332 project controller >could be made to work > > - using a different controller would require either >cutting the connector off the harness or splicing into >it or finding a source for the eec connector > > > - a major point that would determine the feasability of >using the eec-iv as the workbench for this is > > - do all eec-iv's ( regardless of the model) use the > same, or similar, pinouts > > - how do different options (like MAF, etc) fit into > the connection scheme > > - how much variability is there in various sensors > ( like MAP, temp, tps, rpm pickoff, MAF, etc) and > actuators (like injectors and throttle bypass, etc) > ... can a single eec or other controller be reasonably > expected to read the inputs and control the outputs > of the diverse range of years and models and options > that exist in the Ford line ?? > >Now that I've posted the op-codes for the 8061/3 and there's >an assembler written, we can begin to get to work. Also, >remember that I've posted a collection of technical data >on the eec (and I've got a greatly revised and better version >that I've not had the time to finish that is "imminent" -- >that's what I said 6 months or so ago) > >A great help would be if some of the people who've pioneered >in this area, like Mike W. and others, would share a little more >(Mike's already shared a bunch) -- e.g. about the questions I >raise above (and, in particular, about the configuration of the >hardware, like the VLSI, and variations, etc on the eec and >in external hardware). > > - how different -- or similar -- are the various eec hardware >configurations ?? > > - is it unreasonable to expect to find one (or several) eec's >that could be programmed to accept data from a variety of >versions of sensors and to output to the same variety ? > > >We need a FAQ on the eec's and on the various sensors >and actuators. > >We will need a FAQ on software drivers that do various >functions > >Also, some of the members of these lists work for Ford. >If you know how we can ask corporate for help to accomplish >this, I think it'd help Ford, not hurt them. We're not >interested in pirating their code (though it is in the >boxes we own), but in playing with our expensive toys we >bought from them. > >I need your help to get this going .... anyone ? > > > ================================================ > THE END > ================================================ > >P.S. > >I'm not on fordnatics or any Mustang, Mercur, Lightning, >T-Bird, etc list -- only BigBroncos, eec-iv and diy-efi, >so if some of you, who are on those lists, would spread this >around, maybe we can get some action. > > > >FYI -- to join the eec-iv list (an unofficial subset of diy-efi) > > > =============== > >Subscription info is on the eec-iv web page at: > > http://eelink.umich.edu:80/~p-nowak/eec-efi/ > > >or e-mail the list admin, Paul Nowak, directly at > > Paul Nowak > > =============== > >for eec-iv info, check out: > > http://www.iaw.com/~aubertin/88mgt/eec-iv/eec-iv.htm > http://204.255.212.10/~jthorsse/eectest.html > >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: James Boughton Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:16:21 -0400 Subject: RE: an eec plan >On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, The other G Man! wrote: >> >> Does anyone know the min and max values returned from sensors in terms >> of voltage? >> >They're almost all 0 .. 5V. The only exception is some of the "digitial" >information return .. mainly ignition signals and the like. >If it has to go into an A to D its 0 to 5V >-Dan Except the oxygen sensor which is 0 to 1V, although typically the a/d used is a 0 to 5V a/d Jim Boughton boughton@xxx.net begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AL1`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`&0!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```&,`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!D:7E?969I0&-O=6QO M;6(N96YG+F]H:6\M``,P`0`` M`",```!D:7E?969I0&-O=6QO;6(N96YG+F]H:6\M5]E9FE 8V]U;&]M8BYE;FL"@P!0`O()`@!C: K P`U(@xxx.\=\&8H``;P M`9!G9?(_'S4^/BIO*W\;?AW!['DG%A F0&P$8!/ ,G$!`R P("XN(#56`S-@ M';1N;'D@97CT8V4%,&D"("G0!" ID <'@"V2)Q(B9&EG:;LTL = (BY6`* O M;R +D.\PKQPC`A J,&$TLRB$,T+_`, +@#0Q-A #`#2S`) [D \'0"8R)[ G M$FQI:V7>+A\U+N\O_QM^22VP-C"&(!& !"!T;R!G0:#7"X!!D0.104&"1$$1 M!"!_,S!!D3. /6\^?S^/'!0M;D0`<$.?1*Y%-',G`V\\>'DN(#OQ*7,>P&AI MYQ%P-/)#(S%6'- '0!X0B0A@9V@?-71Y<$L@IS+Q-$ G$F$O)[!U$;"[)[ U M`6%#%DWB1VQ*!W!\($),8D&01U8&X%#$0/9B.X$1P"Y2446_'!0?/U\+D1*R M# -3O14Q`% Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:03:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: MSD fuel management sample pics ionline Because of the number of request I got I Uploaded a few sample pictures to ftp://ftp.korn.net/pub/incoming/MSD1.GIF ftp://ftp.korn.net/pub/incoming/MSD2.GIF ftp://ftp.korn.net/pub/incoming/MSD3.GIF ftp://ftp.korn.net/pub/incoming/MSD4.GIF ftp://ftp.korn.net/pub/incoming/MSD5.GIF then go to http://www.msdignition.com and get a catalog for yourself........ If you need them emailed just ask. ------------------------------ From: "Peter Rueb" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:53:54 +0200 Subject: Fw: Fw: injector flow rates > Peter, > Many thanks for this list, fantastic. I shall try to track down this > microfiche in the UK, I was not aware of its existence, even having spoken > to Bosch. Do you know how the dynamic test (ccm/1000cyc.) is defined - ie > what is the 'ON' time for each cycle? Not even Bosch were able to explain > this to me. Comparing the static flow and dynamic flow rates on this list, > there are some large differences between some injectors eg. 0 280 150 215: > 0 280 150 744; both have the same static flow but very different dynamic > figures - different pull-in time perhaps? Sorry that i forgot to mention the pulse time. As far as i remember most of them were 2.5ms or 2.2ms. But there were differences. It is also on the microfiche mentioned as ti (time interval). All injectors beginning with 0 280 150 XXX are the same size and shape. There are some other injectors for mono jetronic etc. that begin with 0 280 YYY where y is different. So if you want to change your injectors for whatever reason stick to the same numbers. The dynamic values are also important. They depend on the engine. If you have a big engine with e.g 4 cylinders 2.0l and maximum rpm of 5.500 you have a relative small range you need to fit. Other example: Look at the injectors of a small, but charged engine like fiat uno turbo with 1.4l and maximum boost 0.7 bar, rpm up to 7000. Here you need a injector with a relative wide range from 1.4l idle up to 2.4l effective at full boost and rpm. So the static value is important for full load and rpm and the dynamic value is important for part load and idle. If your dynamic value is to high for the engine you get no smooth idle, very bad emissions or worst no idle at all. So the injectors have different sizes inside, other weights of needles, different angles of the needle heads, stronger coils inside and other resistance values. We had the same problem with our VW 1.8l G60 engine converted to 2.0l 16V/G60. The fuel ammount was to small and we now use a injector that is around 20 percent bigger in static and dynamic value. This seems to work. The knock table is the main problem now. So i think this method works as long as you make minor changes to your engine. But if you plan to adapt a turbo you need to calculate a bit more. Please correct me someone who really knows if i am wrong. Good luck. Peter ------------------------------ From: John Hess Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 13:15:38 -0500 Subject: RE: Programming language I know this one is going to draw a lot of flack; but, for years, I have used PowerBASIC (the old TurboBASIC before it was sold back to the originator). It is extremely powerful, has a built in assembler, and has some pretty good second and third party support. I have written applications to include communications interfaces, communications programs, database programs, marketing and sales, and accounting software. You are limited only by your own programming capabilities. My programs are highly structured (by preference...you can write stringy code if that is your desire). It handles object files written in other languages, including Paschal and C/C++. If you desire, you can use the old PCBASIC commands or learn all the commands included in the package for more advanced programming and structures. Write your own subs, functions, and libraries. You ARE NOT subject to the frustrations of the VERY regimented structure of the other high level languages; but, much of that structure is available should you desire it. I would say one should at least take a look at the modern BASICs before making any snide remarks about BASIC in general or BASIC programmers in specific. - ---------- From: Steve Meade[SMTP:smeade@xxx.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 11:46 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: Programming language - ---------- > From: Christopher E. Hill > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Programming language > Date: Thursday, July 17, 1997 9:05 AM > > Hello, > I am wondering what is the best language for doing engineering type > work is. What I would like to have is the abilty to do basic > multiplication, exponents, logs, inverse trig functions, and dot and cross > product. I also would like to have the program run under windows, or at > least DOS. Any and all help is appreciated!! > I think it depends largely on what you plan on "interfacing" your programs with. If you are just looking for a relatively easy to program environment (all languages can do complex math ['cept maybe Logo]) that let's you make DOS and Windows programs than I would spend $89 and get Borland Delphi 3.0. If you want to write stuff and compatibility with others' work is of utmost performance, than I'd go with Borland C Builder since it's more of the "standard." However, there is a steeper learning curve for C. > Thanks, > > Christopher E. Hill--chill6@xxx.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Steve Meade smeade@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 14:35:29 -0400 Subject: 68HC11 EFI I've been observing for a while now, with occasional rude comments. I have started to undergo a design for a Motorola 68HC11E9 based EFI system, and I didn't see anything similar in the DIYEFI archives. Does anyone know offhand if I just overlooked some good leaching material? Or are the previous mentioning of this particular processor related to personal projects only? I'm looking to compare my idea with something that exists, even in on a theory basis, to make sure my thoughts are in the right direction. Thanks in advance, direct replys welcome of course ;) Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Bridgeport, CT 06606 http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/4605/index.html 1989 AG Hummer 4-Door 1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental 2000 Mid-Engine Sports Car - --- ------------------------------ From: James Weiler Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:15:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: an eec plan So Tom I don't disagree with what you desire it's just that maybe you could be more specific in what you want control over. I can only speak for myself (and unfortunately I think a majority of list members) that all I want is to make an EEC-IV work well on my application. Once I've got it programmed I plan on leaving it alone. You obviously want more than this. With the 'calibrator' looming on the horizon I feel it will do more than what I want and probably for most list members to. If there was no 'calibrator' then I'd be right in there with you. I really like the idea of making an EEC-IV FAQ. I'd love to help out on that. What can I do? Tough project Tom.......maybe using a GM ECU would be easier. Peter Fensk seens to have complete control over his TPI. later guy jw ------------------------------ From: James Weiler Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 12:19:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: an eec plan On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, The other G Man! wrote: > > Does anyone know the min and max values returned from sensors in terms > of voltage? > The book by Probst goes through all of the sensors from 1981-1993. What in particular are you looking for? jw ------------------------------ From: "George M. Dailey" Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:43:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: 700R4 ratios Well, it seems as if the EFI SBC delivers a wide range of fuel economy 12 - 25mpg. I like Peter F's milage, so I'm going to adjust the timing to 14 deg,. BTDC. What is the provable milage that the '89 TPI cars could routinely achieve? BTW Pete, what's your tire size and gear ratio? It may be time for me to change. Tom C. asked, "did the mpg drop occur suddenly or gradually ?? remember that a worn engine is less efficient and will get less mpg as it ages" It dropped right after I replaced my 350HT with the 700R4. No other changes period. No new big boned gilfriend, no doubble rations of food. It's strange that some people get 20mpg routine and others think "Not even the factory thinks they get 15MPG city/ 24 MPG highway." I have noticed that those that get the high milage swear by it as do those with the gas hoggs. The truth is an elusive quarry! Could the differences be due to just a few small things like a highly tuned EFI system? Back when I ran carbs, everybody got 8mpg city and 12 highway with a SBC and that's all I have to say about that. Thanks for the input gentlemen, I'll let you know what the timing does. GMD At 10:02 AM 7/16/97 -0500, you wrote: > >>> yeah, but a '93 Continental doesn't weigh 5600 pounds dry, >>> like my '95 'burban with TBI and it probably doesn't have >>> a 350 CID engine. I'm running 16" tires and 3.73 rear end. >>> It's 4WD also. I record every drop of petrol that goes into >>> it and after 40,000 miles, many on good highway runs, I'd >>> love to know how to get 15 mpg >>> >> >>My 88 Chevy fullsize p/u has the same gears and really tall tires. I get >>17 or better on the highway -- have sen 22 - and 12 to 15 around town. > >we're probably straying slightly from the forum content, >but 5600 pounds weighs more than your pu loaded to its >max (assuming it's a 1/2 ton) -- 4000# + 1000# = 5000#. >Imagine what mpg you'd get if you drove it fully loaded > ** all the time ** ..... and then add 600 more pounds, >plus occupants ... and other paraphernalia -- up to another >1/2 ton [the 'burban weighs 5600# ... dry, no fuel, no >occupants, no nothing -- not even floor mats ;-) ] > >Tom Cloud > > George M. Dailey gmd@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 17:40:00 -0500 Subject: RE: Programming language - -> NOT subject to the frustrations of the VERY regimented structure of - -> the other high level languages; but, much of that structure is - -> available should you desire it. Just like a mechanic has more than one wrench, a programmer should be able to handle more than one language. In many cases, the language itself is secondary to the specific *implementation* of the language, things like, "will this sucker generate code small enough to stuff in my EPROM?" or "how much does this sucker cost, anyway?" The latter figured heavily in my rejection of various microcontroller boards; I'm not going to "license" someone's proprietary tinyBASIC or tinyC implementation for $695 to run on their $89 board. Are they in the software business or the hardware business? Most modern language interpretations - even many COBOLs and FORTRANs - - allow direct memory and port addressing, interrupts, and whatnot. The rest of them have been borrowing ideas from each other to the point that few implementations have the restrictions of the old days when the languages were "pure." ====dave.williams@xxx.us========================DoD#978======= can you help me...help me get out of this place?...slow sedation... ain't my style, ain't my pace...giving me a number...NINE, SEVEN, EIGHT ==5.0 RX7 -> Tyrannosaurus RX! == SAE '82 == Denizens of Doom M/C '92== ------------------------------ From: peter paul fenske Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 18:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 700R4 ratios Hi George It is a 4200 Lbs 85 GMC PU 2whl drive with 3.08 P235/15 mich radials..and yep the gas mileage stays at 20MPG now that is imperial .. Make sure your knock sensor works.. Ie don't carry it too far..With the stock chev cam this is prob too much advance, with the performer cam it is ok.. Everything is kinda complicated.. Ps you guys who use the #165 ECM with TPI should be giving STEVE at TTS a call. His package would be ideal for this.. CYall:peter Ps does anyone know how to use a ASTRA scanner. gRRRRRRR At 06:43 PM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote: >Well, it seems as if the EFI SBC delivers a wide range of fuel economy 12 - >25mpg. I like Peter F's milage, so I'm going to adjust the timing to 14 >deg,. BTDC. What is the provable milage that the '89 TPI cars could >routinely achieve? BTW Pete, what's your tire size and gear ratio? It may be >time for me to change. > >Tom C. asked, "did the mpg drop occur suddenly or gradually ?? remember that >a worn engine is less efficient and will get less mpg as >it ages" > >It dropped right after I replaced my 350HT with the 700R4. No other changes >period. No new big boned gilfriend, no doubble rations of food. > >It's strange that some people get 20mpg routine and others think "Not even >the factory >thinks they get 15MPG city/ 24 MPG highway." I have noticed that those that >get the high milage swear by it as do those with the gas hoggs. The truth is >an elusive quarry! Could the differences be due to just a few small things >like a highly tuned EFI system? Back when I ran carbs, everybody got 8mpg >city and 12 highway with a SBC and that's all I have to say about that. > >Thanks for the input gentlemen, I'll let you know what the timing does. > >GMD > > >At 10:02 AM 7/16/97 -0500, you wrote: >> >>>> yeah, but a '93 Continental doesn't weigh 5600 pounds dry, >>>> like my '95 'burban with TBI and it probably doesn't have >>>> a 350 CID engine. I'm running 16" tires and 3.73 rear end. >>>> It's 4WD also. I record every drop of petrol that goes into >>>> it and after 40,000 miles, many on good highway runs, I'd >>>> love to know how to get 15 mpg >>>> >>> >>>My 88 Chevy fullsize p/u has the same gears and really tall tires. I get >>>17 or better on the highway -- have sen 22 - and 12 to 15 around town. >> >>we're probably straying slightly from the forum content, >>but 5600 pounds weighs more than your pu loaded to its >>max (assuming it's a 1/2 ton) -- 4000# + 1000# = 5000#. >>Imagine what mpg you'd get if you drove it fully loaded >> ** all the time ** ..... and then add 600 more pounds, >>plus occupants ... and other paraphernalia -- up to another >>1/2 ton [the 'burban weighs 5600# ... dry, no fuel, no >>occupants, no nothing -- not even floor mats ;-) ] >> >>Tom Cloud >> >> >George M. Dailey >gmd@xxx.com > > ------------------------------ From: James Boughton Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 22:22:43 -0400 Subject: RE: 68HC11 EFI Fred, I am working on a project using an hc11 chip and have been quietly contemplating a full engine management system. Maybe we can share some information. I know people who have the ability to answer many questions. Could you share your project scope (i.e. fuel only or spark and fuel)? I have some background in the algorithm development area, but I am still learning about hardware and software. Jim Boughton boughton@xxx.net - ---------- From: Frederic Breitwieser[SMTP:frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 1997 2:35 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: 68HC11 EFI I've been observing for a while now, with occasional rude comments. I have started to undergo a design for a Motorola 68HC11E9 based EFI system, and I didn't see anything similar in the DIYEFI archives. Does anyone know offhand if I just overlooked some good leaching material? Or are the previous mentioning of this particular processor related to personal projects only? I'm looking to compare my idea with something that exists, even in on a theory basis, to make sure my thoughts are in the right direction. Thanks in advance, direct replys welcome of course ;) Frederic Breitwieser Homebrew Automotive Mailing List Bridgeport, CT 06606 http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/4605/index.html 1989 AG Hummer 4-Door 1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental 2000 Mid-Engine Sports Car - --- begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(C "`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`&0!```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```&,`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!D:7E?969I0&-O=6QO M;6(N96YG+F]H:6\M``,P`0`` M`",```!D:7E?969I0&-O=6QO;6(N96YG+F]H:6\M5]E9FE 8V]U;&]M8BYE;F2&3 MO $>`' ``0````\```!213H@-CA(0S$Q($5&20```@%Q``$````6`````;R3 M(7E4(>7FA/[R$="C$T1%4U0`````'@`># $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\, M`0```!0```!B;W5G:'1O;D!B:6=N970N;F5T``,`!A"SRTG]`P`'$)($```> M``@0`0```&4```!&4D5$+$E!35=/4DM)3D=/3D%04D]*14-455-)3D=!3DA# M,3%#2$E004Y$2$%614)%14Y154E%5$Q90T].5$5-4$Q!5$E.1T%&54Q,14Y' M24Y%34%.04=%345.5%-94U1%34U!``````(!"1 !````@@4``'X%``#," `` M3%I&=;F)W6?_``H!#P(5`J@%ZP*#`% "\@D"`&-H"L!S970R-P8`!L,"@S(# MQ0(`<')"<1'B1YP%P(A$^ +470=PR!F=79L`R )\&<+@!] `X%A+F<3X GP!4!S M$[,N(+D%T&%Y'V <0!] 8P!P[0J%0A@)+4J\07 #QTF!/ FX!] *&DN9?LC8"&0 M90,@`B @806P)%;-"K%K'L,M(BD_)C(?$_4E(V(`T&L)P A@'N$+@-DGM&QG M!; H0&@xxx.Q\P%:!P(K(*A23A82S]'U!U!4 <`RH!(;$G``K GP,`'=(& MX#.!$8%D=R3B;Q[2)2 !@#62+@J%"H5*R0=P($((8&=H*( ?EBLU`3@#0"@0 M9R(@xxx.8$VO KT*# Q-#0"T3QI+3M3#- [4PM9,3;O"J #8!/0'7$M/?<* MASRK[PPP/78:\ -P.C[^/78;L_L:\@9Q8S? %A H0 /P!Y"!!)!;4TU44#H# M4(E"U"YB0UA ;6,E\?,L\ 6@;5T^GS^M!F ",)- WT'K5&@(<'-D(Z!-,U!* M(: @xxx.C,UF"!0349?/ZU4;TB?(4'K9&EY7PW :4 W!: A MH -P8BS@xxx.$A#'E%% M1DDY_[,9KSUV22\S4 /P)\ TE=F4&"X9&XG(N$) MX!WQ>2? .QR2`)!M`Q *P3#E1$E^66+2"L >@1\P*E VO$2^;P>1*9%%T29D M-C!F$8"U,+)F&_%J': %0&\?,/)R%:!O:U^!)2,Q< 1POS12'H$0)2 %P/\6$"$!7X-7Y2; $:!=$QTE_P0@+7)L]E?E6A <,&K2')+_*(%& M$5@xxx.$