DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 14 August 1997 Volume 02 : Number 273 In this issue: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Re: Anti-turbo lag systems Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Re: Eprom switcher Re: Anti-turbo lag systems Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Re: Rover V8 Efi Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Re: Turbo boost Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption RE: TPI Questions Re: Rover V8 Efi Re: Controller Questions Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Re: Rover V8 Efi EFI stuff, (so I don't get kicked off the list) Re: What is Ockham's Razor? 6803 registers Re: EFI stuff, (so I don't get kicked off the list) Re: Where are the new concepts going to come from if this is the best there is? DynaCam Re: Anti-turbo lag systems Assholyness Re: Rover V8 Efi See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "barry coleman" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:04:05 PDT Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Tom, et. al, The system that you described is available now. Look at GM's TBI from a late '80s truck, or the Holley or Edelbrock copies. They are basicly the same thing (just quadruple the price for the packaging and ease of adjustments). I mean the EFI system from an '89, or '93 even 350/454ci V8 should flow decent amounts of air and fuel for just about any project. The harness is available from almost any junkyard, or they can be bought new from GM or Summit. We know that the ECMs must be easier to program than many VCRs due to the fact that aftermarket chips are less than $100 US, and that there is at LEAST one place on the web where you can buy a complete system to reprogram the PROMS (less than $400 US). The TBI system is the best of both worlds (tunability, and economy), but SEFI blows it away (once the secrets of the box are revealed...). Just a thought. *snip* >I think it was George on this list (mebbe I'm wrong) that > seemed to share my feelings on this .... I'd think a TBI > (or CPI, as Ford calls it) with MAF would be the "end-all > to be-all". I know of no one who's done this, but it would > allow the use of current carb intake manifolds, and would > be self-adjusting. I know that the window for this is small, > only encompassing pre-efi cars, but there's still lots > of them out there that probably would convert if the price > were right -- esp if they could have the economy and reliability > of efi with the big PLUS of better emissions control. > Tom Cloud Barry Coleman a 351C w/SEFI...why didn't Ford think of that? fvoho@xxx.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: Simon Quested Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:17:12 +1200 Subject: Re: Anti-turbo lag systems Hi All > I know that early eighties ferrari F1 cars used a system that bypassed air > from the turbo compressor straight into the exhaust system when the throttle > was closed and ran a rich mixture to create combustion in the exhaust. I > also read somewhere that peugeot used to inject propane into the exhaust to > acheive the same effect before it was banned in the group B rally cars. I've seen some pic's of an engine that had a system that injected fuel into the turbo exhaust housing to keep the turbo spinning at full rpm....the only problem was that for this system to work on this particular engine it needed to boost at 40 psi and had an extreamly low CR..... Cheers Simon +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Simon Quested (E-mail questeds@xxx.nz) Computer Technician, Silicon Graphics & Windows NT Support Centre for Computing and Biometrics LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OF NEW ZEALAND Phone (64)(03) 3252811 Ext. 8087 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/ccb/techs/simon/default.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmmng +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Frederic Breitwieser Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 16:25:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption > wait .... I don't think Fred wrote the first part ... Thanks Tom, no, I had not written that part at all :) >cannot be made to be MUCH more generic than a carb -- and >even as inexpensive -- except for the lack of volume to bring >down the costs. Its my belief this will change in the near future, since emmissions are getting tougher and tougher. 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: Justin Albury Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 07:24:51 +1000 Subject: Re: Eprom switcher Clare Snyder wrote: > > I missed the start of this thread. What are you trying to accomplish? I have > two eproms in the disk controller of my old COCO. They are connected in > parallel, pin for pin, except for the enable pin, which has a simple spdt > switch to select which prom is being accessed. This allowed use of two > different operating systems, RSDOS and ADOS. I likely still have the diagram > in an old Rainbow magazine somewhere. > this method wont work on the delco system......it was my first attempt. i have had good results from 1 chip split in half and switched with a pulldown resistor ......one of the guys from the list told me to set it up a little different to how i was doing it......and thankyou ...it seems to be a better way of switching....but still only using 1 eprom 1 switch (spst) and 1 resistor ......also a lot smaller than 2 chips and in a memcal i can still put the lids back on.. Justin ------------------------------ From: Simon Quested Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 09:29:02 +1200 Subject: Re: Anti-turbo lag systems Hi All > I will say that I saw quite an interesting thing of the sort one time. A > Mitsubishi Eclipse Turbo came in with a fried plug wire; therefore it was > firing on three cylinders, running rather roughly. However, all of that > fuel was dumping into the exhaust manifold. Therefore, you could rev the > thing in neutral, and the turbo would start whining (we had the intake hose > off) and the boost would come up. It was the only car I have ever seen that > could get full boost without moving. Really neat. The extra fuel and air > in the exhaust manifold was burning, and propelling the turbo. Martin mailed me a similar Idea.... From: Martin Ruddick Re getting more boost lower down, the Autronic and similar EFI units have anti-lag set up on them. with it running on our rally car we get approx 1 bar of boost at idle (2500 rpm idle though) basically they retard the ignition by about 35 degrees, so that the cylinder fires way after TDC. this means you get the same volume out the exhaust, but the engine rpm's don't rise. Hit the throttle and the ignition switches back to normal, and you have a spooled up turbo. Rather interesting to watch in action, however our driver finds it a bit awkward on the road sections when corners etc approach as it maintains that 2500 rpm idle unless you switch the anti-lag off. Cheers Simon +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Simon Quested (E-mail questeds@xxx.nz) Computer Technician, Silicon Graphics & Windows NT Support Centre for Computing and Biometrics LINCOLN UNIVERSITY OF NEW ZEALAND Phone (64)(03) 3252811 Ext. 8087 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/ccb/techs/simon/default.htm +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ f u cn rd ths, u cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmmng +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ------------------------------ From: Tom Cloud Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:11:49 -0500 Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption >Tom, et. al, > The system that you described is available now. Look at GM's TBI >from a late '80s truck, or the Holley or Edelbrock copies. They are >basicly the same thing (just quadruple the price for the packaging and >ease of adjustments). I mean the EFI system from an '89, or '93 even >350/454ci V8 should flow decent amounts of air and fuel for just about >any project. The harness is available from almost any junkyard, or they >can be bought new from GM or Summit. We know that the ECMs must be >easier to program than many VCRs due to the fact that aftermarket chips >are less than $100 US, and that there is at LEAST one place on the web >where you can buy a complete system to reprogram the PROMS (less than >$400 US). The TBI system is the best of both worlds (tunability, and >economy), but SEFI blows it away (once the secrets of the box are >revealed...). Just a thought. > *snip* >> seemed to share my feelings on this .... I'd think a TBI >> (or CPI, as Ford calls it) with MAF would be the "end-all >> to be-all". I know of no one who's done this, but it would >> allow the use of current carb intake manifolds, and would >> be self-adjusting. I know that the window for this is small, >> only encompassing pre-efi cars, but there's still lots >> of them out there that probably would convert if the price >> were right -- esp if they could have the economy and reliability >> of efi with the big PLUS of better emissions control. > >> Tom Cloud > >Barry Coleman Barry, how easy are these systems to modify to different engines and then to program/re-program ?? And then what kinda bucks are we talking ?? I'm real leery of 'chips' .... how can someone make a chip for my app that's perzact ?? Seems to me that the best they can do is make a best guess and then intentionally err on the conservative side as there's too many variables to consider. And then, what if you change tire sizes or diff ratio or intake or exhaust or cam or ..... do you gotta buy a new chip ?? And then, you're talking chevy .... how's that going to retrofit to a 'real' car (read FORD 8^) If this is a TBI, then *should* be no prob .... but if it's TPI seems to me we're in deep doo-doo. where's this place on the web that has programmers for *any* price ... do they give out necessary info to make major changes ?? What I'd love to see (wouldn't we all) is a flexible, expandable system that has a hand-held, CHEAP programmer that will do a bang-up job and then a port for a lap-top for those that want that extra 1/100 hp and .05 mpg ;-) I'd think a reasonable price for a complete efi system using TBI would be $300 -- including a hand-held analyzer/ controller that works sorta like the old dwell/tach test sets except with the ability to vary some basic parameters (e.g. fuel vs TPS, MAP and RPM) with a readout showing how much correction was being made to correct to EGO stoich -- and if it was out of range (and which way). This would yield a fantastic device that would satisfy virtually all our demands (I'll bet). The "kit" would have some nomograms that would allow the selection of injector and TB sizes before the purchase. The addition of MAF would make it more self-tuning but I think it would be totally unnecessary as one wouldn't need MAF if the SD system were easy enough to program. With such a system as above, one could install it on his standard carb-style manifold or even on a TPI manifold, since the basic tuning parameters wouldn't change (i.e. the fuel vs. RPM, TPS, MAP, etc). That way, if one already had TPI he could still use this system. With what I'm suggesting, one could "probably" pass all emissions tests **and** have a bad motor-scooter at the same time (probably a w*t dream). 8^( Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: clsnyde@xxx.net (Clare Snyder) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:45:21 GMT Subject: Re: Rover V8 Efi >Andrew McKenzie wrote: > >> Hello, >> I'm new to the list and have a few queries on EFI. >> Firstly, I want >> to convert my 1980 Rover V8 to EFI for extra performance and >> slightly >> greater economy. I have an 1988 Range Rover EFI factory >> manifold and >> harness, but lack an airflow meter and the dreaded Lucas ECU. >> >> > >Say - is it true that the reason the british like warm beer is >that Lucas builds refrigerators??? ;-} > > > Actually, the Brits don't like warm beer. They like it at room temperature, and anyone who has spent ANY time in Britain knows that is NOT warm!!!! ------------------------------ From: clsnyde@xxx.net (Clare Snyder) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 23:41:58 GMT Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption >To: DIY --INTERNET DIY > >From: Wayne Strasser (CED Polymer Development) >*** Resending note of 08/13/97 10:45 >_______________________________________________________________________ >Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption >========================================================================= >IF you could capture ALL of the heat energy known to exist in a gallon of >gasoline, and get it ALL to the wheels, 100MPG would not be such a stretch. >A low-tech Austin Mini 850 from the very early 60's was capable of in excess >of 50 MPG. That engine is only about 30% efficient, by common knowlege. With >heat rejection coatings, fuel injection, full engine management, and >turbocharging, possibly a bit of ceramic componentry to allow higher >temperatures, it should be do-able. 100 MPG from a behemoth like a 61 >Cadilac IS a stretch.> > >YOU CAN NEVER CAPTURE ALL OF THE ENERGY IN THE COVALENT PI AND SIGMA BONDS >IN GASOLINE...EVER HEARD OF A"CARNOT"ENGINE (ISENTROPIC, REVERSIBLE PROCESS)? > > We are not talking the theoretical heat value of gasoline, just the actual, available, proven heat value available from burning gasoline in proper concentrations with atmospheric oxygen under controlled pressure. I do not have the figures for gasoline handy, but for #2 fuel oil it is .135 million btu/us gallon.or 11.5 us gallons per million btus. In an atmospheric burner in a furnace, 65% of this heat is recoverable. With a flame retention head in the same furnace, close to 80% is recoverable. This is the difference in technology, and if a heat engine could attain 80 to 85% heat utilization, we could go 100 Miles per gallon, even with the itty bitty US gallon. ------------------------------ From: "Jeffrey Engel" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 17:17:06 +600 Subject: Re: Turbo boost Dave, That behavior isn't unique to diesels. Both of my turbo cars (gasoline engines) would keep accelerating with a steady throttle. I never had the opportunity - or tires - to hold full throttle for any length of time, though. =============================================== > Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:56:21 BST > From: dusher@xxx.com > Subject: Turbo boost > To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu > Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Hi all , Can anyone expalin to me turbo boost on a diesel engine ie same engine speed, foot to the floor and boost rises. Guess it must be more fuel= more boost, ie faster exhaust gases mmmmm. All t > is is on a Cummins C8.3 CTA , BTW. Dave Usher. > > > -- > > > > je jengel@xxx.net "I can resist anything but temptation" Mark Twain ------------------------------ From: "barry coleman" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:05:05 PDT Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption Tom, I didn't mean to strike a chord, it was just that what you described sounded VERY familiar. I've worked on these systems for several years now and they are as easy as a carb to work on. I agree with you in that, I don't like the idea of using the General's (GM, not that five letter swear word) hardware, but then that is why we are on the EEC-IV list. Ford couldn't make a TBI system to save its life, I'm just glad that they did an good job on the EEC-IV (if only they were a little more open about it). > How easy are these systems to modify to different > engines and then to program/re-program ?? And then what > kinda bucks are we talking ?? The T-body could be made to bolt to just about any carb intake by redrilling the bolt holes in the intake, or a simple spacer. The rest of the system just bolts to the intake or firewall. The system runs off of low (@14psi) fuel pressure (lines go directly to T-body), the PROM is removable and well documented (as compared to the EEC). The Turbo Regal link that was mentioned on the list a few days ago had a complete system to modify the GM computer's PROM for around $350-400. I know that they are TPI computers, but then how much different could they be...it could only be easier to modify TBI PROMs. A net search I know would bring up even better links. Sorry that I don't have more info, but then I've just worked on them. I agree that pre-burnt chips are kind of like consulting a psycic, but for anyone who didn't want to spend the time/effort burning the chips... Not to mention the quality of a chip depends on the description given of the setup. I COMPLETELY agree with you in that an aftermarket TBI EFI system should cost around $300. The kit should consist of a modified ECM, software, ALDL cable and TB adapter (all else would be stock GM). Go to Edelbrock's site, and check out their TB EFI. Then go and look at a GM setup (IDENTICAL! , save that the ECM has a few pots). > I'm real leery of 'chips' .... how can someone make > a chip for my app that's perzact ?? Seems to me that > the best they can do is make a best guess and then intentionally > err on the conservative side as there's too many variables > to consider. And then, what if you change tire sizes or > diff ratio or intake or exhaust or cam or ..... do you > gotta buy a new chip ?? > > And then, you're talking chevy .... how's that going to > retrofit to a 'real' car (read FORD 8^) If this is > a TBI, then *should* be no prob .... but if it's TPI > seems to me we're in deep doo-doo. > where's this place on the web that has programmers for > *any* price ... do they give out necessary info to make > major changes ?? > > What I'd love to see (wouldn't we all) is a flexible, > expandable system that has a hand-held, CHEAP programmer > that will do a bang-up job and then a port for a lap-top > for those that want that extra 1/100 hp and .05 mpg ;-) > > I'd think a reasonable price for a complete efi system > using TBI would be $300 -- including a hand-held analyzer/ > controller that works sorta like the old dwell/tach test > sets except with the ability to vary some basic parameters > (e.g. fuel vs TPS, MAP and RPM) with a readout showing how > much correction was being made to correct to EGO stoich > -- and if it was out of range (and which way). This would > yield a fantastic device that would satisfy virtually all > our demands (I'll bet). The "kit" would have some nomograms > that would allow the selection of injector and TB sizes before > the purchase. The addition of MAF would make it more self-tuning > but I think it would be totally unnecessary as one wouldn't > need MAF if the SD system were easy enough to program. > > With such a system as above, one could install it on > his standard carb-style manifold or even on a TPI manifold, > since the basic tuning parameters wouldn't change (i.e. > the fuel vs. RPM, TPS, MAP, etc). That way, if one already > had TPI he could still use this system. With what I'm > suggesting, one could "probably" pass all emissions tests > **and** have a bad motor-scooter at the same time (probably > a w*t dream). > > Tom Cloud Sorry for such a long winded reply guys. Barry Coleman a 351C w/SEFI...why didn't Ford think of that? fvoho@xxx.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: James Boughton Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:18:22 -0400 Subject: RE: TPI Questions I have to admit that I am not very familiar with distributor advance systems. I was attempting to put a mechanical and vacuum advance distributor on my Camaro, but never had the time and finally sold the car. This was my experience with distributors. So that said, I would guess that since on non-ecu cars the EGR is controlled by vacuum that you would have to modify the vacuum advance function of the distributor. Let me see if I can get a little advice on how much to modify the spark timing and I will get back to you. Overall, it sounds like you went the right direction - less advance for the same vacuum levels. - ---------- From: Tom Cloud[SMTP:cloud@xxx.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 3:51 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: RE: TPI Questions James Boughton wrote: >EGR is used to decrease NOx emissions, as well as to dilute the >incoming mixture to improve fuel economy. Because EGR causes >the burn rate of the mixture to decrease the spark advance must be >increased. So for an engine calibrated with EGR there is a spark >advance increase any time the engine controller thinks the engine >is breathing in EGR. The problem with removing the EGR valve >is that some people don't let the engine controller know that EGR is >not functional (to keep the check engine light from coming on). This >means that the engine controller thinks you have EGR when you really >don't and therefore the spark advance is far more than what it should >be. This can cause very high peak pressures and possibly knock. >I know when I did this I holed a piston:-P I wish somebody had told me >what I am telling you. so, James, on a non-ecu engine (distributor with centrifugal & vac advance controlling timing) how would you recommend compensating for the "loss" of the EGR function ? I had my distributor "re-curved" (actually think he just set the vac advance spring a little stiffer -- talking Ford vac advance canister) Tom Cloud ------------------------------ From: bwmsbldr@xxx.com (William A Williams) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 19:22:08 -0600 Subject: Re: Rover V8 Efi The same applies to the question " Why don't the British build tall buildings? Lucas Elevators!!" Bill in Boulder ---- "Engineering as an Art Form" ---- ------------------------------ From: "Stuart Baly" Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 11:42:01 +1000 Subject: Re: Controller Questions Tom & Jason wrote: >>1. If you had to pick a controller to learn on, which one would it >>be? There are two major controller families - the 8051 series and the Motorola 68705 series. I haven't had any experience with the 68705, but the 8051 is a good one. It's instruction set can give you the irrits sometimes, but there's a huge range of variants available for almost any purpose, ranging from the $10 bare bones jobby upwards. >>2. (After I have learned a bit more) If you had to pick a >>controller to monitor temperature and pressure, and vary an ignition >>and a fuel injection firing pattern at the same time, which >>controller would you use? Do you use multiple controllers for all >>these tasks, or is your code multi-threaded? Or, are these >>.microcontrollers so fast that the interference with the firing >>sequences is negligible? > - regarding your multiple controller question, I'd say there's >two schools > 1 - let the (main) controller do everything > 2 - have high-level hardware ("controllers") take over the repetitive >or easily defined tasks (like a controller for disk I/O or for >keyboard, etc) > >WRT (1) above, the disadvantage to that is what you've already >said -- you can get into tight timing constraints and develop >severe indigestion and/or migraines trying to manage all the >interrupt processing you'll be doing. The processor can >be used to scan a keyboard, light pixels on a screen, act as >a timer, run the A-D convertor (control the integrator switches, >count the discharge time, etc), but I doubt very many still do >that, so the question is how far to take the external control >concept. As mentioned a couple of days ago, I'm building up an 80552 (8051 variant). This has a timer with capture and compare registers, which can be used to set and clear various outputs (put another way, open and close injectors). Basically one compare register will open the injectors, another will close them. This is all interrupt driven, so it takes processor time, but the way these registers work allows the processor to work one step ahead, which takes a lot of the time constraints away. The 68332 (check out the EFI332 page for info) takes this all a step further - more like Tom's #2 option. >WRT (2), it costs a little more to buy the extra chips to >control the various functions -- it also locks you into doing >the control a certain way -- can't rewrite code to change it, >have to redesign a PCB. The obvious advantages are that the >coding becomes easier with less concern for timing (note that >I said that I've not done any coding for efi, so someone else >will have to tell you just how much of a problem the timing >is -- my last *real* programming was on the 8085 and Z80). Note that I haven't got this 80552 thing built yet, so I'm talking through my hat to a certain extent, but I've tried writing some dummy interrupt handlers etc. to check out timing constraints and I reckon that with a 16MHz clock speed, each injector opening or closing, or coil turn on or off will take about 300 microseconds. For a four cylinder engine with two coils, that's eight events per revolution, so at 12000 rpm, about 50% of the processor's time will be taken up. The biggest part of the processors time will be taken up with doing the integer divisions associated with table lookups. A final point about timing - the Bosch Motronic ECU uses an 8051 variant without capture and compare registers, running at (I think) 6 MHz, so your average 12MHz 8051 single board computer as available from many places should be plenty fast enough. Stuart "12000rpm in a Datsun?" Baly =========================================== Stuart Baly (s.baly@xxx.au) Technical Officer Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station Cape Grim, Tasmania, Australia =========================================== ------------------------------ From: "Dave J. Andruczyk" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:49:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Reality of Fuel Consumption > >IF you could capture ALL of the heat energy known to exist in a gallon of > >gasoline, and get it ALL to the wheels, 100MPG would not be such a stretch. > >A low-tech Austin Mini 850 from the very early 60's was capable of in excess > >of 50 MPG. That engine is only about 30% efficient, by common knowlege. With > >heat rejection coatings, fuel injection, full engine management, and > >turbocharging, possibly a bit of ceramic componentry to allow higher > >temperatures, it should be do-able. 100 MPG from a behemoth like a 61 > >Cadilac IS a stretch.> Speaking of MPG, I used to own a 86 Chevy Sprint ( 3 cyl 1 litre Carbureted (feedback) that got a consisitent 55-58 MPG on the highway with a full load. ( two people plus luggage). Not bad for a not so wimpy 1 litre, with a carb. Ironically the newer version ( geo metro) gets poorer mileage with fuel injection.. Dave ------------------------------ From: "Dave J. Andruczyk" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:50:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Rover V8 Efi > > > >Say - is it true that the reason the british like warm beer is > >that Lucas builds refrigerators??? ;-} > > Yep, ask anyone that owns or works on Triumph Motorcycles. Dave ------------------------------ From: Terry Martin Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 18:52:16 -0700 Subject: EFI stuff, (so I don't get kicked off the list) I have looked at diesels, TBI, TPI, and every other FI'ing system, and one thing strikes me as apparent. Everybody is trying to do the same thing a different way. I propose that, (and I won't even mention Occam), oop's, it slipped out, that there is a fundamental assumption being made, that one part of the problem, ie. fuel delivery, mixture, & burn, is being addressed the same way, focussing on the fuel side. Why is the "air" charge not being highly compressed into the fuel charge, (like Coke, a fizzy thing), and then delivered during the power stroke, resulting in "cooled" burn, more precise air/fuel ratio independent of altitude, elimination of the intake manifold, return of the "compression heat" to the fuel charge, and generally doing to the air flow what is being done to the fuel flow, that is generically speaking, converting it from an anolog process to a digital one? Terry ------------------------------ From: "Denis L'Esperance" Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 08:37:45 -0400 Subject: Re: What is Ockham's Razor? I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM - I WANT TO GET OFF THIS LIST AND CANT!!!! PLEASE TELL ME HOW TO OR I WILL FILL IT WITH GIBBERISH - ACTUALLY, JUST MORE GIBBERISH>>> - ---------- > From: Juha Saarinen > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: RE: What is Ockham's Razor? > Date: 12 ao=FBt, 1997 22:59 >=20 >=20 > >Ockham's Razor: >=20 > Occam's Razor, surely? After William of Occam. >=20 >=20 > Now could someone please tell me how to get off this list? Unsubscribe doesn't=20 > work. >=20 > -- Juha ------------------------------ From: "Clendening Chad" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:41:06 -0500 (CDT) Subject: 6803 registers Does anybody have an explanation of the control registers between 17 and 1f for the MC6803U4 or mc6801u4? I need 17( timer control reg 1) 18( timer control reg 2) 19( timer status reg) I would also like to know if anyone has any information on the motorola SC87313CP, a 40 pin DIP, somewhat functionally similiar to a 6821 but the pinout and operation is differant. It has only 16 registers This is out of an '85 chrysler EFI logic unit. The later ecu's used an RCA # 9479 or $8545. This is the same chip. Chad ------------------------------ From: senator@xxx.edu (Bill Bradley) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: EFI stuff, (so I don't get kicked off the list) > I propose that, (and I won't even mention Occam), oop's, it slipped out, > that there is a fundamental assumption being made, that one part of the > problem, ie. fuel delivery, mixture, & burn, is being addressed the same > way, focussing on the fuel side. > Why is the "air" charge not being highly compressed into the fuel > charge, (like Coke, a fizzy thing), and then delivered during the power > stroke, resulting in "cooled" burn, more precise air/fuel ratio 1) Because the stociometric ration of air to gasoline is 14.7:1 by mass. Trying to cram 14.7grams of air into one gram of gas would be quite a trick 2) Because compressing the air takes work and energy. No matter how or where you do it. A cylinder is actualy pretty efficient at it. 3) Telling the fuel and air expand loses energy. The amount of energy you get out depends on the ratio of the maximum cylinder volume to minimum cylinder volume (also known as the compression ratio), the higher the ratio, the better (why diesels at 20-30:1 are much more efficient than gasoline engines at 7-12:1) This extracts the heat energy (good ol' PV=nRT), that's why diesels don't put out nearly as much waste heat either. Ideally for maximum efficiency you want as high a compression ratio as possible. The problems that come up are pressure (how much can the head, block, etc take), heat (the more you cool the engine, the more energy you lose), and compression ignition (the heat of compression igniting the fuel). Diesels use compression ignition (look ma, no spark plugs!) gasoline engines try to avoid it (where it's called knocking and pinging) The best diesel designs control the fuel-air mix by injecting the fuel right into the cylinder (see VW and Audi TDI(turbo direct injection) diesels) which get incredible mileage, good power, and don't sound like diesels (since the fuel is injected in stages its much smoother power). Unfortunately you can't get them in the US (AFAIK) despote Europe getting 58mpg Golf TDIs, and 40+mpg Audis and Volvo 850s using the TDI 6 cylinder. Similar technolgoy exists for direct cylinder gasoline injection, but there still seem to be technical problems since I've seen papers for systems going into production "Real Soon Now" for at least 25 years (The oldest I have a copy of is a Texaco design for injecting the fuel directly at the spark plug at the top of the compression stroke to give a locally rich burning condition and be able to use a very high compression ratio without premature ignition problems. Neat idea...wonder whatever happened to it) Another route is lean-burn engines. Inject less fuel than would burn completely in the cylinder. This produces higher termperatures inside the chamber and extracts more of the energy due to more complete combustion of the gasoline (less CO and HCs in the exhaust too). The Honda CVCC 3-valve per cylinder was a lean burn design, as have some of their other engines. The drawbacks are that lean mixtures are hard to keep lit to burn completely, they burn very hot(nasty to engine components), and produce more Nitrogen Oxides than a conventional design. Bill ------------------------------ From: senator@xxx.edu (Bill Bradley) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Where are the new concepts going to come from if this is the best there is? There are still new and exciting designs being invented. My personal favorite of recent years is the "Dyna-Cam" engine. It uses a sinusoidally lobed disc (imagine taking a washer and bending opposite ends opposite ways) with double-headed pistons arranged radially around the cam. With four lobes, each cylinder fires every revolution. The engine was designed for piston aircraft, so a light (<500lb) 12 cylinder version put out over 800lb*ft of torque (not a typo, 800) and 220 horsepower. I figured that putting one in say, an MR2 would make one hell of a dragster...if you could keep the power down. You could play with the design (number of cylinders, cam diameter, # of lobes on the cam, cylinder size) to tailor for just about any torque/hp/rpm range. The aircraft design was for maximum torque, minimum weight, and fewest possible number of parts (for cost, easy of assembly and maintenance). It however has the same draw backs as all radials and boxer designs, lubrication, bearing loading, complicated intake and exhaust manifolds, and valve actuation. Unfortunately, cost is the primary concern for manufacturers, so we're not likely to see anything but reciprocal ICE engine cars, or the ICEs driving generators on hybrid gas/electric cars because no one wants to put in the R&D money when they have a design that works "well enough" Bill ------------------------------ From: senator@xxx.edu (Bill Bradley) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 20:38:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: DynaCam Just out of curiousity (I read the article on them at least 8 years ago) I put it into a search engine, and they're on the web. Check out http://www.dynacam.com/ If you're interested... I think it would be an interesting automotive application. Bill ------------------------------ From: "Robert Harris" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:07:34 -0700 Subject: Re: Anti-turbo lag systems EFI sortof. Just this morning while I was taking a Clinton and conjugating my navel, I came up with about the same thought. Try this --- To "spool" up a turbo, deterministically drop SPARK to certain cylinders and burn the mixture in the exhaust. Maybe all it would take is dropping a single cylinder every other revolution to quickly spool up and then stop dropping cylinders. Would shure beat all the gimmicky stuff - specially if your EFI included a Rev Limiter that limits by "randomly" dropping spark "When some one gets something for nothing - some one else gets nothing for something " If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter. Robert Harris - ---------- > From: Bill Jenkins > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Anti-turbo lag systems > Date: Wednesday, August 13, 1997 10:18 AM > > >Not strictly DIY_EFI but sorta related. This thread on the Saab APC system > >has got me thinking. I have seen several references in Racecar Engineering > >to anti-lag systems used on current FIA rally cars like the ford, subaru and > >mitsubishi. In particular I was wondering how the system worked? > > > >I know that early eighties ferrari F1 cars used a system that bypassed air > >from the turbo compressor straight into the exhaust system when the throttle > >was closed and ran a rich mixture to create combustion in the exhaust. I > >also read somewhere that peugeot used to inject propane into the exhaust to > >acheive the same effect before it was banned in the group B rally cars. > > > >Depending on how these current systems work, I would like to adapt it to my > >current project. > > > >Any info would be appreciated. > > > >Max > > I will say that I saw quite an interesting thing of the sort one time. A > Mitsubishi Eclipse Turbo came in with a fried plug wire; therefore it was > firing on three cylinders, running rather roughly. However, all of that > fuel was dumping into the exhaust manifold. Therefore, you could rev the > thing in neutral, and the turbo would start whining (we had the intake hose > off) and the boost would come up. It was the only car I have ever seen that > could get full boost without moving. Really neat. The extra fuel and air > in the exhaust manifold was burning, and propelling the turbo. ------------------------------ From: "Robert Harris" Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 21:25:54 -0700 Subject: Assholyness Go ahead asshole, punish thousands of people for your arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. Fuckheads like you should stay with pedophiles on line and beat your meat to the kiddy porn. Why don't you go to the web page and follow directions - something you obviously haven't tried. I really give a shit about your problems but stupid lazy whining sniveling brats like you are beginning to piss me and probably most of the list off. Believe me, if the list subscribers could get rid off you without you following directions - you would be history. "When some one gets something for nothing - some one else gets nothing for something " If the first ingredient ain't Habanero, then the rest don't matter. Robert Harris ------------------------------ From: Thomas Wright Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 00:44:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Rover V8 Efi Webb wrote: > Andrew McKenzie wrote: > > > Hello, > > I'm new to the list and have a few queries on EFI. > > Firstly, I want > > to convert my 1980 Rover V8 to EFI for extra performance and > > slightly > > greater economy. I have an 1988 Range Rover EFI factory > > manifold and > > harness, but lack an airflow meter and the dreaded Lucas ECU. > > > > > > Say - is it true that the reason the british like warm beer is > that Lucas builds refrigerators??? ;-} Yes, except that most Lucas parts are rebadged Bosch and AC-Delco parts. The problem is that the British can't take an idea of the chalk board and engineer anything that actually works! (i.e. beutifull designs, lousy application.) Ever check out the wiring harness on something as simple as an MGB or Jag XKE? It is a nightmare. and why? No power windows, cruise control, etc. I have always thougt that they should send there basic designs over to Germany and let them engineer and build the cars! ;) ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #273 ***************************** 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".