DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 5 November 1998 Volume 03 : Number 521 In this issue: RE: EFI Re: Update on L-98 Pinging Re: O2 sensors at WOT? Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 GM P6 PCM Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: O2 sensors at WOT? Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: loud motor = happy motor? Re: Easy question Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: hello Anyone done an Aircooled EFI system? 1227727 vs 16149396 No sumcheck code in a '95 MEMCAL Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Re: No sumcheck code in a '95 MEMCAL Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Any VW'ers? Re: explosives Re: Supercharged/turbo charged systems? Oldsmobile BB Injection! See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Marc Piccioni Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 22:57:02 -0700 Subject: RE: EFI No suggestions, sorry but I'm interested in your progress as I am also building a 434 SBC. - ---------- From: AJLegere@xxx.com] Sent: November 2, 1998 7:56 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: EFI Will this '99 MAF work with a '165 ECM? I'm working on a 434 SBC (very over stroked 400 SBC). I'm concerned with the flow capaciity or ultimately the pressure drop accross the existing MAF which came from a donor '87 350 Firebird. Is the '165 a voltage or frequency output MAF? Any suggestions? begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(B$!`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`& !```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```&$`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!D:7E?969I0&5F:3,S M,BYE;F``,P`0`` M`"(```!D:7E?969I0&5F:3,S,BYE;F5]E9FE 969I,S,R+F5N9RYO M:&EO+7-T871E+F5D=2<``@$+, $````G````4TU44#I$25E?149)0$5&23,S M,BY%3DW\3("TMZI`!X,`0````4```!33510`````!X`'PP!````& ```&UP:6-C:6]N:4!A M='1C86YA9&$N;F5T``,`!A!L[1``@xxx.3U-5 M1T=%4U1)3TY3+%-/4E)90E5424U)3E1%4D535$5$24Y93U524%)/1U)%4U-! M4TE!34%,4T]"54E,1$E.1T$T,S130D,M+2TM+2TM+2TM1E)/33I!2DQ%1T52 M14!!3TQ#``````(!"1 !````N@(``+8"``#&! ``3%I&=9TGN]+_``H!#P(5 M`J@%ZP*#`% "\@D"`&-H"L!S970R-P8`!L,"@S(#Q0(`<')"<1'B?,C4U`H '"H$-L0M@;F0 = '8 =T0,09 N 0F<@ M$" T,S0&`$(80RX@"H4*BVQI,00X, +1:2TQ-#3/#? ,T"03"UDQ-@J@`V#U M$]!C!4 M)C<*AR3K###U);9&`V$Z)SXEM@xxx. 7H$!A!O "+@6@ M;5M33510^CHJ_ETFWR?M!F ","D?*RHK'(!V$^!B!) @xxx.3@@-SI@ M-38@4$TM;R?M5$YO+Z\J*R$P>5\-P&DF0#=!&N R+@GP9R[4;V@=("T3P&$3 MT#?@C&1U,P\N?G5B:B7Q$S4O*BM293N 149)"!^*#&@';$QD07 $\ #8&OK'N$D,# ATBDB$!XB!:"\;F,$D1[A0D-! M(&4*A24:<&\'X&-A"K!C:<]"4!W 1' %P'5L'1 `P/T3T&P=P$A1'X$?X0AP M2O"J9 -@xxx. #82%Q M9 ,"( 6Q)S@W(#,U*4:@1FD7H&)/\&0N[T-63%1"LR& =@;P`9 19$=\)9P'?%!L3\]W$%N'<#O'+E3O3Z_%40R$K EM@J%!1;!`%E0 M```#`! 0``````,`$1 `````0 `',, ?SLVW![X!0 `(,, ?SLVW![X!'@`] 3``$````%````4D4Z( ````!+)0`' ` end ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:35:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Update on L-98 Pinging At 06:56 PM 11/4/98 -0500, you wrote: >I talked to Performance Resource today and they have reprogrammed a portion >of the chip where I was having a severe ping with my 90 Vette. They stated >that they pulled out 3 degrees of advance and richened the mixture. My >question is, this is a low speed problem, i.e., pulling at 1/3 to /12 >throttle from 25 mph to 35 mph. If the engine is closed loop, how can you >alter the mixture so it is richer. Is there a table for desired AF ratio >to match the BLM numbers? They also want me to move my MAT sensor from They probably made the ECM go to Power Enrichment sooner... >where I re-located it (intake tubing) to the stock location in the TPI >plenum. This will signal the ECM that the air is warmer. Wouldn't this >tend to lean out the mixture? It mainly affects timing... The warmer the MAT, the less timing the ECM gives... This may be how they remove 3 degrees of timing! Later, Dave =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "ron.boley" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:44:24 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 sensors at WOT? Bruce, I may be missing something but the archives just list references to the papers. I'd like to see the actual papers.... How does one do that? Ron Bruce Plecan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: ron.boley > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:53 PM > Subject: Re: O2 sensors at WOT? > > DIY_EFI Homepage, Click on Search the archives, go by subject or content. > lots of reading > Bruce > > >Bruce, > > > >Can you advise where one can see these archives (CARB,EPA,SAE)? Does > >one have to belong to these organizations to get access? > > > >Thanks Ron > > > >Bruce Plecan wrote: > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chris Conlon > >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > >> Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:03 PM > >> Subject: RE: O2 sensors at WOT? > >> > >> >> > man's gas analyzer could be constructed using one heated (to measure > >> O2) > >> >> > and one unheated to measure hydrocarbons, etc??? > >> >> No. What the report said (I read it) was that NO O2 sensor senses O2 > >> >> at the temperatures that they operate at. They sense hydrocarbons > >> >> only. The temperature required for them to sense O2 was much higher > >> >> than the O2 sensor in a normal exhaust stream was supposed to be > >> > > >> >I had always heard, but never tested, that the O2 sensor reads *lean* > >> >under conditions of a rich misfire, due to lots of O2 in the exhaust. > >> >Sounds like this would be an easy test to see if the O2 sensor is > >> >really responding to O2 or HC. Comments? Maybe I need to go yank off > >> >a plug wire... > >> > >> I'd suggest a good going over the archives, there are several reports > >> and documents all with slightly different takes on the situations. > >> >From CARB_EPA_SAE all have points and counter points. > >> Some of the older documents don't even mention thermally compensated > >> sensors. Then are you all talking about just the > >> switch type, and or the wide ratio. Also is the way the sensors > >> react to different gases as they heat up > >> Cheers > >> Bruce > >> > >> > > >> > Chris C. > >> > > > > > ------------------------------ From: "Bill the arcstarter" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 18:23:56 PST Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Hello Dave. Just a short note. > Propane is not an explosive, and feeding it ahead of the turbo won't >hurt a thing. Lots of Diesels do just that as a power booster, and This is good to know. I plan on doing some sort of propane EFI project in the very near future, if I can find the proper (or even the wrong) injectors for the job... > I just love gratuitous safety slobber. Shoelaces! Did you know if >your shoelace came untied, you could trip and fall, and your head would >split open like a rotten cantaloupe because you weren't wearing a crash >helmet?! Shoelaces are only for the use of trained professionals... Geez. Next you're going to tell me that you actually DRIVE your car around... How wreckless... >==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== >I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? >my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? Domo ari gato Mr. Roboto! - -Bill ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 20:15:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 - -> Propane is not an explosive??? Go back to elementary school young - -> man. Or, at least back to basic Jr. High chemistry! Propane IS an - -> explosive. My proof is the 4200 lb van sitting in my driveway that - -> runs on the stuff. If you are still not convinced, turn on the gas - -> (propane) to your barbecue for a few seconds, lean over the grill, - -> and light a match underneath it. You should then be able to witness - -> firsthand whether or not Propane is explosive. Proof? All your demonstration proves is that propane is flammable. Look up the difference between "flammable" and "explosive." There is a difference. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:15:13 -0500 Subject: GM P6 PCM Well, Making progress with the P6 PCM from my 95 LeSabre... Delco came back and said the 16156598 chip is the GMP6 CPU and it is a variant of the Motorola MC68HC11F1 (Though GM/Delco discontinued it...). I've been tracing address lines and data lines... Data Lines D0 thru D7 go to: pins 42-35 on the 16056597 chip (52 Pin PLCC), Pins 43,42,39-34 on the 16072449 chip (68 pin PLCC) and pins 5-2 & 67-63 on the 16066285 chip (68 pin PLCC). Address lines A0-A15 all go to the Memcal (27C512 chip), but A0-A10 only go to pins 53 & 51-42 of the 16066285 chip... None of the address lines go to any of the other large chips on the board. Not sure if this helps anyone or not, and hopefully will have a little more info from Delco on the rest of the chips in the next day or so. Thanks, Dave =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: "Bill the arcstarter" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 19:14:32 PST Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 It was written: >Propane is not an explosive??? Go back to elementary school young man. Or, >at least back to basic Jr. High chemistry! Propane IS an explosive. My Some points: 1) The BATF does not consider either propane nor gasoline as an explosive. 2) Propane has LESS energy per lb or by volume than gasoline does. 3) "IT'S" all in how you use the stuff... > >proof is the 4200 lb van sitting in my driveway that runs on the stuff. If Excellent! If I may ask - who's conversion kit did you use? I'd like to contact them... Check out this site for DIRECT LIQUID PROPANE INJECTION! I want to do this (and gain a permanent EPA emissions exemption in the process! :) ) http://www.powertorque.co.uk/conversions/yps.htm I bet the cooling effect of the LPG would largely offset the traditionally lower power produced by pre-vaporized propane "carbs"... Kinda like extremely atomized gasoline injection (air assisted injection) having a worse VE than the traditional partially atomized gasoline injection.... If anyone else has info on this topic (LPG injection) I'd like to hear it! - -Bill ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:28:17 -0500 Subject: Re: O2 sensors at WOT? - -----Original Message----- From: ron.boley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 9:24 PM Subject: Re: O2 sensors at WOT? >Bruce, > >I may be missing something but the archives just list references to the >papers. I'd like to see the actual papers.... How does one do that? If you want to read a SAE paper then find a source for them, or join the SAE, some engineering schools have them. Patented stuff you have to go thru the patent office. Bruce > >Ron > > >Bruce Plecan wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ron.boley >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >> Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 7:53 PM >> Subject: Re: O2 sensors at WOT? >> >> DIY_EFI Homepage, Click on Search the archives, go by subject or content. >> lots of reading >> Bruce >> >> >Bruce, >> > >> >Can you advise where one can see these archives (CARB,EPA,SAE)? Does >> >one have to belong to these organizations to get access? >> > >> >Thanks Ron >> > >> >Bruce Plecan wrote: >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Chris Conlon >> >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> >> Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:03 PM >> >> Subject: RE: O2 sensors at WOT? >> >> >> >> >> > man's gas analyzer could be constructed using one heated (to measure >> >> O2) >> >> >> > and one unheated to measure hydrocarbons, etc??? >> >> >> No. What the report said (I read it) was that NO O2 sensor senses O2 >> >> >> at the temperatures that they operate at. They sense hydrocarbons >> >> >> only. The temperature required for them to sense O2 was much higher >> >> >> than the O2 sensor in a normal exhaust stream was supposed to be >> >> > >> >> >I had always heard, but never tested, that the O2 sensor reads *lean* >> >> >under conditions of a rich misfire, due to lots of O2 in the exhaust. >> >> >Sounds like this would be an easy test to see if the O2 sensor is >> >> >really responding to O2 or HC. Comments? Maybe I need to go yank off >> >> >a plug wire... >> >> >> >> I'd suggest a good going over the archives, there are several reports >> >> and documents all with slightly different takes on the situations. >> >> >From CARB_EPA_SAE all have points and counter points. >> >> Some of the older documents don't even mention thermally compensated >> >> sensors. Then are you all talking about just the >> >> switch type, and or the wide ratio. Also is the way the sensors >> >> react to different gases as they heat up >> >> Cheers >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Chris C. >> >> > >> > >> > > ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:30:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 >Some points: >1) The BATF does not consider either propane nor gasoline as an >explosive. > >2) Propane has LESS energy per lb or by volume than gasoline does. Yes, but 1 gallon of gasoline vaporized in the Houston Astrodome and mixed completely with the air within will detonate with the explosive force of 20 Kilotons of TNT (Same as the A bomb used on Hiroshima). BATF doesn't have to consider it an explosive for it to explode! =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:44:25 EST Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 In a message dated 11/4/98 10:37:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, n5xmt@xxx.net writes: > Yes, but 1 gallon of gasoline vaporized in the Houston Astrodome and mixed > completely with the air within will detonate with the explosive force of 20 > Kilotons of TNT (Same as the A bomb used on Hiroshima) ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:13:18 -0700 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 >Propane is not an explosive??? Go back to elementary school young man. Or, >at least back to basic Jr. High chemistry! Propane IS an explosive. My >proof is the 4200 lb van sitting in my driveway that runs on the stuff. If >you are still not convinced, turn on the gas (propane) to your barbecue for a >few seconds, lean over the grill, and light a match underneath it. You should >then be able to witness firsthand whether or not Propane is explosive. That >is of course if your mommy lets you play with matches. As for the safety >slobber remark - they make special helmets for people like you, (complete with >face masks for that complete "I'm a moron" look), that cannot tie their >shoelaces and trip on them constantly. Many fuels can burn in an explosive manner under certain conditions--methane, gasoline, propane, even diesel fuel. However, they are definitely NOT explosives. By definition, an explosive is a chemical or a mixture of chemicals which contains its own oxidizer. As in nitroglycerine, or diesel fuel after it is mixed with ammonium nitrate prell. Ask Timmy McVeigh! Explosives are generally categorized from fast to slow by their rate of flame propogation--and most automotive fuel/air mixtures (including propane/air) have far too slow a flame speed to be considered even a slow explosive, until the p-t conditions get really radical (see detonation)!! But these kind of p-t conditions do not and cannot occur in an engine's inlet tract, even on a three stage turboed tractor pull diesel. There is at least one other individual on list with far more professional explosives expertise than my own---Chris??? Do you care to say anything here?? The first safety advice was a demonstration of out-house lawyering at its worst, and would not have a prayer of holding anyone harmless, even from an absolutely incompetent jerk of a trial lawyer. The safety gibberish comment was uncalled for. This last post is an absolute waste of bandwidth, and insulting to all. Get a clue what you are talking about before you try to use Hitler's "Big Lie" technique to win an argument!! There are people here trying to exchange information in a friendly, sometimes humorous, but nevertheless professional manner, and this kind of $%%^&* is nothing but a hindrance to that effort! Let it go, or go away! Grrrrreg ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:24:52 -0500 Subject: Re: loud motor = happy motor? PMDRACER@xxx.com wrote: > > In a message dated 11/3/98 1:41:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, > am018@xxx.uk writes: > > << As a general rule as taught to me by my grandfather who was setting > ignitions by ear at the start of this century an over advanced ignition > always sounds more powerful -- this could be partially explained (I think) > by the fact that it will pick up revs more quickly when reved out of gear. > On few cars I have come across (Lotus Elans which had only 20 crank > degrees of mechanical advance) retarded ignition has caused pinking ---- I > suspect due to hot spots forming from excess rejected heat. > >> > Well, to be truthful, you will never see full advance curves on a motor revved > out of gear. You simply cannot achieve any sort of vacuum to run the advance, I have to jump in here. You will NEVER see full advance on a LOADED engine at WOT, because under load you have HIGH manifold pressure, which translates to low vacuum.Under no load conditions, manifold pressure is low (high vacuum) and advance is on full. > so in reality, you are revving the motor with retarded timing. Ignition timing > is a factor dictated by today's gasoline. You simply cannot run the amount of > ignition advance today that you used to 10 to 20 years ago. Again, I have to disagree. Under certain conditions you can run a WHOLE LOT more advance than you used to, because todays engines can retard it WHEN NECESSARY. This is, to a large degree, what allows today's engines to be so much more efficient than the engines of yesteryear. Yes, the octane has dropped, but today's engines are getting more power out of unleaded regular than you used to get out of leaded super premium, like Sunoco 260. The "more is > better" rule also does not apply. You can easily go too far, and lose > performance (and the motor, under extreme conditions). The idea of ignition > timing is to start the ignited fuel's flame front early enough so that the > largest explosive force occurs when the piston/rod combination is on it's way > down on the combustion stroke. Actually, you want peak pressure at the point where the crankpin is moving closest to parallel with the piston - in otherwords down, not out or in. If ignition timing is retarded, (closer to Top > Dead Center), Retarded makes the spark closer to BOTTOM dead center.( I know, you mean just a LITTLE retarded, but still before TDC - but you have to be a little clearer) the maximum flame front will occur too late, and a loss of > potential power will occur. If the ignition timing is too far advanced, > (farther before TDC), the maximum flame front will occur too early, and the > piston will actually fight the flame front on it's travel upward, causing a > pressure spike, and that pressure causing the actual secondary ignition (and > flame front) of the remaining fuel. As the two flame fronts meet in the > cylinder, a harmonic clashing occurs (audible ping), and instead of the one > flame front propagating throughout the cylinder, and creating power, both > flame fronts collapse, and power diminishes, along with the real possibility > of extensive engine damage! > You must also keep in mind that all engines are different. For example, a > stock Chevy small block will run with a static timing of 4 deg. advance, and a > total of 40 to 44 deg advance at full power. A Pontiac engine, on the other > hand, runs with a static timing of 12 to 16 degrees, and 36 to 38 deg of > advance at full power. Also keep in mind that if you change an engine's > combination of parts (a new cam, heads, etc.) the ignition timing demands will > change. Other things that will change an engine's demand for more or less > timing is ambient air temp. and density, altitude, humidity, gas quality, load > (towing, etc.), and state of tune. > Hope this answers your question! > PMDRACER@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:43:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Easy question Falb, John wrote: > > I have a circuit diagram for a DIY shift light that I am going to make. > It is based on a LM2927 and LM358N. There are circuits that look like > this but I don't know what they are. Can you name that circuit? > > _______||_____________ > || > 0.1 uF > > Thanks for the help. No flames please > john falb No flames - just a couple 'a sparks. Those are capacitors..1Microfarad despikers by the looks of 'em. Would suggest you get hold of a basic electronics text and do a wee bit o' studying before you grab your soldering iron. ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 23:58:46 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 Dave Williams wrote: > > -> Propane is not an explosive??? Go back to elementary school young > -> man. Or, at least back to basic Jr. High chemistry! Propane IS an > -> explosive. My proof is the 4200 lb van sitting in my driveway that > -> runs on the stuff. If you are still not convinced, turn on the gas > -> (propane) to your barbecue for a few seconds, lean over the grill, > -> and light a match underneath it. You should then be able to witness > -> firsthand whether or not Propane is explosive. > > Proof? All your demonstration proves is that propane is flammable. > > Look up the difference between "flammable" and "explosive." There is a > difference. > > ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== > I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? > my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? > =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm > Propane if flammable. A propane/air mixture, in the right ratio, at the right pressure, is explosive (will detonate without benefit of further input) Let's put this definition crap to bed - ALL motor fuels are CONSIDERED to be explosive. The difference in effect between explosive and highly flammable, when in anything close to a closed container, cannot be measured by it's victims. The difference is not appreciated by it's survivors either. Anyone who has seen a blower explode, or even a crancase (oil pan, rocker covers, and timing case buckled, seals blown out, gaskets gone, and dipsticks through ceilings and built-up roofs) when someone who believes oil vapour is not an explosive tries to weld a leaky oil pan, will change their minds REAL quick. I've seen it. Don't want to see it again. ------------------------------ From: "TBK" Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 21:04:52 -0800 Subject: Re: hello Hi Carl, Do you happen to have the 91 V6 TBI truck code? My bother-in-law has one and I wanted to do some tweaking. Regards Terry Kelley GMEPro is working. It will edit 512k roms and is tons more flexible. ------------------------------ From: Duc Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:21:06 -0500 Subject: Anyone done an Aircooled EFI system? Got Porsche 914 (Really a vw engine) that I am looking to do multiport injection on. Anyone done such a thing? Derek Catterfeld ------------------------------ From: Ludis Langens Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:22:14 -0800 Subject: 1227727 vs 16149396 A while ago, I asked about the second of the above two ECMs. The 16149396 turns out to be a 1227727 with some extra SRAM. (The '7727 is the underhood version of a 1227730 ECM.) The '9396 populates three chip locations which are empty in a '7727. U3 is an industry standard 2K byte SRAM in a 24 pin 0.6" DIP package. The GM part number is 16045908. U4 is a 74*138 style 3to8 decoder in a SMT package. The GM number is 49227 (or 16049227 ?). U8 is a 74*00 NAND gate, also in a SMT package - number 49228 (or 16049228 ?). U8 generates ~OE and ~WE from the 68xx R/~W and E signals. U4 generates a ~CS from the upper address lines. It maps the SRAM into memory in the range $1800 through $1FFF. For some reason, the ~CS, ~OE, and ~WE lines all have a series resistor. Now, the 64 bit question is, what's the service number of a 1227730 with this extra SRAM? - -- Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ ------------------------------ From: Ludis Langens Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 21:33:28 -0800 Subject: No sumcheck code in a '95 MEMCAL I've been disassembling a MEMCAL from 1995. It's BCC BKLL1692, used in the 16196401 ECM. It's for a W-body with the VIN X 3.4 SFI DOHC engine. The 32K byte EPROM (27C256) has the standard 9 byte P4 header, but the sumcheck field doesn't match the computed sumcheck. Further, the program code does not contain a sumchecking subroutine! Has anyone else found a MEMCAL like this? Could this be in preperation for OBD II? (This MEMCAL&ECM are just OBD I.) - -- Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ ------------------------------ From: C C Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1998 22:38:45 -0700 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 At 09:13 PM 11/4/98 -0700, you wrote: >Many fuels can burn in an explosive manner under certain >conditions--methane, gasoline, propane, even diesel fuel. However, they are >definitely NOT explosives. By definition, an explosive is a chemical or a >mixture of chemicals which contains its own oxidizer. As in nitroglycerine, >or diesel fuel after it is mixed with ammonium nitrate prell. Ask Timmy >McVeigh! Explosives are generally categorized from fast to slow by their >rate of flame propogation--and most automotive fuel/air mixtures (including >propane/air) have far too slow a flame speed to be considered even a slow >explosive, until the p-t conditions get really radical (see detonation)!! >But these kind of p-t conditions do not and cannot occur in an engine's >inlet tract, even on a three stage turboed tractor pull diesel. There is at >least one other individual on list with far more professional explosives >expertise than my own---Chris??? Do you care to say anything here?? Actually, diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate (aka: ANFO) is NOT classified as an explosive. It is a blasting agent. Timmy used an explosive to detonate the blasting agent (ANFO). But that is kind of besides the point, huh? If I remember right from chemistry, things are classified as an explosive if they generate a supersonic shock wave, not just a subsonic shock wave (aka: propane). Anyway, just becareful folks! Clint ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 01:35:57 -0500 Subject: Re: No sumcheck code in a '95 MEMCAL Hi Ludis, Yes, The Memcal for the 1994/5 Buick LeSabre has no sumcheck either... It is also OBD_1. The it's a 64K byte (27C512) eprom and the PCM is a GM P6. The PCM is a 16211694, service code 16183247. Memcal's I know it uses are BMYU1714 (95 LeSabre VIN L 3800), CABX (no numbers, Supersedes BMYU1714) and BHDU4751 (1994 Olds Silhouette Van, Chevy Lumina Van). Later, Dave At 09:33 PM 11/4/98 -0800, you wrote: >I've been disassembling a MEMCAL from 1995. It's BCC BKLL1692, used in >the 16196401 ECM. It's for a W-body with the VIN X 3.4 SFI DOHC >engine. The 32K byte EPROM (27C256) has the standard 9 byte P4 header, >but the sumcheck field doesn't match the computed sumcheck. Further, >the program code does not contain a sumchecking subroutine! > >Has anyone else found a MEMCAL like this? Could this be in preperation >for OBD II? (This MEMCAL&ECM are just OBD I.) > >-- >Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com >Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ > =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:17:00 -0500 Subject: Re: [Fwd: [M] [M} IC Thermodynamics]- Part 3 - -> Yes, but 1 gallon of gasoline vaporized in the Houston Astrodome and - -> mixed completely with the air within will detonate with the explosive - -> force of 20 Kilotons of TNT (Same as the A bomb used on Hiroshima). I wish I could get my gasoline blowtorch to do that. It'd sure save on fuel... ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ From: "PC Handyman" Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 02:12:22 -0500 Subject: Any VW'ers? Is anyone here running a diy efi/eec system on any VW h20 four cyls? - -Noah (cars: {primary}turbo 8v Scirocco, 8vA2gti, 16vCabbie, others...) ------------------------------ From: Chris Conlon Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:33:10 -0500 Subject: Re: explosives Apologies in advance for the rather non-EFI content. > >Propane is not an explosive??? Go back to elementary school young man. Or, > >at least back to basic Jr. High chemistry! Propane IS an explosive. My > > Many fuels can burn in an explosive manner under certain > conditions--methane, gasoline, propane, even diesel fuel. However, they are > definitely NOT explosives. By definition, an explosive is a chemical or a > mixture of chemicals which contains its own oxidizer. As in nitroglycerine, > or diesel fuel after it is mixed with ammonium nitrate prell. Ask Timmy First, the DOT, BATF, chemists and explosives chemists all have slightly different definitions of "explosive". I'm using the terms from the POV of an explosives chemist. Second, the original point, that propane in air *can* be hazardous, is the real point, IMHO. Now. An explosive, or explosive mixture is basically something that can "burn" *by itself*. Pure propane cannot burn or explode, you need an oxidizer like O2, air or fluorine. I put "burn" in quotes to cover all forms of rapid oxidation. For instance pure acetylene *can* explode, without air or any outside oxidizer. (Before someone screams, I didn't say it *will* explode - generally it has to be under high pressure.) The c-c triple bond is very high energy and can decompose exothermically, rapidly, under some conditions. Other weird explosives, e.g. nitrogen tri-iodide, also explode without oxygen being involved at all. Explosives are classed as low or high, according to their velocity. Low explosives *deflagrate*, basically, they burn in the ordinary way we're used to, perhaps quickly. Deflagration velocities are on the order of 1-10 meters/sec. Gas in an engine is usually like this. High explosives *detonate*, a qualitatively different process. Detonation velocities are on the order of 1000-10,000 m/sec. Lower velocity produces a "pushing" effect, good for moving earth and the like. Higher velocities produce more of a shattering effect. ANFO (ammonium nitrate + fuel oil) is a low velocity example, C4 and PETN are high velocity examples. (BTW I believe McVeigh used AN and *nitromethane*, an interesting twist on plain old ANFO.) Detonation is not "just" fast deflagration. In deflagration, the immediate reaction products (gases, etc) move in a direction *opposite* to the flame front's travel. In detonation, the immediate reaction products move in the *same* direction as the shock wave's travel. The reaction speed is much faster in detonation, and more dependent on shock than flame. (High speed photos of explosives often show very little recognizable flame until well after the shock front has passed.) Some, perhaps many, explosives may deflagrate or detonate depending on how they are initiated (set off). Some low explosives can detonate, but only under extreme conditions, i.e. smokeless powder in a gun barrel if the barrel is jammed. This is very much like detonation in an engine, and perhaps even more quickly destructive. Gas-air is one of these explosives. It may burn, or detonate, depending on conditions. Nitroglycerin, in the open, will burn peacefully if lit. But if confined and lit, it may detonate, and if struck, it will surely detonate. Just some examples that an explosive may do different things, depending. Even the detonation velocity will depend on how strongly the explosive is initiated, in some cases it will vary over an 5:1 or 10:1 range, while still detonating in each case. Okay I'll shut up now. But please check and define your nomenclature before flaming each other over semantics, ok? I think we all agree that propane in air *can* be a hazard... again IMHO that's the only real point of this. Chris C. ------------------------------ From: Matthew Harding Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1998 19:33:24 +1100 Subject: Re: Supercharged/turbo charged systems? At 12:36 27/10/98 -0500, you wrote: > >anyone ever heard of cars with both of these installed on them. I though >I heard of a MR2 that had a custom set up on it, but I have never seen it. >Anyone else? > > >bob nissan have a 1 litre "super-turbo" that had a turbo blowing through a supercharger :) can be done easy enough.... ------------------------------ From: " Cutlass IROC-SS" Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1998 03:36:01 -0500 Subject: Oldsmobile BB Injection! Oldsmobile Big Block Injection! Hello List; I just joined this list the other day. In hopes of finding someone whom may have info on setting up an injection system on either an Oldsmobile BB/SB? It can be done as I have seen a dual rail/injector setup on a BB at a show. The owner wasn't around at the time, so I left contact info with his wife. I was never contacted. This system was what I had been dreaming of. 455 Oldsmobile big block with dual turbo, and a dual rail setup. Dual injectors per port. A primary injector for average throttle usage, and a secondary for near to full WOT. Since it was a show Cutlass, I asked the wife if the system was functional? She said "yes, and damn loud when going in the trailer". That was the summer of 97. I didn't see the car at any of the East coast shows this year, darn. Anyone have any info on this type of setup? I'm looking to build/commission that very system, (or similar), but don't know a thing about injection nor where to start. This injection system won't be one of a kind either. I'm looking to replicate a few hundred over the next Two years for the CC-IROC-SS project. A link for which can be found in my signature. Can/would anyone be willing to help me build this system. Not to mention the system will become a corner stone for a new Cutlass conversion. The CC-IROC-SS will stand in real-time and history next to the 442 and H/O. I will be converting 1982-86 Cutlass Supremes and Brougham's. There is a mega of these cars being crushed daily. I intend to save some to far better than new. Go to the infant CC-IROC-SS site to read more about the project. I definitely will build this system and I need your help/knowledge. I've sat by the side a few days now and know there are many knowledgeable people here that can help this project. Anyone wishing to express a desire, ask some questions, banter about this project, or actually help build this system, please contact me directly as I'm only on Digest mode so if you don't mail directly, It might be more than a day for a Two before a return response from me. That is if I don't miss a post in the digest. Please anyone wishing to toss this around and help out contact: Gary J. Couse = gjcouse@xxx.com - -----Regards, Gary J. Couse Couse Customs Purling, N.Y. 12470-9709 ICQ# 5209322 CC-IROC-SS mailto:gjcouse@xxx.com Couse Custom Cutlass, '86 CC-IROC-SS-#1 = "Quincy" http://members.tripod.com/~cousecustoms/ Join Oldsmobile G-Body Mailing List - http://cyberglyphs.com/gbody Once a member, post to: mailto:olds_gbody@xxx.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V3 #521 ***************************** 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".