DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 7 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 017 In this issue: Re: Turbo header design Re: FI system opinion? Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy Re: GM P6 PCM Info Re: FI system opinion? Re: EFI on a Dodge 318 Re: 128K vs 256K Proms in one ecm Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] Re: FI system opinion? Re: 128K vs 256K Proms in one ecm ECM and Chip help Re: Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy Re: Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy Re: ECM and Chip help aluminum block 215" V8 for sale! RE: FI system opinion? Re: Turbo header design Injector help... Can anyone look these up? Re: Photo Radar Re: Turbo header design Re: Turbo header design Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] Re: Turbo header design What's this ECM? Re: Turbo header design Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] Re: Turbo header design Re: Turbo header design Re: What's this ECM? Re: aluminum block 215" V8 for sale! Re: What's this ECM? Re: Turbo header design See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Clarence Wood Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 17:02:11 -0600 Subject: Re: Turbo header design WOW! Thank you Greg! Now, how do you accomplish the task of giving the exhaust gasses somewhere to go freely during the "blowdown" part of the exhaust stroke? What is the best header design to accomplish this for turbo charged engines? For NA engines? Is there one technique that seems to be more effective than other techniques? Is it pipe width, or length or both? Also, what is "sonic energy"? I know it refers to sound but I have never thought of sound as being part of exhaust energy. How does sonic energy create a scavenging pulse? Is it something you have to design into the header? If so, what is the criteria for the design? I guess what I am trying to ask, is, how do you look for this in a specific header design? What tells you that the header design uses sonic energy effectively? How does the tri-wyes header relate to the above? At 01:21 PM 1/7/99 -0700, you wrote: >All my experience says that the biggest gain from headers is from giving as >much of the exhaust gas as possible somewhere to go freely during the >"blowdown" part of the exhaust stroke--before the piston starts back up >significantly. Yes, it's nice to have a low pressure pulse in the exhaust >port at overlap, and that pulse helps to scavenge clearance gasses if you >have it there at the right time, but the longer you can keep the blowdown >stage flow sonic, the less work the engine will have to waste pumping >exhaust gas out of its cylinders, and the more sonic energy there will be >available for creation of a scavenging pulse! > >Regards, Greg > > > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:22:21 -0500 Subject: Re: FI system opinion? - -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Andrews To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 6:13 PM Subject: Re: FI system opinion? >Do you know of a cheaper easier to use solution? Solution to what?. What application, what are you doing?. Bruce > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jemison Richard >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:56 PM >Subject: RE: FI system opinion? > > >Pricey! > >Rick > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Aaron Andrews [SMTP:aarona@xxx.net] >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:31 PM >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: FI system opinion? >> >> Just wanted to get anyone's opinion on the Racetech SDS FI System that is >> a >> complete programmable system >> for $650, add $350 for a distributorless ignition and engine management >> system? >> >> TIA >> Aaron > > ------------------------------ From: Steven Ciciora Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:31:26 -0700 Subject: Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy I've believed that there has been a need for a duty cycle monitor for some time, and have been looking for some time to build one, but with no luck. It seems like one or two people out there have plans. I would be willing to voulenteer to put together a kit (design PCB, order parts, etc) for such a beast, if someone had some working source code. I can program PICs, too. What _I_ would like to see on a display is on time (in ms), off time, frequency (and/or RPM), and duty cycle (in %). All on an LCD Display. If anyone has some PIC source code, please let me know. Steven Ciciora ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:09:19 -0500 Subject: Re: GM P6 PCM Info Also made a plain text version... At 10:41 AM 1/7/99 -0500, you wrote: > >-----Original Message----- >From: David A. Cooley >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Wednesday, January 06, 1999 2:02 AM >Subject: GM P6 PCM Info > >Thanks, >Bruce > > >>Just uploaded the pinout for the GM P6 PCM to the incoming dir... >>File name is: GM_P6_pin.rtf It's in Rich Text Format. >> >>=========================================================== >> David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net >> Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 >> I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be >approximated. >>=========================================================== >> > =========================================================== 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: "Aaron Andrews" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:31:45 -0800 Subject: Re: FI system opinion? What we are looking for is a solution to a 1.3/1.6ltr TBI injection system, and or 1.3 Twincam MPI injection system. Something that can be preprogrammed and setup as a kit. I have found this solution to the Twincam mpi and that seems to work. The deal is that WE HAVE to go distributorless because of the firewall (cam/disty run into the firewall and have to pound it out) This application is for Suzuki Samurais/Sidekicks. Aaron - ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Plecan To: Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:22 PM Subject: Re: FI system opinion? - -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Andrews To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 6:13 PM Subject: Re: FI system opinion? >Do you know of a cheaper easier to use solution? Solution to what?. What application, what are you doing?. Bruce > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Jemison Richard >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:56 PM >Subject: RE: FI system opinion? > > >Pricey! > >Rick > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Aaron Andrews [SMTP:aarona@xxx.net] >> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:31 PM >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: FI system opinion? >> >> Just wanted to get anyone's opinion on the Racetech SDS FI System that is >> a >> complete programmable system >> for $650, add $350 for a distributorless ignition and engine management >> system? >> >> TIA >> Aaron > > ------------------------------ From: "Peter Fenske" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:35:21 -0800 Subject: Re: EFI on a Dodge 318 Dear Frederic It is a NAPA part. Outer dia 0.916 innner standard.. Don't have the #s handy gl:peter Ps remember to locktite the #@#$$%#@@# out it Frederic Breitwieser on 01/05/99 06:29:26 PM Please respond to diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu, diy_efi@xxx.edu cc: (bcc: Peter Fenske/BCIT) Subject: Re: EFI on a Dodge 318 >Mucho better than trying to use grease to put in the counter >shaft bearings. The darn things always fall out Good advice, thank you. >Oh yes Mopar Perf has a special pilot bushing just for auto. >No machining needed. So Peter, let me get this straight - my understanding is that I can use an auto crank with the manual transmission by using a special mopar part? Frederic Breitwieser Bridgeport, CT 06606 Homebrew Automotive Website: http://www.xephic.dynip.com/ 1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental 1989 HMMWV 1973 Lincoln Continental (460cid) 1975 Dodge D200 3/4 ton Club Cab 2000 Buick-Powered Mid-Engined Sports Car - - ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:42:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: 128K vs 256K Proms in one ecm On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > Could some one splan to me why if the 739+749 use the same > PCB, why the 730 will not see a 128K prom, and a 749 sees > either. > 730 using AUJP 749 using syclone campaign chip > On a 730 (92 Camaro), there is a 4th gear switch, that the ecm > "uses", anyone know for what?, timing, fuel, TCC all seem the same > wiether it's on or off. > There is a difference in TCC pinouts from 749 to 730. > The 730 basically leaves the EGR on all the time and flickers it once > in a while to test, it. 749 seems to not even flicker it, strange. > > On the syclone idle if it's below 550 the IAC retracts, that's fine, > but as it exceeds 575 goin to a desired 600 the 600 jumps to 1250 > anyone played with this?? Seems like would be lousy idling. > Bruce > > The 93's seem to have switches for all gears, but there is some code to dectect a downshift from 4th (basically if you aren't in 4th now and your where last time then). I appears to time the 4-3,4-2 downshift, and there is a parameter in the 93 prom that lists how long it takes (0x05 passes). It seems to prevent part throttle locking in the 93's while a downshift is in progress. I don't yet know what else it is used for. It also looks to be used for some other TCC type things. In the 92's is the TCC computer controlled yet? Roge ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:50:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Greg Hermann wrote: > ... you could also dig up and use an old Mopar ball&trunnion > >joint, which will also handle more angularity than the saginaw or spicer, > >plus it is a plunge joint, so it handles the slipyoke problem, too. > > Is this the proper name for the things I have inside the (closed type) > steering knuckles of one of my Dana 70F steerable drive axles, which I have > always heard called (usually affectionately) "Chinese Puzzle Joints"??? Or > are they something else again?? > Most closed [ball] type 4X4 front axle steering joints were Rzeppas but dana/Spicer did make an elcheapo replacement that looked somewhat like a rubics cube. dont know what brands/years used it, but I will bet that jeep would be a likely candidate. But I dont think they ever used anything bigger than a 44. IIRC, the first 4X4 to use anything bigger than a 44 was mopar with some HD 3/4 ton front axles. ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:54:02 -0500 Subject: Re: FI system opinion? - -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Andrews To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 7:47 PM Subject: Re: FI system opinion? How about a Haltech E6GM, uses all gm stuff, list was 695 for the ecm and software. Bruce >What we are looking for is a solution to a 1.3/1.6ltr TBI injection system, >and or 1.3 Twincam MPI injection system. Something that can be preprogrammed >and setup as a kit. I have found this solution to the Twincam mpi and that >seems to work. The deal is that WE HAVE to go distributorless because of the >firewall (cam/disty run into the firewall and have to pound it out) This >application is for Suzuki Samurais/Sidekicks. > >Aaron > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Bruce Plecan >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:22 PM >Subject: Re: FI system opinion? > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Aaron Andrews >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 6:13 PM >Subject: Re: FI system opinion? > > >>Do you know of a cheaper easier to use solution? > >Solution to what?. What application, what are you doing?. >Bruce >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Jemison Richard >>To: >>Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:56 PM >>Subject: RE: FI system opinion? >> >> >>Pricey! >> >>Rick >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Aaron Andrews [SMTP:aarona@xxx.net] >>> Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:31 PM >>> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >>> Subject: FI system opinion? >>> >>> Just wanted to get anyone's opinion on the Racetech SDS FI System that is >>> a >>> complete programmable system >>> for $650, add $350 for a distributorless ignition and engine management >>> system? >>> >>> TIA >>> Aaron >> >> > > > ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:49:52 EST Subject: Re: 128K vs 256K Proms in one ecm In a message dated 1/7/99 7:45:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, rah@xxx.net writes: > In the 92's is the TCC computer controlled yet? Yes it is..... mike V ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:17:45 -0500 Subject: ECM and Chip help Hello all, a friend is Looking to find a chip or ECM... ECM part number is: 1226025 The chip broadcast code is APM or CDC. These were used in the 1983 Carbureted Turbo V6 buick Regals. 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: Orin Eman Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 17:46:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy > I've believed that there has been a need for a duty cycle monitor for > some time, and have been looking for some time to build one, but with no > luck. It seems like one or two people out there have plans. I would be > willing to voulenteer to put together a kit (design PCB, order parts, > etc) for such a beast, if someone had some working source code. I can > program PICs, too. What _I_ would like to see on a display is on time > (in ms), off time, frequency (and/or RPM), and duty cycle (in %). All > on an LCD Display. > If anyone has some PIC source code, please let me know. Look for dataaq.zip on the ftp site. It drives a standard LCD, does two duty cycles as-is. It does RPM off flywheel teeth. It uses a PIC 16C73. A PCB design exists in EasyTrax if you want AtoD, thermocouple inputs and RS232 output as well, though the PCB isn't in the zip file. It would need some work to make it a little more generic or to display times as well as duty cycles. As I mentioned earlier, I also have a PIC 16C84 design for a 2 digit duty cycle meter which I have yet to upload... Orin. ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 19:58:54 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Duty Cycle Monitor Group Buy On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Steven Ciciora wrote: > I've believed that there has been a need for a duty cycle monitor for > some time, and have been looking for some time to build one, but with no > luck. It seems like one or two people out there have plans. I would be > willing to voulenteer to put together a kit (design PCB, order parts, > etc) for such a beast, if someone had some working source code. I can > program PICs, too. What _I_ would like to see on a display is on time > (in ms), off time, frequency (and/or RPM), and duty cycle (in %). All > on an LCD Display. > > If anyone has some PIC source code, please let me know. > > Steven Ciciora > I have some comments and questions. What is a PIC? I think you can build one with a comparator, two 12 bit counters, some gates, a 10khz clock, and something to convert the numbers from the counters to display on a lcd/led (I think there are chips to do this). It looks pretty simple to design especially at low frequencies. Roger BSEE ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:58:48 EST Subject: Re: ECM and Chip help Hi Dave, looks like a heavily used ECM in 83 only... Looks like just about any 2.8 GM in 83 used it. It was available in: 83 Olds Ciera, 2.8 83 Pont Phoenix 2.8 83 Riv, nonturbo, 3.8 83 Chev Impala, 5.0 83 Chev.Camaro, 2.8 liter 83 Pont.Parisiene, 5.0 83 S10 truck, 2.8 83 Blazer, 2.8 83 Chev.Citation, 2.8 83 Pont.Gran Prix, 5.0 83 Olds Omega, 2.8 83 Buick Skylark2.8 Chip will be different however.. Mike V > Hello all, > a friend is Looking to find a chip or ECM... > ECM part number is: 1226025 > The chip broadcast code is APM or CDC. > These were used in the 1983 Carbureted Turbo V6 buick Regals. > Thanks, > Dave ------------------------------ From: Jake Sternberg Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:08:09 -0600 (CST) Subject: aluminum block 215" V8 for sale! I have an aluminum 215 cubic inch (3525 cubic centimeters) V8 from an oldsmobile/buick/triumph/TRV/land rover/etc. This is the aluminum V8 everyone has been talking about. It's so light you can pick up the block with one hand, and both heads with the other. The intake manifold is a one-finger item. Comes disassembled with pistons, rods, nuts, bolts, oil pump, pickup screen, oil pan, heads, valve covers, valves, nuts, bolts, front cover, rear cover, crank, camshaft, etc.. exhaust manifolds, intake manifold, flywheel, generator, EVERYTHING. (no starter but i think a plain buick V6 will fit) Includes transmission! This is a weird item: automatic trans with SIX positions/notches on the shifter arm (PRND321 ??) plus a kickdown lever. NO TORQUE CONVERTER OR CLUTCH; it just has a disc that looks like a clutch disc, but has boltholes instead of a friction material. It bolts onto the flywheel (included with the engine) and drives the transmission directly. This is all that i know about the transmission. This motor would make a great small car swap, as the entire setup will weigh less than an iron 4 cylinder by far and is much meaner. This motor is smaller than a chevy V8 by far enough that mounting it in a volvo or something would be a piece of cake. My price is $500 for everything, not including shipping. I'm in austin, texas.. - -jake chickens@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: Jemison Richard Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:19:14 -0500 Subject: RE: FI system opinion? Sure! There's a real nice one on the EFI332 page. Or build your own. I'm shooting at using a PIC courtesy of some helpful information gleaned from some really great and quite knowledgeable people on this list! Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Andrews [SMTP:aarona@xxx.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 6:00 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: FI system opinion? > > Do you know of a cheaper easier to use solution? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jemison Richard > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 12:56 PM > Subject: RE: FI system opinion? > > > Pricey! > > Rick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aaron Andrews [SMTP:aarona@xxx.net] > > Sent: Thursday, January 07, 1999 2:31 PM > > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > Subject: FI system opinion? > > > > Just wanted to get anyone's opinion on the Racetech SDS FI System that > is > > a > > complete programmable system > > for $650, add $350 for a distributorless ignition and engine management > > system? > > > > TIA > > Aaron > ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:22:29 -0600 Subject: Re: Turbo header design Clarence Wood wrote: > I am having trouble relating the equalization of intake pressure to the exhaust port pressure. I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I don't understand. Imagine a NA motor with a really bad exhaust on a dyno at see level (14.7 lbs). Go up a mountain to 10K feet and measure the power. What is the power? (down) What is the power relative to the "pressure"? Take the motor to the bottom of a really, really deep mine, say where the barometric pressure pressure is 2 atmospheres, (14.7 lbs boost). Got the idea??? Measure the power. Is it better??? Now put a better exhaust system on it. What happens? The better the turbo is sized, (the closer to the peak efficiency island it is operating in), the lower the exhaust pressure will be relative to the intake (and vice-versa). It could even be lower but probably isn't. Regards Tom ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 21:17:28 EST Subject: Injector help... Can anyone look these up? If anyone is in the know with Japanese injectors, could you take a look at some injector pics that I put on a page? I have access to lots of Japanese engine parts, and have a bunch of injectors that I've been trying to identify. One kind person was able to give me application & flow rates for a single injector, but I lost his email address. His name was Jason... The injectors pics are at: www.enzoco.com/mike/injector TIA Mike V ------------------------------ From: Eric Schumacher Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 22:08:10 -0800 Subject: Re: Photo Radar 3M makes some stuff they call Louver Film. It comes in a sheet (.062 or ,032 thick) and built like a venitian blind, so restricts the viewing angle. Opaque off the design axis and clear on axis. We use it in the dispay biz to control the viewing angle of flat panel displays. Lotsa Luck Eric 85 GTI with VR6 Power ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:26:18 -0600 Subject: Re: Turbo header design Clarence Wood wrote: > Firing order > 1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2 > Stroke > 1. P C I E P C I E (P=power,C=comp,I=intake,E=exht) > 2. E P C I E P C I > 3. I E P C I E P C > 4. C I E P C I E P Close but... Now figure out the new LS1 motor and Fords. They are different. Tom ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:31:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Turbo header design Greg Hermann wrote: > If you wanna go with REALLY long tri-wye branches, (surprising how > fantastically good this is for street, high torque, & 4x4 type apps.) Why not just reallllllly long 4 to 1 ??? Tom ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 20:55:56 -0600 Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] Greg Hermann wrote: > ... you could also dig up and use an old Mopar ball&trunnion > >joint, which will also handle more angularity than the saginaw or spicer, > >plus it is a plunge joint, so it handles the slipyoke problem, too. > > Is this the proper name for the things I have inside the (closed type) > steering knuckles of one of my Dana 70F steerable drive axles, which I have > always heard called (usually affectionately) "Chinese Puzzle Joints"??? Or > are they something else again?? > > Regards, Greg For the work-a-holics, just make a drive shaft using an old shaft, some 1/4 plate steel, a lathe, welder, and an axle from a FWD GM midsize. ------------------------------ From: TMead17327@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:04:41 EST Subject: Re: Turbo header design In a message dated 1/7/99 12:36:28 PM Central Standard Time, clarencewood@xxx.net writes: I think it should look like this: 1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2 1 0 P C I E 90 P C I E 2 180 E P C I 270 E P C I 3 0 I E P C 90 I E P C 4 180 C I E P 270 C I E P The first column counts the strokes, and the second column indicates degrees from top dead center of the #1 piston. Visualize the #1 and #2 pistons, whose rods are mounted on the same crank journal, firing. #2 fires (the P at the bottom right corner of the chart). The #1/#2 journal rotates (along with the rest of the crankshaft, hopefully!!) 90 degrees, and #1 is at TDC (the P at the top left of the chart). After another 90 degrees of crank rotation, the #7/#8 journal , which is 180 degrees off from the #1/#2 journal, has brought #8 to TDC (P in the "8" column). 90 degrees later, #7 is at TDC, but at the beginning of the intake stroke (I in the "7" column). You'll get the idea if you picture the whole thing rotating. I hope after all that, I got it right!? Tommy TMead17327@xxx.com << Firing order 1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2 Stroke 1. P C I E P C I E (P=power,C=comp,I=intake,E=exht) 2. E P C I E P C I 3. I E P C I E P C 4. C I E P C I E P >> ------------------------------ From: "Andrew K. Mattei" Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 22:15:04 -0500 Subject: What's this ECM? I *think* this ECM came from a '85 TPI Camaro, but was unable to confirm that from either the archives or Ludis' info page. It has the outside sticker number 16052541, and a ROM ID of 16042431. If anyone can give me a "Yup, that's from a Camaro", it would help me out a lot! Thanks! - -Andrew ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:22:18 -0700 Subject: Re: Turbo header design >WOW! Thank you Greg! > Now, how do you accomplish the task of giving the exhaust gasses >somewhere to go freely during the "blowdown" part of the exhaust stroke? Well, err, the long enough tubes which are small enough in diameter, and have ienough internal volume are what seem to do that. As long as the pressure in the cylinder is about 1.8 (or more times) the pressure in the port when the exhaust valve opens, the gas flow into the port will be at Mach 1. There are plenty of folks who would argue with me, but I believe that the reason that you need shorter, larger diameter tubes for higher rpm ranges is cuz the speed of sound in the exhaust gas is still about the same--same temp, remember--and you still need the same volume of tube to exhaust into in less time. What is the best header design to accomplish this for turbo charged engines? For NA engines? I (again folks will argue) think that the tri-wye type design is best for fours and eights, either turbo or NA. Three into one for sixes. Same type of design for all. The difference is after the throat in the collector. Is there one technique that seems to be more effective than other techniques? Is it pipe width, or length or both? I believe in matching the tube VOLUME to the cylinder displacement, as I described. shorter fatter tubes for higher engine speeds cuz the gas does not move down the tube any faster, even though the engine is turning faster. > Also, what is "sonic energy"? I know it refers to sound but I have >never thought of sound as being part of exhaust energy. How does sonic >energy create a scavenging pulse? Is it something you have to design into >the header? If so, what is the criteria for the design? I guess what I >am trying to ask, is, how do you look for this in a specific header >design? What tells you that the header design uses sonic energy >effectively? How does the tri-wyes header relate to the above? All I really meant to try to get across was that if you get a higher proportion of the exhaust gas moving inside the header tubes at Mach 1, you will have more momentum energy to make productive use of . Four into one, tri-wye and individual stacks all have their own proponents for different applications. Most folks will say that individual stacks are plenty good enough when an engine only is asked to work hard AT OR ABOVE its torque peak rpm. Witness dragsters. I think most folks would agree that tri-wyes have the widest torque band. Some would claim that four into ones will make better top end power than a tri-wye. My preference is for tri-wyes, with 360 degree separation between pulses into the primary pairs of tubes. I probably developed my (admitted) prejudice cuz for several years I had an Alfa which used the tri-wye header design, It was a daily driver which made about 170 HP out of only 100 cubic inches . It made a mockery out of claims that tri-wyes do not make any top end power, and although its cams were such that there was not a lot of torque below about 4600 rpm,, it would pull smoothly from about 1200 rpm if you floored it in fifth gear and asked it to! This despite very large venturis in its Webers and 11.5:1 compression ratio. > Answering all of your questions in detail would likely take at least a decade of thorough study, and a couple of books!! You might try reading "Scientific Design of Exhaust & Intake Systems" by Phillip H. Smith, ISBN # 0-8376-0309-9. Amazon.com has it. It presents a good start on the subject. But remember--although headers do offer many improvements to an engine's performance, it is pretty costly to build them in a manner that will be reliable for a long time. This is why most manufacturers do not use them, and why really good headers cost mebbe ten (or more) times as much as speed shop #@$% !! If you ever get a chance to stop in Harlingen, Texas, take a close look of some of the exhaust plumbing on the old war-birds in the Confederate Air Force. They (most) all had recip engines which were carefully engineered, by some damn good, talented engineers, to get every last ounce of power, and as much fuel economy (for longer range and/or lighter tanks) reliably, from as little weight as possible, with money no serious object. There are some fascinating lessons in exhaust plumbing techniques to be learned there!! >> >>Regards, Greg >> >> >> ------------------------------ From: AL8001@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:19:23 EST Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] In a message dated 99-01-07 22:06:53 EST, twsharpe@xxx.com writes: >For the work-a-holics, just make a drive shaft using an old shaft, some 1/4 >plate steel, a lathe, welder, and an axle from a FWD GM midsize. > > > Some Ford Bronco II's ( small size) use that style for both ends of the rear drive shaft. Harold ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:45:42 -0700 Subject: Re: Water Injection Thread [now U joints] >> >Most closed [ball] type 4X4 front axle steering joints were Rzeppas but >dana/Spicer did make an elcheapo replacement that looked somewhat like a >rubics cube. dont know what brands/years used it, but I will bet that jeep >would be a likely candidate. But I dont think they ever used anything >bigger than a 44. IIRC, the first 4X4 to use anything bigger than a 44 was >mopar with some HD 3/4 ton front axles. Not so on use of bigger than a 44F. Dodge/Fargo W-300's (1 Ton) used a 70F from I believe '58 until early '70's. Likewise with IH 1300 4x4's (1 Ton, so called) and 1500 4x4's (1-1/2 Ton, so called). The Cornbinders all used a Spicer 1480 series cardan joint inside the closed knuckle, most of the Dodges used the one I was talking about inside the same size knuckle (which is WAY larger than the regular closed knuckle on a Jeep or whatever else), and it was a factory original. Never came across a Rzeppa joint in one of the big knuckles. Also, never came across a Rzeppa in any of the little ones much after about '55. After that they used (mostly, at least) 1310 series cardan joints. First use of a 60 F I know of was in Dodge 3/4 Ton "Sno-Fiters" in the early '70's, and same vintage Ford 3/4 Ton CREW cabs--the latter with the same large size , closed knuckles. Those same big knuckles went on 44F;s in Ford HD F-250's and IH 1200 (3/4 Ton) CREW cabs in the early '70's. "So-called" used on the IH weight ratings cuz their idea of tons was sorta like Hemi horsepower--quite a bit larger than anybody else's! Never seen a 1300 with less than 10K GVW rating on the factory tag, never seen a 1500 lighter than 14K , same place. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Jon Fedock" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:55:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Turbo header design This thread greatly interests me because (to me) there is no better sound than a NASCAR car at Talledega/Daytona/etc. where 180 degree headers are used. I thought I almost understood what the term "180 degree headers" meant, but evidently I am missing something. Questions posted below in quoted posts: - -----Original Message----- From: Gary Derian To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 8:14 AM Subject: Re: Turbo header design >A reasonably close approximation to true 180 deg. headers can be made with >the old tri-Y approach. As Aaron wrote, true 180 would require merging 1-6, >8-5, 4-7, 3-2 which is difficult to make. Merging 1-5, 3-7, 4-6, 2-8 >enables cylinder pairs to share an exhaust pipe without interfering and is >relatively easy to build. This is common in high output European and >Japanese V-8 engines. Do they have 4 exhausts exit the car? Or are there collectors further downstream to make it duals or a single? > Ferrari, on the other hand, uses a flat crank to make >a true 180 header easy. Formula 1 and CART V-8 engines also use flat >cranks. This I understand (WoooHooo!). >Flat crank V-8's vibrate like 2 4cyl engines. A 90 degree crank V-8 has >complete primary and secondary balance with only weights on the crank. Care to elaborate on this a little? Are we talking about crank vibration (hamonic balancer/flywheel) or something else over my head? Also, a Chevy V-8 fires every 90 degrees of crank rotation. How does a flat crank V-8 fire? Every 180 degrees would make sense, but then it would take 4 turns of the crank to hit all 8?! I am so confused...... >Gary Derian > Thanks for any input. Jon Fedock ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:52:48 -0700 Subject: Re: Turbo header design >Greg Hermann wrote: > >> If you wanna go with REALLY long tri-wye branches, (surprising how >> fantastically good this is for street, high torque, & 4x4 type apps.) > >Why not just reallllllly long 4 to 1 ??? Tom I'm prejudiced. Greg ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 22:59:09 EST Subject: Re: What's this ECM? In a message dated 1/7/99 10:18:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, amattei@xxx.com writes: > > If anyone can give me a "Yup, that's from a Camaro", it would help me > out a lot! Nope, I think it is from something else. The books are indexed by the car, not ECM. Will keep looking ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 23:01:38 -0500 Subject: Re: aluminum block 215" V8 for sale! diy_efi@xxx.edu wrote: > > I have an aluminum 215 cubic inch (3525 cubic centimeters) V8 > from an oldsmobile/buick/triumph/TRV/land rover/etc. > > Includes transmission! This is a weird item: automatic trans > with SIX positions/notches on the shifter arm (PRND321 ??) plus > a kickdown lever. NO TORQUE CONVERTER OR CLUTCH; it just has a > disc that looks like a clutch disc, but has boltholes instead of > a friction material. It bolts onto the flywheel (included with > the engine) and drives the transmission directly. This is all > that i know about the transmission. > This could be the hydramatic trans that first saw service in 55 Chevy pickup and Olds(called the Jetaway in Olds). It's got a "taurus coupling" where the converter should be. Is it aluminum or cast iron? The ones I've seen are cast, and weigh as much as a smallblock Chebby. Shift positions on the pickups were, in order, R N 1-4 1-3 1-2. Don't know the Olds, but can get copies of original service literature for both, if needed. > This motor would make a great small car swap, as the entire setup > will weigh less than an iron 4 cylinder by far and is much meaner. > This motor is smaller than a chevy V8 by far enough that > mounting it in a volvo or something would be a piece of cake. > Is bellhousing pattern like triditional Buick/Olds/Pontiac? What's the engine originally from? Shannen > My price is $500 for everything, not including shipping. > I'm in austin, texas.. > > -jake > chickens@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:16:50 EST Subject: Re: What's this ECM? In a message dated 1/7/99 10:18:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, amattei@xxx.com writes: > I *think* this ECM came from a '85 TPI Camaro, but was unable to confirm > that from either the archives or Ludis' info page. > > It has the outside sticker number 16052541, and a ROM ID of 16042431. I can't find either number, but the "160" boxes tend to be "Electronic Spark Control Units", not ECMs tha control fuel injection. 161 & 122 are popular ECM prefixes HTH Mike V ------------------------------ From: "Jon Fedock" Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 23:25:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Turbo header design This clears up alot of questions. THANKS Jon Fedock - -----Original Message----- From: Greg Hermann To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 07, 1999 3:52 PM Subject: Re: Turbo header design > > >FOR THIS PARTICULAR V-8> (IT HAS A 90 degree crank) >> Firing order >> 1 8 4 3 6 5 7 2 > >With this firing order, take every other cylinder in the firing order if >you want 180 degree (crank rotation) spaced pulses into a pair of 4 into 1 >collectors: > >1, 4, 6, & 7 go into one collector (two end cylinders from one bank, and >the two center cylinders from the other bank. > >8, 3, 5, & 2 go into the other collector. (the two end cylinders on the >other side, and the two middles from the first side. > >If you want PROPERLY done tri-wyes, go 1/2 way around the firing order, so >that the pulses in the pairs of tubes which combine at the first wye are >spaced evenly, 360 (crank) degrees apart: > >1 & 6; 8 &5; 4 & 7; 3 & 2. As you can see, each pair takes one tube from >each bank of the motor. > >Then, at the second wye, pair 1-6 with 4-7 and pair 8-5 with 3-2 so as to >get evenly spaced pulses at the second wye in each header. > >If you wanna go with REALLY long tri-wye branches, (surprising how >fantastically good this is for street, high torque, & 4x4 type apps.) start >out with a regular set of 4 into one headers (of the smallest tube size you >can find), cut them off a bit before the collectors, and do the snaking >back and forth under the bell housing/tranny to get the correct first wye >pairings. The second branches want to be the same length as the first ones, >but there are no crossovers if you plan ahead. After the four second >branches combine into two (tertiary) pipes, you want a length of pipe of >length equal to all the first and second branches. At the end of that pipe, >you need a gap (no diameter change of offset in the pipe) in the pipe about >3/4 inch long. Put an empty plenum chamber around that gap. The volume of >the plenum needs to be maybe double the internal volume of the last >(single) length of pipe feeding it. Just run a full size tail pipe and low >restriction muffler behind the plenum (Not much vehicle length left after >this, anyway!) >The headers will effectively see the plenum as an open ended (to >atmosphere) pipe. DO NOT omit the plenum, it is worth quite a bit of HP and >response! >For street stuff, usually, primary tubes 1 trade size SMALLER than the size >which can be swedged square to fit into a flange and match the port >properly work out to be the correct size. (If a 1-7/8" tube can be squared >at one end and fitted into a flange so that the inside of that tube matches >the port shape, then run the primary tubes with 1-3/4 " tubing.) You want >the internal AREA of your primary tubes to be about equal to the >cros-sectional AREA of the exhaust port. The above is what usually works >out right. (Especially if the engine designer did his homework!) The extra >work involved in getting down to the smaller tube size is why most off the >shelf headers use too big a tube size! Figure the length of the primary >tubes so that each of their internal volumes is about 140% of the >displacement of an individual cylinder. (For instance, for a 350 cid V-8, >using 1-3/4" tubes (which are about 1-5/8" inside diameter in 16 gauge >tube, this would mean you want (at least) 24 inch long primary tubes.) (And >if you are using lighter than 16 gauge tubing, don't bother!) >If the primaries are 1-3/4", then 2" is usually about right for the >secondaries, and 2-1/4" for the next ones. (A quarter inch increase in tube >size at each successive wye is usually about right. > >1-3/4" diameter primary tube size was only an example. It is prolly BIG for >a street 350, 1-5/8" or 1-1/2" is more likely to be right (but with more >tube length so as to get to the same internal tube volume!) > >If you build a set of tri-wyes this way, they will sound and run like >nothing else! The throttle response will be astounding! But it is a ROYAL >pain in the #@$% to do it! > >All my experience says that the biggest gain from headers is from giving as >much of the exhaust gas as possible somewhere to go freely during the >"blowdown" part of the exhaust stroke--before the piston starts back up >significantly. Yes, it's nice to have a low pressure pulse in the exhaust >port at overlap, and that pulse helps to scavenge clearance gasses if you >have it there at the right time, but the longer you can keep the blowdown >stage flow sonic, the less work the engine will have to waste pumping >exhaust gas out of its cylinders, and the more sonic energy there will be >available for creation of a scavenging pulse! > >Regards, Greg > > > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #17 **************************** 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".