DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 9 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 022 In this issue: Re: ECM connector cleaner MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration RE: Turbo header design Re: ECM connector cleaner RE: Inquiry Re: ECM connector cleaner Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration Re: 180 degree headers WAS:Re: Turbo header design TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? now U joints Re: Turbo header design Re: Good work Greg.. Re: now U joints Re: 93 Z28 Disassembly - Found TPS voltage limits & default value Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:30:50 -0500 Subject: Re: ECM connector cleaner Clarence Wood wrote: > > Sounds great! Where is it sold? Who makes it? Maybe less expensive than backfire at full boost. Do you have to buy in quantity? > The Stab22 IS expensive. When I bought mine (about seven years ago) it was something like $47 US per ounce. came in a six ounce bottle if I remember for close to $300 including shipping. Works good on memory and processor sockets to avoid crashes - Sorry. I don.t have manufacturers info - the company I worked for then is history so I can't even check there. I have a couple ounces left. ------------------------------ From: Chris Conlon Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:44:56 -0500 Subject: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration Hi everyone, A wise-sounding fellow on another list was saying that MTBE in certain pump gasolines can cause over-rapid deterioration of rubber fuel lines in some older cars. (And that the MTBE was used to meet some relatively new emissions-related legal requirements, say within the past few years. Also I think this applied to California, and perhaps some other states, but not necessarily to all states.) He further claimed a ~30% increase in engine bay fires in the time period covered. So what I'm wondering is, should I worry that today's pump gas might eat up rubber fuel lines extra quick? Would this only apply to "older" cars, and if so, how old would "older" be? 10 years, 20 years? Anyway it seemed like if this was a genuine issue, it'd be a pretty serious thing, and worth some preemptive part replacement. Thanks, Chris C. ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 23:57:14 -0500 Subject: Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration Chris Conlon wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > A wise-sounding fellow on another list was saying that MTBE in certain > pump gasolines can cause over-rapid deterioration of rubber fuel lines > in some older cars. (And that the MTBE was used to meet some relatively > new emissions-related legal requirements, say within the past few years. > Also I think this applied to California, and perhaps some other states, > but not necessarily to all states.) He further claimed a ~30% increase > in engine bay fires in the time period covered. > > So what I'm wondering is, should I worry that today's pump gas might > eat up rubber fuel lines extra quick? Would this only apply to "older" > cars, and if so, how old would "older" be? 10 years, 20 years? > > Anyway it seemed like if this was a genuine issue, it'd be a pretty > serious thing, and worth some preemptive part replacement. > > Thanks, > Chris C. There was a recall on some Nissan products for replacement of injector coupling hoses for this reason - believe it affected Maxima sixes. On the affected model there were a fair number of fires. ------------------------------ From: Jemison Richard Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:59:34 -0500 Subject: RE: Turbo header design Fred, Well, I've got 4 XS1100s and they definitely get a punch from the 180 design (95hp) stock. And this was 20 years ago. The uneven torque helps when the surface doesn't allow an even transfer of power (like dirt tracks for instance). Then the uneven machines have a definite advantage as the lull between strokes helps the tire 'grab' the track again. On the 1100's though you don't notice any uneven firing. 2 cyl up each power stroke but only one is on the power stroke. The result is smooth power pulses. Like I said, Saturn uses the same basic setup right down to the ignition! Can you swap them? Well, not easily due to the fact the Saturn coils are wired to run to a power control module which talks in turn to the ECM. On the Yamaha it is cruder. But with proper wiring solutions, the coils would work fine on a Yamaha. What's more intriging, the fuel injection manifold sure looks close to fitting the XS! Nah, thought about it but have decided on a custom fab unit. Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: FHPREMACH@xxx.com] > Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 8:46 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Turbo header design > > In a message dated 1/8/99 9:47:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, > JemisonR@xxx.com > writes: > > << I don't know the in's and out's of this 180 degree situation but as a > frame > of reference, the Saturns use a 180 degree crank, 2 coils, fire 2 > injectors > at a time, etc. Runs dead smooth. > > Rick >> > Yes, it is true that four cylinder motors use flat cranks, BMW twins run > them > and a host of other uses. They equal power pulses. Triumph Twins used a a > single throw crank and suffered from lots of interesting balance problems > when > they were raced, some experiemtation was done with opposing throws, but it > went to a 90/270 firing order. Actually better on slick tracks or with > tire > restrictions, but sounds strange and a lot of trouble to do. I raced one > of > the few ones locally that didn't try to shake apart. Ran about 78% total > weight for balance. Full weight flywheel helped. Flat cranks on V8's are > another matter, they treat the motor as two nested straight 4's. As a note > Chris Craft in England was making a V8 from two Yamaha 1100's on a 90 > degree > crank case. Used Carrilo rods and custom crank. Never heard a price. Used > all > stock parts from the base gasket up and made great power. > A note about uneven firing and such. Harley and Ducati have had advantages > over other bikes at times in racing. Harley's uneven power pulses allowed > the > tires to plant better betwen pulses. Ducati twins were better off the > corners > than the fours for the same relative reason. Some of the Japanese racing > two > stroke fours were set up to pair the power strokes for the same reason. > more > of a tractor torque instead of a jet. Didn't affect dyno HP, just > tractability. > Fred ------------------------------ From: Charles Morgan Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 21:10:00 -0800 Subject: Re: ECM connector cleaner At 11:30 PM 1/8/99 -0500, Clarence L.Snyder wrote: >The Stab22 IS expensive. When I bought mine (about seven years ago) it >was something like $47 US per ounce. came in a six ounce bottle if I >remember for close to $300 including shipping. >Works good on memory and processor sockets to avoid crashes - Sorry. I >don.t have manufacturers info - the company I worked for then is history >so I can't even check there. I have a couple ounces left. Stabilant 22A is made by: D.W. Electrochemicals Ltd 97 Newkirk Rd, N., Unit 3 Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 3G4, Canada 905/508-7500 An article on Stabilant 22A appeared in the April 95 issue of Hot Rod. I purchased some from Car Quest Auto Parts. It was $41 (US) for an 18ml bottle. Charles Morgan ------------------------------ From: Jemison Richard Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 00:23:24 -0500 Subject: RE: Inquiry Hi Qiang, There are many of the new motorcycles being offered that are being offered (at least as an option) EFI. Harley Davidson, Yamaha, Kawasaki and Honda are all offering at least one model with EFI. If you start looking at bikes more than a couple of years old the ratio drops very fast to something like (I'll guess 5%). 5 years back <1% (read not many). If I understand the rest of your question correctly and you're asking about EFI on motorcycles in the 250 - 500cc range (1ml = 1cc more or less - standard conditions and all) I don't know that the question applies. EFI is expensive and tends to be offered right now on the larger (more expensive) machines. I don't personally know of any motorcycles being manufactured with EFI under 850cc. Someone else may be able to shed more light on this. what would it take to set one up? A completely different question. I'm working on putting EFI on a 1100 4 cyl inline 4 stroke. I'm planning on using a PIC (microcontroller) with 2 8bit A/D inputs and 16 digital i/o lines for control. There are several methods of setting the system up but some people on the list have experimented (at least initially) with just random firing the injections in bank mode at a perset duty cycle (emulating the old constant flow injection systems). Idle isn't great but past say 2000 works great. There are people on this list much, much better than I that could correct me, expound on these ideas and lead you in the right direction. Rick > -----Original Message----- > From: Qiang Chen [SMTP:q_chen@xxx.net] > Sent: Saturday, January 09, 1999 6:10 AM > To: EFI > Subject: Inquiry > > Hello members, > > Is there any body who can tell me what the percentage of the four > stroke motorcycle engine that is using EFI? What is the configuration > (CPU,RAM,ROM,I/O,PIN, Injector,Spark Plug, Battery) of a > typical EFIed motorcycle engine ECU, eg 250-500ml? > > Your help would be greatly appreciated. > > Best regards, > Qiang Chen mailto:q_chen@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:26:11 -0500 Subject: Re: ECM connector cleaner Charles Morgan wrote: > > At 11:30 PM 1/8/99 -0500, Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > >The Stab22 IS expensive. When I bought mine (about seven years ago) it > >was something like $47 US per ounce. came in a six ounce bottle if I > >remember for close to $300 including shipping. > >Works good on memory and processor sockets to avoid crashes - Sorry. I > >don.t have manufacturers info - the company I worked for then is history > >so I can't even check there. I have a couple ounces left. > > Stabilant 22A is made by: > D.W. Electrochemicals Ltd > 97 Newkirk Rd, N., Unit 3 > Richmond Hill, Ontario L4C 3G4, Canada > 905/508-7500 > > An article on Stabilant 22A appeared in the April 95 issue of Hot Rod. I > purchased some from Car Quest Auto Parts. It was $41 (US) for an 18ml bottle. > > Charles Morgan That's closer to $75 per ounce.(35cc/ounce +/-) It is usually used thinned with alky. ------------------------------ From: "Michael D. Porter" Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999 22:26:45 -0700 Subject: Re: MTBE in gas, fuel line deterioration Chris Conlon wrote: > > So what I'm wondering is, should I worry that today's pump gas might > eat up rubber fuel lines extra quick? Would this only apply to "older" > cars, and if so, how old would "older" be? 10 years, 20 years? This came up on another list a while back, and the "new" additive wasn't mentioned by name, but I presume they meant MBTE. Fuels using this additive are in use in Albuquerque, but not in the rest of the state, so I'm fairly certain that its use is restricted to those places with ongoing smog problems indentified as such by the EPA, which would include CA. It is simply an oxygenator, like alcohol. However, to answer your question, yes, I've heard the same thing about older cars, but the break point for older, if I recall the message from the other list correctly, was something like 1991. At any rate, silicone-lined hose would likely take care of the problem. Cheers. ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:58:35 -0500 Subject: Re: 180 degree headers WAS:Re: Turbo header design diy_efi@xxx.edu wrote: > > I've got a car and a bike (both 4 cyl) with 180 degree cranks. If you're > interested. > Thanks. Greg H was kind enough to help. Shannen > rick > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Shannen Durphey [SMTP:shannen@xxx.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 12:38 AM > > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > > Subject: Re: 180 degree headers WAS:Re: Turbo header design > > > > diy_efi@xxx.edu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >Clarence, > > > > This is easily done with an inline four having a 1-3-4-2 firing > > order, > > > >as you just pair cyl's 1-4 and 2-3 together. Commonly done in NA > > > >headers and OEM manifolds too. However, true 180 degree headers on a > > V8 > > > >typically take up a lot of space. > > > > The only firing order i am familiar with is for a GM engine, which > > is > > > >1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2. Picture the cyliders as two rows (which they are): > > > > > > > > 1 2 you can see that #1's 180 degree partner is #6, > > #8's > > > > 3 4 is #5, #4's is #7 and #3's is #2. > > > > 5 6 > > > > 7 8 > > > > > > #1 and #6 are 180 degrees apart on the distributor, not the crank. #1 > > and #4 > > > are 180 degrees apart on the crank. Aren't they? What cylinders are > > grouped > > > together with NASCAR 180 degree headers? > > > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > Suppose it would make things easier to include "cam" or "crank". #6 > > is 180 cam degrees from #1. Means that #8 reaches TDC at 630 crank > > degrees. > > > > Anyone willing to answer some "flat" crank questions off list? > > Shannen ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 00:07:42 -0600 Subject: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Ok, I have pretty much disassembled and deciphered the TCC lockup code, and I feel I can add some code for a TCC lockup scheme, but I don't want to go to the trouble of adding it if it won't help. Without code changes (only data) The current lockup occurs at 95 mph, which is way down in my rpm range for my engine, about 4400 before lockup, 4000 after lookup. I am going to change this so that it locks up just before the end of the 1/4, somewhere around 105 or so. No code change required for this: The second choice is to lock it up at say 76 in second gear and let it stayed locked through 3rd also. Here is the scheme that requires code adjustment: The third choice is to lock it at 76 in 2nd, unlock it in the lower rpms in 3rd and lock it back up just before the end of the quarter in 3rd. The idea is to get the engine more quickly through the lower rpms, and lock the converter at the best moment to keep things around the power band. 76 mph in 2nd puts me just a bit higher than my HP peak. The locking before the end of the 1/4 is because the car lurches pretty hard when the convertor locks, and currently after it lurchs the engine hits low rpms and more slowly accelerates. I know the GN guys had some schemes, are they similar to what I have and which one worked the best? I am also considering more serious code changes, such as adjustments to allow less fuel to be injected in 1st and 2nd to get a more optimal mixture. Roger ------------------------------ From: edwards@xxx.net Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 02:17:44 EST Subject: now U joints 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. > > > Okay, you can't cut a straight line with a hacksaw. I tried > inserting a 1/4" circular plate, and welding. After two > attempts, I realized I couldn't weld them perfectly straight > using the wooden jig I made, so I asked a friend to > fabricate them from scratch. Less balancing issues, one > piece, no worries about welds giving out (I don't weld as > good as most), etc. > > A competent machine shop can spline both sides. There is a far easier way to do this, it will not be as neat but the result will be a much straighter shaft and it will be stronger too. You make up a sleeve of the right thickness slide the shafts into the sleeve and weld the sleev onto the shafts at the two ends. The two shafts are joined by the sleeve or coupling if you want to call it that. No need for gigs or do you have to worry about a warped weld. You must try for as tight a fit as possible before welding If you have two different sizes of shafts you can make each side of the sleeve to the coresponding size of the shaft. Pedro ------------------------------ From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 01:41:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Turbo header design > > Fred, > > Well, I've got 4 XS1100s and they definitely get a punch from the 180 design > (95hp) stock. And this was 20 years ago. The uneven torque helps when the > surface doesn't allow an even transfer of power (like dirt tracks for > instance). Then the uneven machines have a definite advantage as the lull > between strokes helps the tire 'grab' the track again. all 4 cyl 4 strokes should be 180^ by default anything else would be just plain dumb Clive ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 01:05:09 -0600 Subject: Re: Good work Greg.. Greg Hermann wrote: > The header will see the gap in > the pipe as an open end for pulse tuning. I SUSPECT that such a plenum may > even work better than an open pipe terminated at the same length as where > the first cut is. Take a set of headers and add extensions to the collectors of the same size (3 1/2) and lightly spray the extensions with cheap black paint. Make a couple of hard passes and the paint will change color at the point they should be cut off. This may also work to find the location of the plenum chamber. Engines sound different when extensions are trimmed like described. Tom ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 01:21:11 -0600 Subject: Re: now U joints edwards@xxx.net wrote: > 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. For the machine shop impared, always cut driveshafts at the end. I was just suggestion attaching commonly available CV joints to the ends of a standard drive shaft. Tom ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:34:02 -0500 Subject: Re: 93 Z28 Disassembly - Found TPS voltage limits & default value >I tackled the Throttle Load Axis Variable (it is used heavily to >determine TCC lockup). I still don't understand exactly what >is is calculating, if someone wants to look at the flowchart, >it is at http://www.hit.net/~rah/F43B_F4C6.gif . The >part of the code that I don't understand the purpose of is the >A = A - B part, I don't understand exactly why. The rest of >things are pretty clear. I have the things that confuse me >marked as such. > The first one is where the PCM determines the "low" TPS voltage. What it does is, if the current TPS A/D counts are less than the stored minimum TPS voltage ($016B), the logic will use a first-order lag filter routine (at FB63) and a very, very slow filter constant (at 8681 which is 01h) to "add" this new minimum TPS reading to the current minimum TPS reading. This way, the PCM has a "baseline" voltage from which 0% TPS is "started". The second one is where the PCM determines the difference between the current TPS A/D counts and this "minimum TPS" voltage - the SBA. The result is what is used to determine the percent above "closed" (i.e. the minimum TPS voltage) the current TPS reading is. As far as I can tell, the approximate (ignoring rounding) translation of the code between F46F and F48A is: % = (CurrentAD - "ClosedAD") * 111 * 4 / 256 or % = (CurrentAD - "ClosedAD") / 1.73 where '%' ranges from 00h (0%) to FFh (100%). If the "closed" TPS is, say, 30h counts (0.94V), the 100% TPS reading should appear at about: 255 = Delta / 1.73 Delta ~= 147 counts 30h + 93h == C3h or about 3.82V Any and all corrections welcome. Hope this helps. - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:40:59 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? >Ok, > >I have pretty much disassembled and deciphered the TCC lockup code, >and I feel I can add some code for a TCC lockup scheme, but I don't >want to go to the trouble of adding it if it won't help. > >Without code changes (only data) > >The current lockup occurs at 95 mph, which is way down in my rpm range for my engine, >about 4400 before lockup, 4000 after lookup. I am going to change this so that it locks >up just before the end of the 1/4, somewhere around 105 or so. > >No code change required for this: >The second choice is to lock it up at say 76 in second gear and let it stayed locked >through 3rd also. > >Here is the scheme that requires code adjustment: > >The third choice is to lock it at 76 in 2nd, unlock it in the lower rpms in 3rd and lock >it back up just before the end of the quarter in 3rd. The idea is to get the engine more >quickly through the lower rpms, >and lock the converter at the best moment to keep things around the >power band. 76 mph in 2nd puts me just a bit higher than my HP peak. The locking before >the end of the 1/4 is because the car lurches pretty hard when the convertor locks, and >currently after it lurchs the engine hits low rpms and more slowly accelerates. > >I know the GN guys had some schemes, are they similar to what I have and which one worked >the best? > >I am also considering more serious code changes, such as adjustments to allow less fuel to >be injected in 1st and 2nd to get a more optimal mixture. > > Roger > > Regarding the TCC, the only thing I'd be careful of is engaging the clutch too soon and plowing the maximum engine torque through it. Most TCCs aren't designed to handle the full torque of the stock engine let alone the torque of a modified motor and may be damaged if locked too soon. I thought this was a problem for the GN crowd some time back where chips were engaging the clutch to reduce driveline slippage (and thus get better ETs/MPH) but the price was wasted converters after only a few runs... - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 03:38:39 -0600 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Roger Heflin wrote: > I have pretty much disassembled and deciphered the TCC lockup code, > and I feel I can add some code for a TCC lockup scheme, but I don't > want to go to the trouble of adding it if it won't help. > > The current lockup occurs at 95 mph, which is way down in my rpm range for my engine, > about 4400 before lockup, 4000 after lookup. I am going to change this so that it locks > up just before the end of the 1/4, somewhere around 105 or so. > > The second choice is to lock it up at say 76 in second gear and let it stayed locked > through 3rd also. Roger, Why don't you use a toggle switch in your lap or on the shifter to manually lock/unlock the converter. A couple of runs and you should have a pretty good idea what you want/need. Another $0.02 Tom PS I'm also worried about reliability locking the converter under WOT conditions. I would only lock it to get a jump at the finish line (if you're bracket racing and you need it!).. ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #22 **************************** 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".