DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 16 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 038 In this issue: Re: Haltech E6GM TCC switch & questions..... Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI Re: TCC switch & questions..... Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI Re: Low Pressure Transducers Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: 555 EFI Re: Heat sink compound vs. dialectic Re: 555 EFI Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion Re: 555 EFI Re: TCC switch & questions..... Re: 555 EFI 96 ford powerstroke Re: TCC switch & questions..... Re: 96 ford powerstroke Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP Synch or Sink? EFI Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP Re: TCC switch & questions..... Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Re: Low Pressure Transducers Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "paul" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:05:41 +1100 Subject: Re: Haltech E6GM Hi All, The reason I am selling the haltech e6gm is that I bought another race car ,from a guy called Doug robson whos name appears in the archive files. Doug if you read this contact me....... My wife won't let me keep two race cars so I am selling bits and pieces and or the whole car. the E6gm price is about AUS$1000 .A loom and sensors could be supplied at a price.p.s only used on Sundays. PAUL - ---------- > From: Robert E. Yorke > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Haltech E6GM > Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 5:31 PM > > Paul: > > If you found it to be so user friendly, why do you want to sell it? At any > rate, what is your asking price? > > > At 03:10 PM 1/16/1999 +1100, you wrote: > >Hi There, > > Maybe I can Help.I own a Haltech E6GM and an Autronic SMC > >unit. > >The E6GM has 22 fuel ranges every 500rpm up to 10500rpm or 17 fuel ranges > >every 1000rpm up to 16000rpm and 32 load points per range. > > These are the same for spark and fuel which gives a very precise > >adjustment. > >this is also interpolated to work out smaller increments. > >This system is definately much more user friendly than the Autronic system. > >Another great feature is the data logging but the laptop must be plugged in > >for recording the info.I hope this info has been useful. > >P.S my E6GM ecm is for sale but I live in Australia so someone else out > >there may be interested. > >PAUL. > >---------- > >> From: Charles Brooks > >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > >> Subject: Re: Haltech E6GM > >> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:22 PM > >> > >> Is the E6GM capable of 500 RPM resolution? It's hard to tell > >> from the Haltech page, and the post in the archives didn't > >> elaborate. If so then I don't see any problem for my > >> application. Hhmm, seems like I'm trying to talk myself into > >> the Haltech unit, A 500 dollar difference is a persuasive > >> argument :) > >> > >> Charles Brooks > >> > >> > >> > >> Bruce Plecan wrote: > >> > > >> > 1,000 rpm for a 12,000 rpm capacity calibration, 500 rpm resolution for > >a > >> > 6,000 rpm calibation. Meaning no correction over 6,000 rpm not > >> > that the ecm wouldn't work at higher speeds. > >> > Bruce > ------------------------------ From: Barry Tisdale Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:56:11 -0500 Subject: TCC switch & questions..... Recent discussion on TCC lockups got me thinking (always a dangerous thing....). Having installed the TCC lock switch, I've got a couple of questions for the performance gurus: What advantage or disadvantage, during daily driving, to having the switch on or off? Things just feel more 'solid' to me w/ the TCC lock on. It makes sense to me that having the converter locked during Banzii runs will net a lower ET due to less loss thru the driveline - KB claims .2-.25 sec better. BUT - Shifts now occur @xxx. Would raising the shift points, at least to compensate for the now 'slipless' TC, be of benefit? Seems there should be an additional .2 sec or so there also (?). Right? Wrong? All wet?? Comments? Thanks - Barry ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:42:31 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI - -----Original Message----- From: Clarence L.Snyder To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:36 AM Subject: Re: 555 EFI snip >> >What do I connect to pin 5, through what, to control this? To just play with it a simple voltage divider of a pot and some resistors. On the info I >have, this is the BYPASS pin and is tied to ground through a small cap >to despike. How do I use it to control pulse width? What degree of >adjustment is possible from this pin? If you went to both extremes <2/3v, and v then 0-100% > >Another question - >What percentage pulse width change would be required from the >MAP or TPS input? What percentage from engine temperature, >assuming these were the only inputs you were going to use other >than the trigger (tach sync)? The percentages will vary depending on application. ie, by example, a 460 CID, FE Ford is alot more cold blooded then a 1.6L 4 cylinder, 16 valve DOHC.. If you hunt around for various software demos, for some of the aftermarket ecms you could read those tables, for a general idea. When I get things a bite closer to bench running it, I'll be bench running a oem calibration that is similiar to what my target engine is, and then comparing that data. Bruce > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 09:44:01 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI - -----Original Message----- From: Clarence L.Snyder To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:59 AM Subject: Re: 555 EFI snip Try to find some of Forrest Mims III books, booklets are available from Radio Shack Bruce >> > >> What do I connect to pin 5, through what, to control this? On the info I >> have, this is the BYPASS pin and is tied to ground through a small cap >> to despike. How do I use it to control pulse width? What degree of >> adjustment is possible from this pin? >> >> Another question - >> What percentage pulse width change would be required from the MAP or TPS >> input? What percentage from engine temperature, assuming these were the >> only inputs you were going to use other than the trigger (tach sync)? > >The only other thing I have seen this pin used for is a very simple FM >transmitter / signal generator where an audio signal is put onto an RF >signal for tracing purposes. - FM radio then picks up the signal in an >audible form. This is when used as astable. > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:01:21 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... - -----Original Message----- From: Barry Tisdale To: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 9:15 AM Subject: TCC switch & questions..... Is the TCC your using designed for WOT use?... There are lots of considerations, ie, tranny life, converter life, reliability, firing impulses, and power transfer. A $3 switch is cheap, but the tranny overhaul it may cost, by using it expensive if the converter ain't designed for that use. I think GH's mention about switching it off during a gear change has merit in high weight drivetrains like yours (4WD).. Remember some comments here are about specific cars, and not universal laws. FIRST TRUE LAW OF TUNING, Assume nothing, and doument everything. Ya wanna play with shift points, first get a G-Tech, and Diacom+, to find out if your going in the right direction. ie raising shift the shift point if your already out of fuel would not make sense. Seat of the pants tuning, is for the, wannabe's SECOND TRUE LAW RULE OF TUNING, speed costs money, how fast can you afford to go?. Using some common sense reduces this cost. Cheers Bruce Cheers Bruce >Recent discussion on TCC lockups got me thinking (always a dangerous thing....). > >Having installed the TCC lock switch, I've got a couple of questions for the performance gurus: > >What advantage or disadvantage, during daily driving, to having the switch on or off? Things just feel more 'solid' to me w/ the TCC lock on. > >It makes sense to me that having the converter locked during Banzii runs will net a lower ET due to less loss thru the driveline - KB claims .2-.25 sec better. > >BUT - > >Shifts now occur @xxx. W/O the TCC locked, my Syclone would shift @ (WOT) about 4300 rpm - just about at the HP peak - this is not ideal. Ideally, we'd like to upshift on the 'far' side of the HP curve, to an approximately equal HP point on the rising side of the curve. As it stands w/ the TCC locked, shifts occur @ *less* than the HP peak of the engine. This seems to be in need of correcting - seems you'd like to raise the shift points to about 5000 RPM, past the HP peak, to keep the engine on the power curve better. > >Would raising the shift points, at least to compensate for the now 'slipless' TC, be of benefit? Seems there should be an additional .2 sec or so there also (?). > >Right? Wrong? All wet?? Comments? > >Thanks - Barry > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:12:26 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI Hmm, would someone who has some EE under their belt e-mail me or respond to: How would someone convert a 0-5v signal to a 3.333-5v signal using a 324?. Or is this the "killer". Cheers Bruce ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 10:19:11 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI - -----Original Message----- From: thergen@xxx.net> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 3:08 AM Subject: Re: 555 EFI I just reread this and think maybe I got more. Well, I'm gonna flood the list with dumb stuff today. Anyway use like a 2M, and 1M resistor for the bias v to pin 5, and then tie a 324 output to that to move it up?. How would say a TPS 0-5 be feed to the 324?. Cheers Bruce >Picture an op-amp with the non-iverting input connected to pin 6 and the >inverting input connected to pin 5. Pin 5 is also connected to a resistor >divider network that pulls it to 2/3 Vcc. There is probably a symbolic >view on one of the semiconductor manufacturers sites. I'm looking at the >cover of two different books that show this configuration. > >The 2/3 reference point can be yanked around to where you want by using >pin 5. It can also affect the 1/3 reference for pin 2. > >The pin numbers above assume the 8 pin package. > >If you can't find an online reference, or it's still not clear, I could >probably try some ascii art to show the configuration. > >Tom > > >On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > >> Bruce Plecan wrote: >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Clarence L.Snyder >> > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> > Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 11:57 PM >> > Subject: Re: 555 EFI >> > >> > >thergen@xxx.net wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Bruce, >> > >> >> > >> Are you thinking of a string of one-shots and using a varying >> > >> voltage on >> > >> the control pins to vary the output pulse width? If you're already going >> > >> to be using op-amps to scale the output of the sensors, you could >> > probably >> > >> add/subtract the outputs of multiple op-amps together through resistors >> > >> and run that into the control voltage pin of a smaller number of 555s. >> > >> >> > >question of clarification: >> > >what is the "control voltage" pin? My understanding of the 555 operation >> > >is the cap and resistance (cap between threshold {connected to discharge >> > >for monostable}and ground - resistor from B+ to threshold) were an RC >> > >"tank" circuit. The resistor controls the time required for the cap to >> > >reach 2/3 of B+ voltage. >> > >> > Pin 5 sets B+ as you discribe it. >> > Bruce >> > >> > >> What do I connect to pin 5, through what, to control this? On the info I >> have, this is the BYPASS pin and is tied to ground through a small cap >> to despike. How do I use it to control pulse width? What degree of >> adjustment is possible from this pin? >> >> Another question - >> What percentage pulse width change would be required from the MAP or TPS >> input? What percentage from engine temperature, assuming these were the >> only inputs you were going to use other than the trigger (tach sync)? >> > ------------------------------ From: Eric Schumacher Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 08:25:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Low Pressure Transducers Hi Joel There is a panel "meter'' available called a MAGNA-HELIC used to monitor the static pressure in clean rooms that does just this. New they would be several hundred dollars, they are shown in the McMaster Caar catalog, but they show up in Southern CA swapmeets for around $10. Otherwise a manometer will do the job for ultra cheap. Lotsa Luck Eric 85 GTI with VR6 Power ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:15:34 -0600 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? Roger Heflin wrote: > > >I am not worried about the torque multiplication. I am just happy if > > >the torque convertor is slipping enough to put me at a higher torque > > >position on the engine. Not ever having run a lockup (except in mama's cars), My advice may be questionable. IMHO, there are a couple of tenths to be had with race style, non lockup converters ... they can be tuned also. I had a 2400 lb, 482 BBC sand racer w/ T350 and several converters. I had plenty of torque but it wouldn't MPH on the big end. (4.3 sec @85 MPH in 300 feet!!!) Going to a custom converter solved my problems. They can tune torque multiplication, stall, flash stall, and lockup %. (stators, fin clearances and fin angles). I have a Fairbanks 10" rebuilt by TCI. I asked for normal to minimal multiplication (I had too much torque) and as much lockup as possible over 5000 rpm and efficiency. I didn't care about stall speeds as most big motors can easily get a 10" converter over 2500 rpm. It is now in my Cobra and gets 25+ mpg at 75 mph and stalls > 2500 with a small block and runs 11 flat @xxx. Go figure. Tom ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:23:24 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI thergen@xxx.net wrote: > > Picture an op-amp with the non-iverting input connected to pin 6 and the > inverting input connected to pin 5. Pin 5 is also connected to a resistor > divider network that pulls it to 2/3 Vcc. There is probably a symbolic > view on one of the semiconductor manufacturers sites. I'm looking at the > cover of two different books that show this configuration. > > The 2/3 reference point can be yanked around to where you want by using > pin 5. It can also affect the 1/3 reference for pin 2. > So this pin 5 could be labelled "offset?" In other words, it changes the voltage that 2/3 of must be reached to trigger? Or put another way, does it change the reference voltage of the comparator? > > ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:30:25 -0600 Subject: Re: Heat sink compound vs. dialectic - ----Original Message----- > From: Clarence Wood > Of course I challenged the statement and > he told me that he had used heat sink compound to insure good connections. > > Is heat sink compound a dialectic? Curious minds want to know! What is the recommended method of attaching the big switching transistors to a heat sink (case?) for the EFI332 project?????????????? Thanks Tom ------------------------------ From: Hugo Villeneuve Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:34:15 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI At 10:12 99-01-16 -0500, you wrote: >Hmm, would someone who has some EE under their belt e-mail >me or respond to: > >How would someone convert a 0-5v signal to a 3.333-5v signal >using a 324?. Or is this the "killer". >Cheers >Bruce > First: Pass your 0-5V signal through a summing amplifier (one input is 3.333V and the other your signal). The resulting signal should be 3.333-8.333V. Second: Pass your 3.333-8.333V signal through am amplifier with a gain of 0.333, or 1/3. Your signal should be 3.333-5V. Of course, this approach requires an operational amplifier (like the 741 or 358) rather than a comparator like the 324. This idea was not tested experimentally so... Hugo Villeneuve ------------------------------ From: "Mark Romans" Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:04:51 -0800 Subject: Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC TPIS's book, insider hints, on page 17 shows a chart with a 383 w/airflow research heads, big mouth intake ported plenum, 58mm throttle body and modified maf using for comparison purposes the stock runners, slp cast, lingenfelter cast, tpis extruded and tpis siamesed runners. Obviously the stock runners at 1.470 diameter id were down from the others oh hp and but torque was similar but at 700 to 1000 lower rpm band. With the stock runners it made 469.6 ft lbs at 3750 rpm's and 390 hp at 5750. The biggest jump was to the siamesed runners (Which are no longer made by tpis) at 462ft lbs at 4250 (Actually down) and 427.7 hp at 5750 rpms. So the stock runners are not that much of a limitation. The whole thing works as a system. I would recommend that anyone wanting to do any playing with a tpi system buy the tpis book. They have exhaustive flow tests on every component documented in this book. A 406 with a tpi ought to be a really fun combination. Mark - -----Original Message----- From: ECMnut@xxx.com> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 6:36 AM Subject: Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC >Skip this post if you could care less about 400 SBCs >or drag racing.. > >With such a low RPM torque peak, some conservative >rear-end gears (3.55-4.10) will probably work well. >Peter mentioned traction linitations in a previous post. >I couldn't agree more. IF you can keep it connected >to the pavement, the car should provide big fun.. >The 400 SBC makes lots of torque without such a >TPI intake amplifying the issue. With the stock runners, >it should REALLY make torque by 3,500 RPM. >Some years back, I had a 2700 lb bracket car with >a 350 SBC, 5.13 gears decent heads, very mild hydraulic > cam and a box-stock 750 Holley. It turned 11.70s all >day long. It idled as smooth as a hoover vaccuum cleaner. >Eventually, I replace the 350 shortblock with a 13:1 400 >shortblock, reusing the heads, cam & everything possible.. >I reduced the rear-end gear from 5.13 to 4.10 because I was >nervous about turning the "strokey" short-rod 400 too hard. >The first day out with the 400, it idled perfectly smooth at >15 inches of vaccuum, and the car turned 10.80s.... >Almost a full second improvement over the 350.. >Even with the gear reduction, the car left the starting >line much harder than before. A hard throttle stab >from a fast idle would pick the front tires up almost >a foot. The car was a small Vega with a 3 link suspension >and 14 inch wide slicks, so traction was usually available. >If I could have EFI'd this thing, I'm sure it would've been >faster and cleaner. Even with a carb, I considered >getting a tailpipe emmisions test done, but never found >the time. The engine stayed in the car until two years >later, when I sold everything.. >The 400 is really impressive as long as you keep the >RPMs low (below 6,000?).. That includes the burnout. >Despite my persistent warnings about hi RPM death, >the rookie that bought my car liked the sounds of 8,000 >RPM in the burnout area, and put a rod through the >oil pan his first day at the track.. >Good luck, I bet the 400 TPI combo will be fun.. >Mike V > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:53:00 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI - -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Villeneuve To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:49 PM Subject: Re: 555 EFI snip I maybe WAY over my head here, but..... How about dividing the 0-5 by 3 (voltage divider), and then adding that with a voltage with the summing amp., that way I don't need a second power supply???. 741 or 358, which is better for an auto application?. Bruce >First: Pass your 0-5V signal through a summing amplifier (one input is >3.333V and the other your signal). The resulting signal should be >3.333-8.333V. > >Second: Pass your 3.333-8.333V signal through am amplifier with a gain of >0.333, or 1/3. Your signal should be 3.333-5V. > >Of course, this approach requires an operational amplifier (like the 741 or >358) rather than a comparator like the 324. This idea was not tested >experimentally so... > > Hugo Villeneuve > > ------------------------------ From: thergen@xxx.net Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:00:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 555 EFI Okay, who's gonna be the first one to say it would be easiear to skip all the op-amps and use a PIC and some code? ;) On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Bruce Plecan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hugo Villeneuve > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 12:49 PM > Subject: Re: 555 EFI > > > snip > > I maybe WAY over my head here, but..... > How about dividing the 0-5 by 3 (voltage divider), and then adding that with > a voltage with the summing amp., that way I don't need a second power > supply???. > > 741 or 358, which is better for an auto application?. > Bruce > > > >First: Pass your 0-5V signal through a summing amplifier (one input is > >3.333V and the other your signal). The resulting signal should be > >3.333-8.333V. > > > >Second: Pass your 3.333-8.333V signal through am amplifier with a gain of > >0.333, or 1/3. Your signal should be 3.333-5V. > > > >Of course, this approach requires an operational amplifier (like the 741 or > >358) rather than a comparator like the 324. This idea was not tested > >experimentally so... > > > > Hugo Villeneuve > > > > > ------------------------------ From: thergen@xxx.net Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:01:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: 555 EFI On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Clarence L.Snyder wrote: > thergen@xxx.net wrote: > > > > Picture an op-amp with the non-iverting input connected to pin 6 and the > > inverting input connected to pin 5. Pin 5 is also connected to a resistor > > divider network that pulls it to 2/3 Vcc. There is probably a symbolic > > view on one of the semiconductor manufacturers sites. I'm looking at the > > cover of two different books that show this configuration. > > > > The 2/3 reference point can be yanked around to where you want by using > > pin 5. It can also affect the 1/3 reference for pin 2. > > > > So this pin 5 could be labelled "offset?" In other words, it changes the > voltage that 2/3 of must be reached to trigger? Or put another way, does > it change the reference voltage of the comparator? > > > > Yes, pin 5 can change the reference voltage of the comparator and could be labelled an "offset". Pin 5 is tied directly to the reference voltage of the comparator (for pin 6) in the symbolic picture I have of a 555. Tom ------------------------------ From: Hugo Villeneuve Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 14:39:44 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI I made an inversion in my message regarding conversion of a signal 0-5V to 3.333-5V: It should read like this: First: Pass your 0-5V signal through an amplifier with a gain of 0.333, or 1/3. Your signal should be 0-1.666V. Second: Pass your 0-1.666V signal through a summing amplifier (one input is 3.333V and the other your 0-1.666V signal). The resulting signal should be 3.333-5V. Hugo Villeneuve ------------------------------ From: Don Holtz Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 12:09:52 -0800 Subject: Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion Here is another idea: Since the span of the voltage range that you want to move is smaller (and not inverted), you can do the conversion WITHOUT using any kind of active stage. However, it may be necessary to use some buffering at the input or output depending on the proceeding section of circuit. Try this: use a simple resistive voltage divider to reduce the span of the 0-5V signal to a 0-1.666 signal. Then use a diode level shifter with high impedance biasing to shift the range from 0-1.66V up to 3.333-5V. There are many variations on this idea possible: use a 3 terminal adjustable regulator as a voltage shifter. How exact does this conversion need to be? If you want me to draw up a diagram I will. And email it to whoever wants. Just ask. Cheers, Don At 10:12 99-01-16 -0500, you wrote: >Hmm, would someone who has some EE under their belt e-mail >me or respond to: > >How would someone convert a 0-5v signal to a 3.333-5v signal >using a 324?. Or is this the "killer". >Cheers >Bruce > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:49:48 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion - -----Original Message----- From: Don Holtz To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 3:23 PM Subject: Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion The diode shifter is a new concept to me, I'd like a picture to look at please. nacelp@xxx.net Bruce >Here is another idea: >Since the span of the voltage range that you want to move is smaller (and >not inverted), you can do the conversion WITHOUT using any kind of active >stage. However, it may be necessary to use some buffering at the input or >output depending on the proceeding section of circuit. >Try this: use a simple resistive voltage divider to reduce the span of the >0-5V signal to a 0-1.666 signal. Then use a diode level shifter with high >impedance biasing to shift the range from 0-1.66V up to 3.333-5V. >There are many variations on this idea possible: use a 3 terminal >adjustable regulator as a voltage shifter. >How exact does this conversion need to be? Just repeatable. Just so long as it doesn't do a bathtub curve. \____/ Being able to move the slope up or down might be an advantage. Bruce > >If you want me to draw up a diagram I will. And email it to whoever wants. >Just ask. >Cheers, >Don >>Hmm, would someone who has some EE under their belt e-mail >>me or respond to: >>How would someone convert a 0-5v signal to a 3.333-5v signal >>using a 324?. Or is this the "killer". >>Cheers >>Bruce ------------------------------ From: Mike Morrin Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 10:00:23 +1300 Subject: Re: 555 EFI At 11:00 am 1/16/99 -0800, thergen@xxx.net wrote: >Okay, who's gonna be the first one to say it would be easiear to skip all >the op-amps and use a PIC and some code? ;) Well I'll be second... Actually, I have been musing with the idea of using multiple PICs, each with a subset of the funnctionality of the ECU, one doing crank position sensing, one doing injection pulse width calculation, one timing and driving the injectors (and similar for ignition). The trick being to ensure that each device is only doing one time-critical task, so that the worst case timing can be kept under control. OTOH, you could just program an 8 pin PIC to behave like an "ideal" 555 with whatever charactoristics you want... regards, Mike ------------------------------ From: Barry Tisdale Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:22:56 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... At 10:01 AM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >Is the TCC your using designed for WOT use?... Everything stock, transmission & converter-wise. The converter locks *once* @xxx. >FIRST TRUE LAW OF TUNING, Assume nothing, and doument >everything. Ya wanna play with shift points, first get a G-Tech, and >Diacom+, Agree completely - I use the GTech & MPSI 9000 (poor man's Diacom) - it records 1/4 mile runs in their entirety, capturing *alternate* frames. Not the best accuracy for this reason, but I'm working on a gadget to hook up to a PC to get every frame captured. Theory first, then see if it works as expected in practice. >SECOND TRUE LAW RULE OF TUNING, speed costs money,..... Money and TIME, if you do your own repairs of broken stuff! All of this is just bench racing at this point, as SW Michigan is *not* conducive to doing any runs @xxx. >Cheers >Bruce Tata - Barry ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:36:33 -0500 Subject: Re: 555 EFI - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Morrin To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Cc: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 4:08 PM Subject: Re: 555 EFI >>Okay, who's gonna be the first one to say it would be easiear to skip all >>the op-amps and use a PIC and some code? ;) >Well I'll be second... Well then start a thread about it and do something. The 555 is for those folks, ie like me who just don't "get it" about code. With all the talk about Pics/Stamps, it's amazing no one has done anything with them, or if they have it's a secret. The list is EFI, and 555 is as valid as anything else. Hey, how about skip the Pic and go to a CPU, oh what that's 332... >Actually, I have been musing with the idea of using multiple PICs, each >with a subset of the funnctionality of the ECU, one doing crank position >sensing, one doing injection pulse width calculation, one timing and >driving the injectors (and similar for ignition). >The trick being to ensure that each device is only doing one time-critical >task, so that the worst case timing can be kept under control. >OTOH, you could just program an 8 pin PIC to behave like an "ideal" 555 >with whatever charactoristics you want... >regards, >Mike ------------------------------ From: jq Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 13:41:10 -0800 Subject: 96 ford powerstroke anyone have a solution for a problem with a rough idle? Ford has no idea! also, has anyone found a good performance chip? ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:01:59 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... - -----Original Message----- From: Barry Tisdale To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 4:44 PM Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... I see all the difference in the world, maybe a letter to B Hartman would be in order Bruce >>Is the TCC your using designed for WOT use?... >Everything stock, transmission & converter-wise. The converter locks *once* @ WOT during each 1/4 mile run - "stock", its @ about 95mph, 4th gear; with the switch, its soon after the 1-2 shift. I can't see a problem w/ merely choosing the point in the run at which the lockup occurs - it happens anyway. Aren't changing anything absolute here, just relative. snip >>Cheers >>Bruce >Tata - Barry ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:05:52 -0500 Subject: Re: 96 ford powerstroke - -----Original Message----- From: jq To: DYI EFI Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 4:55 PM Subject: 96 ford powerstroke Columbus Diesel, Columbus, OH has fuel additives for diesels that work really well, I just for the life of me can't come up with the brand name. Stuff raises Cetane, and works super, IMHO.. Usually the phone guys can answer questions, well. Bruce >anyone have a solution for a >problem with a rough idle? >Ford has no idea! > >also, has anyone found a good >performance chip? > ------------------------------ From: "Ross Myers" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:07:35 +1100 Subject: Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP >It's right here. >ftp://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/incoming/VS_BSTK1451%20%28V6%29.BIN >I had to right click on it in netscape, but it downloaded. > >Shannen > > >> >> Ross, >> I tried to download the bin file to have a look but it came up >> with a url fault .....any ideas on how to download it???????? >> PAUL. Well after seeing how the address appears above It must be one of those Windows things, I thought spaces would be spaces, not %. Ross ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:24:47 -0500 Subject: Synch or Sink? EFI I have two problems (well, OK, more then two), but for the moment I have a v-8, and v-6 that I want to go DIS with. I'd like to trim off one point of the star on the shaft, and one one the stationary piece, and then use a peak voltage detector to find when the 7/5 points line up for a synch signal. That way the stock timing corrections would be intact, and no custom machine work. Also, this means being able to use the oem module, and such. Any thoughts? Bruce ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:30:10 -0500 Subject: Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP - -----Original Message----- From: Ross Myers To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 5:24 PM Subject: Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP Ross I sent you a copy of it last night Bruce > > >>It's right here. >>ftp://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/incoming/VS_BSTK1451%20%28V6%29.BIN >>I had to right click on it in netscape, but it downloaded. >> >>Shannen >> >> >>> >>> Ross, >>> I tried to download the bin file to have a look but it came up >>> with a url fault .....any ideas on how to download it???????? >>> PAUL. > > >Well after seeing how the address appears above It must be one of those >Windows things, I thought spaces would be spaces, not %. > >Ross > ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:28:12 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... diy_efi@xxx.edu wrote: > > At 10:01 AM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: > > >Is the TCC your using designed for WOT use?... > > Everything stock, transmission & converter-wise. The converter locks *once* @xxx. Just a note, unless you've done some specific changes to run with TCC off all the time, do not run continously without TCC on in 4th. The oil flow to the cooler is greatly reduced when tcc is off, and the eventual result is overheat and R+R trans. I realize you're talking about 1/4 mile, but it's easy to forget to switch TCC on while on the street. Shannen ------------------------------ From: AJLegere@xxx.com Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:31:41 EST Subject: Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Mark, Try our this site for a 406 SBC plus miniram. http://www.d-p-g.com/CORVETTEFEVER/aug96/eL.htm AJL ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:41:32 -0700 Subject: Re: Low Pressure Transducers >Hi Joel >There is a panel "meter'' available called a MAGNA-HELIC used to monitor >the static pressure in clean rooms that does just this. New they would be >several hundred dollars, they are shown in the McMaster Caar catalog, but >they show up in Southern CA swapmeets for around $10. >Otherwise a manometer will do the job for ultra cheap. >Lotsa Luck Eric >85 GTI with VR6 Power Magna-Helic is made by Dwyer Instruments, Inc. (800) 872-9057. Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 15:53:22 -0700 Subject: Re: TCC lockup - which scheme would give better performance? >Roger Heflin wrote: > >> > >I am not worried about the torque multiplication. I am just happy if >> > >the torque convertor is slipping enough to put me at a higher torque >> > >position on the engine. > >Not ever having run a lockup (except in mama's cars), My advice may be >questionable. IMHO, there are a couple of tenths to be had with race style, non >lockup converters ... they can be tuned also. I had a 2400 lb, 482 BBC >sand racer >w/ T350 and several converters. I had plenty of torque but it wouldn't MPH >on the >big end. (4.3 sec @85 MPH in 300 feet!!!) Going to a custom converter solved my >problems. They can tune torque multiplication, stall, flash stall, and >lockup %. >(stators, fin clearances and fin angles). I have a Fairbanks 10" rebuilt >by TCI. I >asked for normal to minimal multiplication (I had too much torque) and as much >lockup as possible over 5000 rpm and efficiency. I didn't care about stall >speeds >as most big motors can easily get a 10" converter over 2500 rpm. > >It is now in my Cobra and gets 25+ mpg at 75 mph and stalls > 2500 with a small >block and runs 11 flat @xxx. The converter is not for >sale. Go >figure. Tom Funny how things done right by people who know how, and who are given enough info to work from tend to work right, ain't it Tom?? Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:34:19 -0700 Subject: Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP >-----Original Message----- >From: Ross Myers >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 5:24 PM >Subject: Re: Uploaded BIN to FTP > >Ross I sent you a copy of it last night >Bruce > > >> >> >>>It's right here. >>>ftp://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/incoming/VS_BSTK1451%20%28V6%29.BIN >>>I had to right click on it in netscape, but it downloaded. >>> >>>Shannen >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Ross, >>>> I tried to download the bin file to have a look but it came up >>>> with a url fault .....any ideas on how to download it???????? >>>> PAUL. >> >> >>Well after seeing how the address appears above It must be one of those >>Windows things, I thought spaces would be spaces, not %. Not to be repetitive, BUT: Windows 9x: n. 32 bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company that can't stand 1 bit of competition. :-) Regards, Greg >> >>Ross >> ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #38 **************************** 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".