DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, 17 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 040 In this issue: Re: DIS Integration FW: Electronic timing advance EECSucka Re: Schematic symbol for zero crossing detector Re: TCC switch & questions..... [none] Re: Electronic timing advance Re: DIS Integration Pingin' Re: Pingin' Re: Pingin' Re: FW: Electronic timing advance Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion Re: FW: Electronic timing advance RE: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Re: Pingin' Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Air Volume Calculation Re: 24000 ppm VSS? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DC Smith Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:06:25 -0600 Subject: Re: DIS Integration Bruce Plecan wrote: > > Is the following correct?. > > There are three Buick v-6 DIS setups > > 1. 85-87 RWD that uses a crank sensor, and a cam posistion > sensor that would go where the distributor would normally. > > 2. FWD using a crank sensor, and then the cam sensor is in the > timing chain cover (meaning there are two seperate sensors). > > 3. FWD where both the crank, and synch sensors are located > on the crankshaft pulley. > Thanks > Bruce I may be worng here, Bruce, but I think you pretty much covered it. - -- ************************************************************************ Dan Smith GSCA# 1459 St.Charles,Mo mailto:morepoweral@xxx.net http://www.tetranet.net/users/morepoweral ************************************************************************ ------------------------------ From: HADJIASLANIS ARIS 1260 800 Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:11:00 +0200 Subject: FW: Electronic timing advance Matt, Bruce & Robert, after following your inputs and using the web as much as I could, I have now found and ordered a XR 700 ignition unit from Crane Cams which WILL definitely fit the original Magnetti Marell distributor of the Dino engine and replace the twin contact breakers with an optical pick up. This most definitely covers adequately the first part of my project, i.e. replacement of the antiquated distributor points! The next now is to disable the existing (horrible) centrifugal advance mechanism, which is easy. However the 3rd is to then need to insert a digital programmable ignition advance / retard mapping unit between the optical interruptor output and the ignition unit. Hmmmm after looking in the WWW for ages I have been unable to locate such a unit devoid of other frills or compromises (e.g. just turbo or Nitrous Oxide retard which really is quite different from what I need). My original posting to which you replied most kindly was ... "... 3. Feed the optical pick up output to a digital advance / retard unit implementing a simple, programmable advance curve capable of at least 16 sites. 4. Optionally add an imput for a detonation sensor to provide a few degrees of detonation induced retard. 5. The unit should just provide an output emulating a normal contact breaker, to drive a separate high energy electronic ignition unit (already fitted in my car)...." Any ideas will be highly appreciated. Regards Aris ---------- From: HADJIASLANIS ARIS 1260 800 To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Electronic timing advance Date: 09 January 1999 23:48 Matt, Bruce & Robert thank you very much. I will use your interesting inputs to begin assembling a viable solution to my DINO engine problem. I guess I will start looking for the web sites of Allison, Crane Camshafts, Holley & MSD. Bruce, can you pls provide info about the Australian DIY kits you mention in your reply. Concerning the diy_efi web page and project 332EFI, I am aware of it but at this instant I have too litlle time to get involved so deeply! Regards Aris ---------- From: Matt Beaubien To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Electronic timing advance Date: 08 January 1999 23:28 Bruce, > >The requirements are relatively simple: > >1. Replace the existing twin contact breakers with an optical pick up > >arranged to fire every 60 degrees. > > Crane Camshafts in Florida, USA, makes a universal optical ignition. > > >2. Disable the original advance / retard mechanism. > >3. Feed the optical pick up output to a digital advance / retard unit > >implementing a simple, programmable advance curve capable of at least 16 > >sites. > > Commercially MSD, Holley make said units, kits are available from > Australia, for a DIY. Use the optics to trigger a oem ecm, and just > use the ignition part of that. If you want to do a total DIY visit 332EFI, > you can get there off the diy_efi home page. The Accel 49340 (IIRC) allows what the orginal poster is looking for. It has adjustable vacuum/boost advance/retard as well as a N20 input. It may require a magnetic reluctor-type signal to function though. I don't think MSD makes something similar (you can only adjust the slope and max advance as far as I know), and I'm not too familiar with the Holley stuff. The Accel piece is ~$150-$200. Hope that helps. Matt. ------------------------------ From: Andrew March Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 20:26:23 +0800 Subject: EECSucka Hi This is a general post to Ford owners interested in reading the ROM inside their EEC-IV engine control unit for educational, research or archive purposes. For plans on building a J3 service port reader (known as the EECSucka) see http://www.icenet.com.au/~amarch/eec.htm I've placed the design into the public domain for the delectation and amusement of home constructors. Anyone wanting a proper Printed Circuit Board or built up unit should contact me at amarch@xxx.au At this stage there is no PCB available - I'm just trying to establish if there is enough demand to justify tooling up. The more replies I get the sooner this will happen. Projected cost for a bare PCB is Australian $20 assuming 10 purchasers. Also, could those who have already built this unit please let me know how you fared? Thanks. As my mailing list subsription may not yet be working, please post replies to amarch@xxx. Thanks. - ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew March PO Box 420 Subiaco amarch@xxx.au WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6008 http://www.icenet.com.au/~amarch ------------------------------ From: Scott Schaaf Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:34:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Schematic symbol for zero crossing detector Ludis Langens wrote: > > I wish to create a schematic symbol for a chip which contains a zero > crossing detector. Instead of just a black box, I'd like to make the > functionality obvious with a mini-schematic of a zero crossing detector. > > The detector functions as follows: If the input voltage is much below > zero, or much above zero, the digital output is "low". If the input > voltage is close to zero, the output is "high". This is different than > a simple comparator checking against zero volts. > > Is there a standard symbol for this? It could be drawn/built with two > comparators but the input would need lots of resistor biasing because > there is no negative power supply. > > -- > Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com > Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ There IS a symbol for this,,, I think I have one at work. If I can find it, I will scan and send it to you. If you look in Digi-Key, or Newark catalogs, I think you might find a print of one in the specialized I.C. area. Scott... ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:45:26 -0500 Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... - -----Original Message----- From: Barry Tisdale To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:00 AM Subject: Re: TCC switch & questions..... >Please explain - By example, in first gear the engine acclerates at a rate of 2,000 rpm per second, in third it's like 2,000rpm per 5. In third there is no gear multiplication (tranny wise). With a 6 it's much harder on the converter than a 8. The firing pulsations are 120d apart instead of 90d so the converter is being more hammered by each engine power producing event. The Crank is moving as a series of accleration, and deccelerations, rather than a smooth rotation. The less room the is for slippage their is in a drivetrain, the more often, things break from shock loads. ie Huge tires, double disc clutch, short gears, 4 cyl engine, wide ratio tranny, heavy car, figure on carring, spare u-joints. AWD, like your's places such extra loads, transfer case, visc coupling, differential, extra driveshaft, axles, and traction from the other tires, and you want to eliminate any slippage. And how much does your truck weight?. How many syty broken trannies have you read about?. It's already marginal in my book, why ask for overloading it. The gear spacing from 1st to 2nd in the 700R is about the most drastic in automotive use (automatic). But, just so the car feels good to Joe average they did that so they could use more like freeway flyer gears, for MPG numbers. Hech, you can dial the boost up, so why not do that?. Cause first you want to make sure all the players, can handle the new load. Fuel pump, chip calibration, go with that change. Sorry to go on, but I just hate seeing broken parts... Again, just my 02 cents Cheers Bruce We're starting a new class of car, instead of Pro Stock, Pro Steet, Pro Cruise, we're working on Pro Zac. For those too crazy to know when to quit. > >Barry > >At 05:01 PM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>-----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 > ------------------------------ From: The Stallion Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:23:43 +-100 Subject: [none] Hello ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:00:23 -0500 Subject: Re: Electronic timing advance - -----Original Message----- From: HADJIASLANIS ARIS 1260 800 To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 6:23 AM Subject: FW: Electronic timing advance >The next now is to disable the existing (horrible) centrifugal advance >mechanism, which is easy. >However the 3rd is to then need to insert a digital programmable >ignition advance / retard mapping unit between the optical interruptor >output and the ignition unit. >Hmmmm after looking in the WWW for ages I have been unable to locate >such a unit devoid of other frills or compromises (e.g. just turbo or >Nitrous Oxide retard which really is quite different from what I need). Which means?. You want someone to custom design something for you?. Your wanting to design your own?. Or you need to adjust what you want, to what's available. Or dig further for answers. Maybe use part of a oem ecm, for timing control. Bruce > >My original posting to which you replied most kindly was ... >"... 3. Feed the optical pick up output to a digital advance / retard >unit >implementing a simple, programmable advance curve capable of at least 16 >sites. >4. Optionally add an imput for a detonation sensor to provide a few >degrees of detonation induced retard. >5. The unit should just provide an output emulating a normal contact >breaker, to drive a separate high energy electronic ignition unit >(already fitted in my car)...." >Any ideas will be highly appreciated. >Regards >Aris ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:23:21 -0500 Subject: Re: DIS Integration At 03:20 AM 1/17/99 +0000, you wrote: >> 1. 85-87 RWD that uses a crank sensor, and a cam posistion >> sensor that would go where the distributor would normally. >> >> 2. FWD using a crank sensor, and then the cam sensor is in the >> timing chain cover (meaning there are two seperate sensors). >> >> 3. FWD where both the crank, and synch sensors are located >> on the crankshaft pulley. > >The bottom two are absolutely correct, however I have >personally never seen the first, even though I'm sure it >exists. The first is actually 84-87 RWD... it's the pair used by the Buick GN's. (had an 85) =========================================================== 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: A70Duster@xxx.com Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:27:00 EST Subject: Pingin' With coming into a '85 turbo EXP (w/ a turbo leaking oil into the intake side) the car had EXTREMELY bad detonation. When I repaired the turbo (stopped the oil leak) the detonation went away (and all that blue smoke :) ). I've heard that oil in the air/fuel mixture causes detonation and I'd like to know why? Any intelligent answers out there?? Thanks.... ------------------------------ From: JRECPA@xxx.com Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:46:12 EST Subject: Re: Pingin' In a message dated 1/17/99 9:33:29 AM US Mountain Standard Time, A70Duster@xxx.com writes: << With coming into a '85 turbo EXP (w/ a turbo leaking oil into the intake side) the car had EXTREMELY bad detonation. When I repaired the turbo (stopped the oil leak) the detonation went away (and all that blue smoke :) ). I've heard that oil in the air/fuel mixture causes detonation and I'd like to know why? Any intelligent answers out there?? Thanks.... >> Oil has a very low octane rating that is why. James ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:52:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Pingin' At 11:27 AM 1/17/99 -0500, you wrote: >With coming into a '85 turbo EXP (w/ a turbo leaking oil into the intake side) >the car had EXTREMELY bad detonation. When I repaired the turbo (stopped the >oil leak) the detonation went away (and all that blue smoke :) ). I've heard >that oil in the air/fuel mixture causes detonation and I'd like to know why? >Any intelligent answers out there?? Oil is of an extremely low octane (if used for fuel). when the engine starts sucking oil through the intake, it is mixed with the air fuel mixture effectively reducing it's octane rating. Even though you may be running gas with a 93 rating, with enough oil you may be down to 80... Like mixing kerosene with your gas... it lowers the octane. =========================================================== 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: todd israels Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:32:31 -0500 Subject: Re: FW: Electronic timing advance At 12:11 PM 1/17/99 +0200, you wrote: >Matt, Bruce & Robert, > >after following your inputs and using the web as much as I could, I have >now found and ordered a XR 700 ignition unit from Crane Cams which WILL >definitely fit the original Magnetti Marell distributor of the Dino >engine and replace the twin contact breakers with an optical pick up. >This most definitely covers adequately the first part of my project, >i.e. replacement of the antiquated distributor points! > >The next now is to disable the existing (horrible) centrifugal advance >mechanism, which is easy. > >However the 3rd is to then need to insert a digital programmable >ignition advance / retard mapping unit between the optical interruptor >output and the ignition unit. > >Hmmmm after looking in the WWW for ages I have been unable to locate >such a unit devoid of other frills or compromises (e.g. just turbo or >Nitrous Oxide retard which really is quite different from what I need). > >My original posting to which you replied most kindly was ... >"... 3. Feed the optical pick up output to a digital advance / retard >unit >implementing a simple, programmable advance curve capable of at least 16 >sites. >4. Optionally add an imput for a detonation sensor to provide a few >degrees of detonation induced retard. >5. The unit should just provide an output emulating a normal contact >breaker, to drive a separate high energy electronic ignition unit >(already fitted in my car)...." > >Any ideas will be highly appreciated. > >Regards >Aris > ---------- >From: HADJIASLANIS ARIS 1260 800 >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: Electronic timing advance >Date: 09 January 1999 23:48 > >Matt, Bruce & Robert thank you very much. I will use your interesting >inputs to begin assembling a viable solution to my DINO engine problem. >I guess I will start looking for the web sites of Allison, Crane >Camshafts, Holley & MSD. > >Bruce, can you pls provide info about the Australian DIY kits you >mention in your reply. Concerning the diy_efi web page and project >332EFI, I am aware of it but at this instant I have too litlle time to >get involved so deeply! > >Regards > >Aris > ---------- >From: Matt Beaubien >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: Electronic timing advance >Date: 08 January 1999 23:28 > >Bruce, > >> >The requirements are relatively simple: >> >1. Replace the existing twin contact breakers with an optical pick up >> >arranged to fire every 60 degrees. >> >> Crane Camshafts in Florida, USA, makes a universal optical ignition. >> >> >2. Disable the original advance / retard mechanism. >> >3. Feed the optical pick up output to a digital advance / retard unit >> >implementing a simple, programmable advance curve capable of at least >16 >> >sites. >> >> Commercially MSD, Holley make said units, kits are available from >> Australia, for a DIY. Use the optics to trigger a oem ecm, and just >> use the ignition part of that. If you want to do a total DIY visit >332EFI, >> you can get there off the diy_efi home page. > >The Accel 49340 (IIRC) allows what the orginal poster is looking for. It >has adjustable vacuum/boost advance/retard as well as a N20 input. It >may >require a magnetic reluctor-type signal to function though. > >I don't think MSD makes something similar (you can only adjust the slope >and max advance as far as I know), and I'm not too familiar with the >Holley stuff. The Accel piece is ~$150-$200. > >Hope that helps. > >Matt. > > > > I came across a device that might suite your purpose but didnt notice boost retard. I have not had a chance to try this yet. try this address: http://www.picnpoke.com/projects/ignition.html I looked in help(Eudora Light) but couldent see how to add this as a link ------------------------------ From: Ludis Langens Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:00:54 -0800 Subject: Re: 555 EFI: Voltage level conversion Don Holtz wrote: > 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. Yes, that's quite right! Why didn't someone point this out earlier? > 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. No level shifter is required. Use a voltage divider to 5V, instead of GND like normal. For example, connect a 2K resistor between the 0-5V signal and the output node. Then connect a 1K resistor between the output node and 5V. The output of this divider will be 3+1/3 to 5V. - -- Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:20:17 -0500 Subject: Re: FW: Electronic timing advance - -----Original Message----- From: todd israels To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 12:55 PM Subject: Re: FW: Electronic timing advance This is Jaycar Bruce snip > >try this address: http://www.picnpoke.com/projects/ignition.html > >I looked in help(Eudora Light) but couldent see how to add this as a link ------------------------------ From: Marc Piccioni Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:07:19 -0700 Subject: RE: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Any idea's where to get this book? - ---------- From: Mark Romans[SMTP:romans@xxx.net] Sent: January 18, 1999 11:04 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu 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 > begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(CH2`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`& !```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```&$`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!D:7E?969I0&5F:3,S M,BYE;F``,P`0`` M`"(```!D:7E?969I0&5F:3,S,BYE;F5]E9FE 969I,S,R+F5N9RYO M:&EO+7-T871E+F5D=2<``@$+, $````G````4TU44#I$25E?149)0$5&23,S M,BY%3DJM^Q'2OIQ$15-4`````!X`'@P! M````!0```%--5% `````'@`?# $````8````;7!I8V-I;VYI0&%T=&-A;F%D M82YN970``P`&$,8*%LX#``<0? H``!X`"! !````90```$%.64E$14%35TA% M4D543T=%5%1(25-"3T]+/RTM+2TM+2TM+2U&4D]-.DU!4DM23TU!3E-33510 M.E)/34%.4T!004-"14Q,3D544T5.5#I*04Y505)9,3@xxx.C T04T` M`````@$)$ $````0"@``# H``'L1``!,6D9U]I#M-O\`"@$/`A4"J 7K`H,` M4 +R"0(`8V@*P'-E=#(W!@`&PP*#,@/%`@!P)S=&5M`H,SMP+D!Q," M@S02S!3%?0J BPC/"=D[%Y\R-34"@ <*@0VQ"V!N9S$P,V\44 L*%%$+\F,` M0!2P;DAY(&D-L&$G!"!W`F@xxx./PJ%'JP* M]&QI,3B", +1:2TQ-#0-\.<,T"#S"UDQ-@J@`V 3T/IC!4 M(Q<*AR'+## B MEOI&`V$Z)!XBE@xxx.@-C\G"U)E.$!'3?DQL%!)'+ #H!X`'7 A$#(P!@!"0Q\?(",S-N\A MEQO5,4060(65X=$O0#;#O1A!'X4Z$`)!A!X%&`4O5P"X@($]B M=C4025!^;!R@xxx.V SP% A3?(

5QX01!$*P!UP;AV@%S"W38%(85T"8E&Q M3J$I4T+=74 R`8!,]EWD-!G0.V#\*$$BX"Y@*: %HR4/)^4V'U2XH*A6/4'>)346WZ=401;TDP08 @4%A0-5']-1!N40%@,ATP M!O =<4 !M430=P6P:T%A06)S$[/.+AZL.K!N\'5L4'$%D=]&T GP3Y%L0@!P M>0(@xxx.\>4FW$'* 1 M@'8=<$[@$8#_25!M@'>A0P(=@&"Q5B$#H/YE=Z N@4GRK$'/.S%=@'1Y"&!G:!WA':#O*8!!<1>@9Y-F2^!)XD2POFYM M=!ZL)](*A2,33P40[F> `0^Q!Y!S0+$C:B6TB$5#32Y0=$!A!O#2+DGQ(#R$ MC#X*A3'"OS//--Z%8(/\).S;B=8T<\)PD3A%Z!1`4E&DV0#D?U%D&5, M@%S!FG$IT"+@"8#_D=9AY0JP=Z![`DYQD%&4$?]!$G$R(I%14&321,%_@9;X M_V RD(5)`460!" 7,'D"23#_5X9"$932F&2J-X_C17-0(/\+4 :0=".00@0! M"E!:STO'!Y'67,&HM5)%04Q,SEFK8U=V90$S+%Y@D*#OF1&7!VH`FD%YG%-: M@$N@[R[0C_ 1@$]1(&B06;(GL/YBEI%%D*7Q"L%"`I'60E'_7F&0P4:1G1!" MD)Q$!8$L(<]$-GES6%%&$&AYED%Q,']CD)'63)%&X$]R08 &X'BW-3%+DEY2 M2 ;P1D!YI++?'>$(<* B+T!HL#!!82F@_Y'6C)%D,[[$',!&0$]13^%_!&!5 MT6]$03"I0#_1FM!C?WK@xxx.V0A>@"U&Z8) S MO[D"02$74DN20@6YL#H<8/^0@9'6QK@NT!>@25200D1%_;SB)GE4;I1*T0"0 M`F U@/^BV1>A;)"@,I!1F[M5-+F3_QV1G0)^L4R@25 =<'#Q3+![D=9,`7:B M4I2TOR*O1B*G$\ #8$60>2+&I"T#8/]H85DS': 1@5JPJCH@P!&@_P5 P+*4 MTD(#D$4_8<%VF< ?0O BT5&APB97!CXQ-?^0`1%P!Y%LT<-5+M!/U'_2A"I,:?#0&##$L8UEOC$ MTO_6:,YCS1-M@J@81D!=H;"4_T'!27&1UDUAI%%LDM2"WW/_`Y$I@$FQI*)] M(-2"1O@xxx.Q24!6@?_=4[AH M`A BL&W%M^-O5 # \9V!5F5G08!"!DU2* #]F&!SF< `@0(@N&=/@2#P_]FS M0?%=$4Q@Z=%,,F'QH';_5_))4&>$=Y +< M@S"*BYX=),*-E=W1%1DDG-)4X2G0_T216,$IT,,2 M`A!+X*:8=D+_!W%MQ8I!Y+(U0;6@xxx.0G-6'^$/^9`QS1N$"QI\V3'F%(T&PD[Y3!?E(.L>+3 M:460S71*8/__D:P#+L!9H0GID 8--6/"_F':U$J@W9+3PD<"?D$)JOYO`O$V M`*' 'A+5F%-1=C/[MW*6^$?44$80#)"V)"F _^-$D(*/TG_"U&"=8W[!J>N^ M31/![>"7'3N_/,XT/=)6,B4G-=5]-= `)* #`! 0``````,`$1 !````0 `' K, `JF"E$0KX!0 `(, `JF"E$0KX!'@`]``$````%````4D4Z( ````#W5@`' ` end ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:45:34 -0500 Subject: Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC - -----Original Message----- From: Marc Piccioni To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:35 PM Subject: RE: GM TPI in the 400 SBC >Any idea's where to get this book? Some years ago I got my from Jegs (800) 345-4545 Bruce > > >---------- >From: Mark Romans[SMTP:romans@xxx.net] >Sent: January 18, 1999 11:04 AM >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >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: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:00:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Pingin' >With coming into a '85 turbo EXP (w/ a turbo leaking oil into the intake side) >the car had EXTREMELY bad detonation. When I repaired the turbo (stopped the >oil leak) the detonation went away (and all that blue smoke :) ). I've heard >that oil in the air/fuel mixture causes detonation and I'd like to know why? >Any intelligent answers out there?? > >Thanks.... Motor oil is generally pretty low octane stuff, and also high cetane, whichever way you care to talk about it. It is an effective, if not good diesel fuel, it likes to auto-ignite. A motor oil leak into the turbo compressor on a (some are turbocharged) GMC two stroke diesel can cause it to overspeed to destruction--- Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Mark Romans" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:05:02 -0800 Subject: Re: GM TPI in the 400 SBC Call TPIS at 612-448-6021 or look at their web page at... http://www.tpis.com/ Mark - -----Original Message----- From: Marc Piccioni To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 10:23 AM Subject: RE: GM TPI in the 400 SBC >Any idea's where to get this book? > > >---------- >From: Mark Romans[SMTP:romans@xxx.net] >Sent: January 18, 1999 11:04 AM >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >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: Anthony Gordon Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:33:58 -0500 Subject: Air Volume Calculation I have a Triuph mechanical injection system on a 72 TR6. Using a O2 sensor helps tune the system, but it would a lot easier to tune if I could eliminate the 6 separate throttle butterflies in the throttle bodies which causes great synchronization problems. The engine is a 2498cc unit, and produces max BHP at 5300 rpm. Is there a calculation for the optimal area/size of a single throttle body that I could use? I am hoping that I can re-use a throttle body from a junk yard so suggestions on type as well would also be most helpful. TIA Tony Gordon ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:40:16 -0500 Subject: Re: 24000 ppm VSS? - -----Original Message----- From: Ludis Langens To: Diy_efi Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 12:16 AM Subject: 24000 ppm VSS? >I've come across a PROM which appears to expect a 24000 pulse-per-mile >VSS. Its the ANAM1667 used in the 1227748 ECM. This PROM configures a >VSS interface chip to perform an extra "divide-by-6". Other PROMs for >this ECM set it to "divide-by-1" mode. The ANAM PROM also has an extra >factor of six in the VSS to vehicle speed calculation code (which gets >the VSS signal before the hardware divide). > >Could this PROM be for a reluctor type VSS? I should have kept track of >what type of car it came out of. It's out of a 88 2.5L Vin R application. TSB P0233 That all I got on it Cheers Bruce > >-- >Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com >Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ > > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #40 **************************** 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".