DIY_EFI Digest Friday, 22 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 051 In this issue: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths RE: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths RE: Ford list of injectors... Prom dates, er codes Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) RE: Heated Oxygen Sensor Re: Non EFI, but could not resist sharing!!! Re: Yet more Aussie GM Bin's Uploaded. Re: HALP dribbling Thanks everyone More Holden stuff uploaded Another Non EFI Question Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: James Ballenger Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:49:19 -0500 Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Greg Hermann wrote: > There are lots of folks in the industry working on developing ways to make > efi do these things better. I am working on the same thing as a hobby. When > I get an engine built, and get some test results, I will share them. But > some money is definitely going where my mouth is!!! That is so because I > believe that the above outline of the situation is sound > engineering/science and I want a better performing engine(s). What about the two injector per cylinder arrangement of some company whose name I have forgotten. IIRC, they had the first injector fire into the back of the second injector. At this point compressed air was shot in to atomize and build up pressure. Then the second injector shot a mixture in which 80% or more was smaller than 10 microns. Apparently they are already building marine engines and have deals going with a few auto companies. Anybody remember that article or their website? Btw, I am new here and will be working on a project to make a sefi 400/455 Pontiac, but don't have a damned clue how to so any help or suggestions would be great. James Ballenger ------------------------------ From: Marc Piccioni Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:47:19 -0700 Subject: RE: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Try lead fouling from using 100/130 in an engine designed for 80/87....... happened to me at 7000'.......... exciting time until I leaned out the engine enough to burn off the excess lead....... - ---------- From: Bruce Plecan[SMTP:nacelp@xxx.net] Sent: January 21, 1999 4:05 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths - -----Original Message----- From: Shannen Durphey To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 5:33 PM Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths AV gas is/was extremely low ash. Fouling plugs at 10,000' is not a minor issue, specially on a 4 cylinder. Bruce >Greg Hermann wrote: >> > >> >According to a service bulletin, the 3.8l engine suffers from carbon >> >accumulation on the back of the intake valve which significantly >> >reduces performance. I've seen the effects. It's very similar to >> >losing the accelerator pump on a carb'ed engine, and the exhaust is >> >excessively rich. My thought was the carbon is insulating the valve, >> >preventing vaporization. >> >Shannen >> >> The carbon (more accurately coke, the black kind) is residue from the >> gasoline. Run av gas and it won't happen :-) !! It can also restrict >> breathing pretty drastically. >> >> Greg >Lessee... Av gas was missing something, maybe detergents or the added >lubricants that are in auto gas? Can't remember. Is there any truth >to the story that unleaded av-gas is more correctly called low lead? >Shannen > begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(A$$`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%3D71H M2\)%O@$>`' ``0```"4```!213H@1$9)+"!"871C M:"!&:7)E+"!A;F0@;W1H97(@;7ET:',``````@%Q``$````6`````;Y%PDL> M(Y$1?[%W$=*^G$1%4U0`````'@`># $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0`` M`!@```!M<&EC8VEO;FE 871T8V%N861A+FYE= `#``80Q&)82 ,`!Q"T! `` M'@`($ $```!E````5%)93$5!1$9/54Q)3D=&4D]-55-)3DL"@P!0`O()`@!C: K M8#@xxx.0 M(?'V=0(P`Q%)'+(?X@A@!4 \=&@?0!" \PFV1I>5\-P&DF0#V!&N R+A\A+F^P M:&EO+1/ (B!E/B",9'4Y3S2^=6)J+&$3.V\PFU)E0@xxx.&!/`' E`25A!25@<_,HKRFS,S8K)QO5+"8*A7TLHT\S`0N !T % MT">Q8:QG92SZ+T13$8!N'V U`Z!$"'!P)7 34WV1#[A0Q'[+W!I!GL !P=%M@9=D7H3&! M>P0@(6!R("$#@2>@7 %)?B=N$1&P3!$E8VFQ+'!S\2$0270G!"!N$!R1`)#_ M7E +8 7 ( %0 0`9=DGA&EN$%MA]P40$7!<`4T5MX' %L&EZ:^,HEF9"WTO%9&]F4%/0 M? X'9:,UA"(X ;8_ "("<%0"$T(#HMN860(2%R MX6I1'M%LA[#WA>);$&>P=&78,O Q">#](/)!B(1:LEY0>@$=88>PSP> C+,X8 # >6(? Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:50:28 -0700 Subject: RE: Ford list of injectors... Any ideas what the corresponding Bosch P/N's would be ? - ---------- From: PBRUNN@xxx.com] Sent: January 21, 1999 4:32 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: Ford list of injectors... Here is the file you are looking for. I think you can also find it in the ftp directory regards philipp <> begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AD$`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 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%3D# $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0```!@```!M<&EC8VEO;FE M871T8V%N861A+FYE= `#``80G:;-% ,`!Q 5`0``'@`($ $```!E````04Y9 M241%05-72$%45$A%0T]24D534$].1$E.1T)/4T-(4"].4U=/54Q$0D4_+2TM M+2TM+2TM+4923TTZ4$)254Y.0$%/3$-/35--5% Z4$)254Y.0$%/3$-/35-% M3E0Z2D%.50`````"`0D0`0```"8"```B`@``$@0``$Q:1G69J&>]_P`*`0\" M%0*H!>L"@P!0`O()`@!C: K !I+3$T- WP M#- B0[D+63$V"J #8!/08P5 OBTD9PJ'(QL,,"/F1@-A'CHE;B/F#((>X$)2 M55!.3D!A!O N!:!M0%M33510.BDL7;\E#R8=!F ","=/*%M*`' &=0K '* R M,2P@,4(Y,$ @-#HS$>!0YDTK7R8=5&\MGRA;'D!D>5\-P&E -3$:X#("+@GP M9RYO:&EOEBT3P!U 93709'4P_W$L;G5B:B0A,Q\H6U)Z93EP1@6P'Y AH!/ M(#1O9ARP;CDR!;!S+N<\\"!O(7,S-B+G&]4CYKY(!) =D 0`'6,B$&P=D#IY M"& @"L =D!,!RP!4 + M@xxx.W%/ M4D0`5%A^,2Y$24/ Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:01:16 -0500 Subject: Prom dates, er codes As I understand proms, a 27C128, and 27128A are functionally the same, meaning they share CMOS technology. Anything else may have a different programming voltage, and maybe of a slower operating speed??.. On the few 512 proms I've seen they have all been "27512s", with no As or Cs?. The ""s are cause I not absolutely sure of that. Thanks Again reference to gm type memcals Bruce ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 00:06:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) AL8001@xxx.com wrote: > > In a message dated 99-01-21 17:25:56 EST, shannen@xxx.com writes: > > >Lessee... Av gas was missing something, maybe detergents or the added > >lubricants that are in auto gas? Can't remember. Is there any truth > >to the story that unleaded av-gas is more correctly called low lead? > >Shannen > > > > > > > > I've never run unleaded av gas and don't know if it exists. The small airports > I've been to only have 100LL or "Jet A". I do run 100LL (100 octane Low > Lead, blue color) in a > Formula Ford (1.6 carbed engine, looks like a Indy car only smaller) and a > porsche 914. > > The fuel is really low lead, the plugs come out nearly white, the exhaust only > has a slight coating of lead. Much better than the VP fuels C-15 green( > contains the maxium legal limit of 4.25 Grams per gallon- I think the number > is correct) I used to run, the plugs would be covered with lead. Also if you > ran the engine too cold the plugs would look gray. > > Last year 100LL was $ 1.25 US gal. Two years ago VP C-15 was $ 4.50! > Airports will sell av gas to regular people, just don't ask them to pump it > into a car( bring a can) and please don't dump the can into the car while you > are there. > > Av gas dosn't have a road use tax ( ~ .43 gal in PA) attached to it, so it's > illegal for a street car. I've mixed 50/50 100LL and mid grade unleaded > street gas with good results. > > Harold in PA In Canada it's illegal to put anywhere but into a plane - can't even buy it to use in a race-car. I used to use it for engine storage - fill the tank with av-gas and it's as fresh a year later as pump gas would be 3 days later. It does NOT absorb water as much as mogas. ------------------------------ From: "Ward Spoonemore" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:45:38 -0800 Subject: RE: Heated Oxygen Sensor Several GM app's have the o2 in only one side, but this is not a good idea since one side tends to run hotter than the other, and thus different o2 results, which side would you choose, Which evee one you picked woul not be optimum. I have the same instalation im my 95 Tahoe, and its a winner. This is the last of the Lo5 engines for ever ! Ward - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Trevor Jones Sent: Thursday, January 21, 1999 9:42 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Heated Oxygen Sensor I'm not subscribed to this list yet but I'm hoping that some of you EFI experts can help me out a little. Since I'm not subscribed yet, any comments need to be written directly to jones.trevor@xxx. I'm putting a Chevy 350 TBI into my '88 Jeep Wrangler. The engine that I'm using came from a '95 suburban with the 4LE60 tranny. It has what GM calls a heated oxygen sensor instead of a standard oxygen sensor(difference obviously being it has a positive lead and a ground to "heat" it up as well as the sensor wire going to the PCM). This oxygen sensor is located on the exhaust pipe AFTER the two banks of cylinders come together with a Y-pipe. Would it be a problem if I installed the oxygen sensor on only one bank of cylinders, or will this adversely affect the computer because it thinks it's reading from BOTH cylinder banks? Using only one bank of cylinders, it would technically have a low reading and think the engine is running too lean, bumping up the fuel mixture and actually making the engine run too rich now. Since the engine is getting dual exhaust it isn't an option to put the sensor on a pipe reading from both cylinder banks. Is this going to make a difference or will it be so minor that it won't really matter?? Another option is to use a regular oxygen sensor(non-heated) that is made to screw into the exhaust manifold on one side. However, do the readings of these two different kinds of sensors differ, throwing the PCM way off? Now the PCM would think it's getting a reading from a heated oxygen sensor off both cylinder banks, when it's really just getting the reading from a regular oxygen sensor on one cylinder bank. Could the PCM or the chip possibly be different depending on what type of oxygen sensor it had, or would it function the same with either sensor?? Thanks for any help, it is GREATLY appreciated. TJ Jones ------------------------------ From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 01:47:03 EST Subject: Re: Non EFI, but could not resist sharing!!! In a message dated 1/18/99 8:10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, bearbvd@xxx.net writes: << Subj: Non EFI, but could not resist sharing!!! Date: 1/18/99 8:10:32 PM Pacific Standard Time From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared >> the >> computer industry with the auto industry and stated: "If GM had kept up >> with >> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving >> $25 cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon." >> >> In response to Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release >> stating: If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all be >> driving cars with the following characteristics: >> >> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a day. >> >> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would have to buy >> a new car. >> >> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no reason, and you >> would just accept this, restart and drive on. >> >> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn would cause >> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case you would have >> to reinstall the engine. >> >> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you bought >> "Car95" or "Car NT" but then you would have to buy more seats. >> >> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun, reliable, >> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would only run on 5% >> of >> the roads. >> >> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights would be >> replaced by a single "general car fault" warning light. >> >> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt. >> >> 9. The air bag system would say, "Are you sure?" before going off. >> >> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you out >> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lift the door handle, >> turn the key, and grab hold of the radio antenna. >> >> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a deluxe set of >> Rand McNally Road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither >> need them or want them. Attempting to delete this option would >> immediately cause the car's performance to diminish by 50% or more. >> Moreover, GM would become a target for investigation by the Justice >> Department. >> >> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would have to learn >> how >> to drive all over again because none of the controls would operate in the >> same >> manner as the old car. >> >> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine. Hi Greg, I culdn't resist either..........The computer industry grows faster than their marketing and much faster than their testing(debugging) and I never saw this response from GM but I totally agree it is reasonsible ,,,,,but it also says something for most of the aftermarket that doesn't release their product until it's correct(as the OEM's try their hardest to do)....2 cents - -Carl Summers ------------------------------ From: "Ross Myers" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 17:53:56 +1100 Subject: Re: Yet more Aussie GM Bin's Uploaded. >I show the BLCB as being for the 16195699, are all of these for that ecm, >or is there no further data in that requard?. >Thanks Bruce I'll check the ECM useage, but I don't really have good access to that info though, however with the no numbers comment, I ment the 4 numbers in the BCC for the Memcal. Seems you must have a decent list for Memcal usage Bruce?, I have a really good one for stuff upto about 91/92, got anything for above that? (For Holden). Thanks Ross Myers ------------------------------ From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 02:06:47 EST Subject: Re: HALP dribbling Thanks everyone In a message dated 1/19/99 11:49:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, pfenske@xxx.ca writes: << Subj: RE: HALP dribbling Thanks everyone Date: 1/19/99 11:49:23 AM Pacific Standard Time From: pfenske@xxx.ca (Peter Fenske) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Hi Rick, Bruce and all the other helpful people The carb is fine, brass floats, expoxied plugs, level 11/32 and tried a fact rblt one just to check. When adjusted both carbs do this. Ported spark and 0 degrees inital. Yep Rick you are right. I have to get the CO to less than 1.5% to meet standard. If I leave it at 3% runs like a champ no dribbling but is illegial To get the cat to light you have to have less than 1% You guys did get me thinking. In order to idle properly with the lean mixture required a much higher airflow is required. this tends to activate the main booster, hence the dribbling. Also the low vapor pressure used here in winter is a contributation. What we are gonna try and the CO meter likes it is creating a massive air leak. HC goes up but should be tolerable. Just hope the smog guys don't see it Thanks all:peter And no this is not how the car will be driven later >> Hi Peter, You haven't mentioned you're camshaft or heads or etc......but I have had to drill the idle feed areas so as to increase the fuel flow at a lower vacuum level.....if the idle vacuum is lower than the standard that the carb was designed for, it is flowing less fuel, I may be way off base here but let me know,,,,I have done alot of carb development before the EFI stuff. hth's - -Carl Summers ------------------------------ From: "Ross Myers" Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:27:14 +1100 Subject: More Holden stuff uploaded Just 1 more file uploaded today, For a VR, 5L V8 Auto Commodore (around 94 model). File is BLCC5074.BIN Bye Ross Myers ------------------------------ From: "Peter Fenske" Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 23:43:22 -0800 Subject: Another Non EFI Question Hi All Hate to ask you another non efi guestion but on a dana 44 if when replacing a gear set The replacement pinion is stamped +0 which is replacing a pinion stamped +1 This means I need a shim which is +1 thou bigger.. Question is the pattern gonna be off significantly if I use the old shim. TIA:peter ------------------------------ From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 03:00:12 EST Subject: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Hi Greg, I couldn't agree more...if you can program a computer to learn when the intake valve closes and know the bsfc and know the mass fuel and mass air and know the actual torque produced from an event(given igntion timing has been introduced to optimize) there has to be a calcualtion that can result in a generic rule.......fuel injection has so many variables that carb's have for granted....the pulses that hit the boosters in a carb are relatively "easy" to tune considering a "programmer" has no idea of the sonic wave of a engine cycle vs rpm and exhaust and camshaft intake or exhaust events vs temp or density...we have just begun to start learning what happens.....and we haven't even started to talk about transport delays depending on temp or distance......steady state is the easiest,,,,but then there are the transients......how do you do it for every app????? That's what I want to know!!!!!.....Anyway I'll shutup now.........Thanks for listening - -Carl Summers In a message dated 1/21/99 7:53:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, bearbvd@xxx.net writes: << Subj: Re: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths Date: 1/21/99 7:53:16 AM Pacific Standard Time From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Hi-- I just couldn't resist jumping beck into this one!! Yes, Andy, you are right. Problems for most efi are: 1. Most injectors do not have enough dynamic range to be able to inject all the fuel for WOT power during just 80 to 100 degrees of crank rotation AND be able to turn down far enough (Can't go to a short enough pulse width) to inject a small enough quantity of fuel for proper fueling at idle. 2. Most efi injectors do not atomize the fuel very well at all, period. So tricks such as squirting fuel against the back side of a closed, hot intake valve are used to get the fuel vaporized. (Vaporized is distinctly different from atomized, this is not just a semantic point.) There are OBVIOUS benefits to timing a squirt of WELL ATOMIZED fuel with high inhale velocity in the intake ports. Anybody who doubts this statement, get back to me after perusing some dyno data for an engine, any properly tuned engine, equipped with an IR intake manifold with Weber, Delorto, or Mikuni/Solex IR carbs. Pay particular attention to how LOW the bsfc numbers are when it is tuned properly. Try the same engine with either a standard carb and wet manifold or TPI. When running the TPI test, restrict the Manifold runners with a choke the same size as whatever venturis were used in the IR carbs, so that air flow is equal. We all know that the IR carbs will seriously outperform the wet manifold. What is not so obvious to all is that: 1. The IR carbs will give lower bsfc at part throttle than the TPI, because they atomize the fuel so much better. 2. The IR carbs will geve significantly more power, together with lower bsfc, (remember, air flow has been equalized) at WOT both because they atomize the fuel very well, and because they time the shot of fuel with high inhale velocity in the port. There would be a lot less debate about this if anybody had ever bothered to set up a true, change only one variable at a time, test of it. (I don't know of any such tests.) There are several very clear performance, economy, durability, and thermodynamic benefits to getting well atomized, but not vaporized, fuel inside the cylinder and getting the intake valve closed before much vaporization takes place. The finer the atomization, the better, and the less vaporization, the better. Good IR carbs do this pretty well. Efi, (meaning TPI) despite all of its obvious airflow and metering accuracy benefits does not do these two things very well at all with current injector technology. There are lots of folks in the industry working on developing ways to make efi do these things better. I am working on the same thing as a hobby. When I get an engine built, and get some test results, I will share them. But some money is definitely going where my mouth is!!! That is so because I believe that the above outline of the situation is sound engineering/science and I want a better performing engine(s). Regards, Greg ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #51 **************************** 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".