DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 23 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 055 In this issue: Re: dual spray injectors Fw: FW: Electronic timing advance PROMs and Copyrights... Vapor vs Atomization, and the winner is Re: Av gas Re: PROMs and Copyrights... Re: dual spray injectors 1999 truck PCM's ROM Ford IAC SpeedBrain Fel-Pro EFI? ryu@xxx.es Re: dual spray injectors Re: Vapor vs Atomization, and the winner is RE: dual spray injectors Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM Throttle Body sources 1.8 TBI and the 7747 oops Re: dual spray injectors GM VIN CODES Re: heated O2 sensor circuit question Re: Bosch ecu question Re: dual spray injectors Re: SpeedBrain Re: Those Holden Bins I uploaded are N.G. Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM RE: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 RE: '7730 ECM 4 sale Re: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 Re: Av gas Re: Fel-Pro EFI? Re: dual spray injectors Re: Those Holden Bins I uploaded are N.G. Re: injector impedance Re: SpeedBrain See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ord Millar" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:12:18 -0500 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors Mike, Right now, I have 24 pound/hour injectors (DENSO for Ford), in the 14 Ohm range. I wouldn't want to go much over 30# at this time. Fitting the existing fuel rails would be a big plus. These are the ones with O-Ring seals at each end, ~14mm diameter, 84mm length (seal to seal). Because the existing injector is so well places, I am starting to think that I might be better off to add a second set. Does anyone know if there are smallish ones, for about 12-15 pounds/hour that Ford uses anywhere? BTW: Can someone give me a conversion factor to get from cm3/minute to lbs/hour? Thanks, Ord - -----Original Message----- From: ECMnut@xxx.com> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 11:36 PM Subject: Re: dual spray injectors >Ord, >it appears that Toyota's multivalve EFI engines eployed this injector design. >What sort of flow rates are you looking for? Sat. or P&H? >MIke V. > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 09:39:54 -0500 Subject: Fw: FW: Electronic timing advance I got an off list mail, that I think warrants being commented on list. Depending on you level of expertise you will find this interesting or boring, and the "target" reader is the new guy. I will acknowledge that a small light car is somewhat different then a large american v-8 sedan. But, not since for the obvious reasons. Look at the bore to stroke, and rod lenght to stroke ratios of say in my example of the X1/9. They are great. Look at how much valve diameter they stuff into the cylinder head. With roughly the same cam specs my X was at >100/Liter, and my SBC is 320ish for 355, 10+% better, and by current standards ancient. With these basic differences in design, really show what a marvel EFI, since without getting your hands wet, you can tune as necessary, between these extremes, without having to spend years dinking with Air Correction Jets, and emulsion tube volumes/wells.. > >Ya, but this is a very light car where the load might not have been as >high, and the engine reved to such a high RPM that loads were again not >so high. If you look at when a rod most often fails. For those that don't know it's after the intake valve is opening, and as the rod is moving away from TDC. It's in tension at this time, and while the crank is pulling it down, the intake air tract volume is acting against this movement. So as the rpm build these loads get much larger. This pulling the rod apart aspect IMHO is what makes S/T charged engines so great. Bearing maintance increases due to the power output, but breaking rods min, and you don't have to spin the begibbers out of it to make power. Your example of nailling it in 3rd argues against this however. >If we were talking about a large american car with a V8 couldn't the >situation have been different. Every engine is different. Even say two twin engines. If you noticed in my last post I specifically mention using what I have, and then adjusting as nessecary. If I don't have a vacuum advance I'm not going to reengineer the dissy to add it. I will play for hours with dissy spring weights, to get the right curve for what I have, and all the while work with the carb to get the fuel right. What is kind of funny is on some of the tuner chips they just think in terms of centri/vac curves rather than what you can do with the numbers (just something to chew on).. Tuning/timing, is all about heat. Making as much as you can, OR NEED. At WOT you want to make lots of heat but not exceed the termal limits of the engines components. During cruise you want to make just enough heat/energy to move the car, with the min amount of fuel. Now with the above said, you can readily see that the the combustion chamber dictates what it's going to need to get the above done. Bruce ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:17:54 -0500 Subject: PROMs and Copyrights... I know this is a stupid question and it's not directly EFI-related, but can someone educate me on the legalities, specifically, copyrights and software/firmware, associated with reading OEM PROMs, "reverse engineering" them and even on "publishing" findings on, say, one's web page? Does reading the PROM not constitute making a copy of the firmware? Is this automatically "illegal"? I guess I make backup copies of some Microsquash software I buy and that's legal so reading the binary out of the PROM could be seen as making a backup copy. But what about publishing, in the public domain, information about those PROM contents or even making the contents available for download by others? Many have downloadable binaries on their sites and the diy_efi ftp site is chalk full of them. Suppose I wanted to publish on my web page a list of modifications I had done to the PROM in my Probe GT (i.e. addresses, what the bytes were and what they are now and why)...is this "bad"? Suppose I wanted to show people how some logic worked so I published a few lines of code from the output of my disassembler on my page...is this bad? Suppose I wanted to show people tables...say, before (stock) and after (modified)...is this bad? I've noticed some people put "disclaimers" in their posts when mailing the list with info like "This is for educational purposes only" or "This work was accomplished without the aid of any proprietary material" or some such. Are these really needed and if so, why? How does their presence absolve the poster of any legal issues? Has anyone ever received scary letters from GM or Ford or whatever? I've long suspected that companies like G-Force, Dinan, Hypertech, ADS, JET et al cannot possibly all have agreements with all of the car companies whose PROMs they tweak...or do they? Somehow it seems unlikely that GM or BMW or Volkswagen would disclose to them technical information about their systems and what to modify. But how else would, say, Hypertech come out with the Hypertech programmer for LT1s without such insider information so soon after the new cars ('Vette, Impala SS etc) were released? I know in the big scheme of things that this is really pretty small potatoes but it has sorta bugged me for a bit. Any opinions? Any knowledge? - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:50:20 -0500 Subject: Vapor vs Atomization, and the winner is I'm not to sure I beleive all of what's been said about this lately. A carb., while offering better atomization for metering might be good, but alot of what gets metered winds up on the floor of the manifold where it lays long enough to pick up some heat, and thus is vapor. The exception being side drafts (and then mostly at higher rpms). Also, On some manifolds, I've noticed clean trails of where the fuel formed runners, or little streams of fuel going to the runners. At low engine speeds, the fuel from a TPI might have time to just fall on the floor of the runner, and trickle on down to the intake valve. But, as rpm increase the air speed will help some in keeping it atomized. I wish someone had the time/energy to fire a couple injectors horizontially, and say 45d off vertical, and see what the patterns are really like, at like normally installed distance from injector to opposite port wall, and just one shoot, say 1.7msec long like what an idle pulse would be. That might answer some questions. If Harry Ricardo's statements about how fuel burns are true then the vap/atm issue would just boil down to a couple degrees difference in timing in actual practice. One universal truth (for high performance)that I've noticed, and that works for me, is keeping the intake manifold as cool as possible. Trouble is a dual plane the distribution goes out the window. One thing I'd like to do, is eliminate the Water cross over in the front of the intake, and use a Y with remote thermostat housing (SBC), and come up with a good recirculating themostat. Then the comment about it not mattering since the injector wasn't pointed directly at the valve head anyway. Well, the inertia of the fuel is going to carry the fuel till it hits something anyway since the distances are so short, and the gravity will help it get to the head of the valve anyway (at idle, low rpm). For high peforkmance, vapor isn't too good, since it would be more prone to compression ignition, detonation. Also, with these tendencies, would be more touchy about fuel. Nomex CSH, with chin strap, on Bruce ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:09:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Av gas Air quality isn't the concern. AvGas probably burns cleaner! The gov's concern is that AvGas doesn't carry the same road tax as motor vehicle fuel. (Because planes don't use roads) - -----Original Message----- From: Clarence L.Snyder To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:14 PM Subject: Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) >Greg Hermann wrote: >> >> >In Canada it's illegal to put anywhere but into a plane - >> >> No offense, but doncha love creeping socialism--or is it socialist >> creeps??? :-) >> >> can't even buy >> >it to use in a race-car. >> >> Regards, Greg >Actually our air quality is bad enough already - a few days this summer >in Kitchener Waterloo area made LA look like clear skies. Anything that >helps me breath has to be considered as (possibly) worth while! > ------------------------------ From: Charles Brooks Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:32:47 -0500 Subject: Re: PROMs and Copyrights... I think it goes along the lines of taking an existing patented design and making an "improvement" on it. Which is NOT a violation of the law, and in fact is done by large corporations ALL THE TIME. I have a former patent attorney for a coworker, I'll ask him what he thinks on Monday. Charles Brooks Mike wrote: > I know this is a stupid question and it's not directly EFI-related, but can > someone educate me on the legalities, specifically, copyrights and > software/firmware, associated with reading OEM PROMs, "reverse engineering" > them and even on "publishing" findings on, say, one's web page? Does reading > the PROM not constitute making a copy of the firmware? Is this automatically > "illegal"? ------------------------------ From: "Walter Sherwin" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:10:48 -0800 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors Depending upon the manifold, it is sometimes difficult or even impossible to "lay the injector over" to get a good shot along the axis of the head port. As a consequence, much of the fuel winds up hitting the opposite port/runner wall. I've always thought that this is a less than optimal situation, even though it does work!! What sticks in my mind though, is if it truly is an inconsequential "thing" then why have so many OEM's taken so much time and effort to align the spray axis with the port axis, in most modern EFI engines? A deflector would help to replicate this feature, but as Gary pointed out it may also globularize the fuel and cause other problems. Oh well :( Walt. - -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brooks To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 5:07 PM Subject: Re: dual spray injectors >I was wondering why you wanted to re-direct the spray pattern. If your going to >convert a manifold, how about milling the proper angle into the manifold the >first time? If it looks like there will not be enough material to hold the >bosses you can add material (by welding) to the area where you need the >injector bosses located. > >Charles Brooks > > > >Walter Sherwin wrote: > >> Gary, would it be possible to redirect the flow even slightly with a >> deflector, without creating globs of fuel? What about a deflector with >> holes and patterns and such? I am just wondering aloud because it would be >> nice to find a way to deflect fuel into a more favourable trajectory when >> "EFI'ing" non EFI manifolds. Anybody thoughts? > ------------------------------ From: Jake Sternberg Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:14:34 -0600 (CST) Subject: 1999 truck PCM's ROM I have a PCM (powertrain Control Module a.k.a. ECM) from a 1999 GMC sierra pickup truck. The connectors are almost bigger than the circuitboard itself. Well, anyway.. i have it open, and here's the info from the flash ROM chip: Intel 16236995 AB28F400BX E 5012 U7400142Q Flash 44 pins It's a surface mount device, but i plan to solder little wires to it and to a connector so i can plug it into my ROM burner (while it's in vivo). Does anyone have any suggestions or information as to whether this could be a bad idea or has anyone done it? I asked GM for a PCM programmer kit but surprisingly, they refused to give me one. Thanks! - -jake chickens@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:32:00 GMT Subject: Ford IAC Looking for specific information on the IAC used by Ford on its TBI pickups. We have one in hand and are moving on a project using it. It appears to be a solenoid operated ( like an injector ) device that opens closes a shuttle valve. The amount of time open appears to control the air flow. Needed is particulars so we can build a controller. Namely - coil impedance, frequency range - pulses per second, and pulse widths. Any information on flow rates would also be appreciated. Its part of the Deviant Dark Sides plans to resurrect old technology, claim it as our own and become list heroes. On a similar note, need an exhaust manifold for Christine - did any year big car 460 have an oxygen bung built in - hate to weld on in myself. 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore ------------------------------ From: "Auburn Performance Equipment" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 12:46:40 -0500 Subject: SpeedBrain Gentlemen, I wanted to let you all know, for those of you that do not, that we have a released a high performance replacement for the Ford EEC- IV. Current models replace the stock computer systems for 89-95 5.0 Mustangs. It is a high performance computer system that, plugs right in, is fully tunable, datalogs, and will rev to 10k. Feel free to learn more at our website at; http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/sb.htm Regards, Matt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AUBURN PERFORMANCE EQUIPMENT Home of the world's fastest 4.6 Cobra! 1998 Winner 160mph class Big Bend Classic roadrace, Ft Stockton, TX 1998 Winner 160mph class Gamblers Run roadrace, Elko, NV 1998 Winner 165mph class Silverstate Classic roadrace, Ely, NV We just don't sell and install parts, we make them perform. ORDER LINE 1-508-752-7683 24 hr FAX LINE (508)752-5269 TECH LINE (508)797-9728 WEBSITE & ON-LINE CATALOG: http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/index.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ From: Clay Buccellato Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:06:57 -0800 Subject: Fel-Pro EFI? > From: Mike Pitts > Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 16:47:20 -0500 > Subject: EFI on a big block > > It's been done. Jim Haas in Miami has a fuel injected > and stroked Buick GS 455. The last time I saw it, he > was using a DFI. I wouldn't be surprised if he's using > a FelPro now. Do you have any experience with the Fel-Pro unit? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Is it re-programmable? (Not the A/F maps, but the CPU code) Flash memory? I'm considering one, as it seems to be one of the most capable units available. - -- -Clay ------------------------------ From: Alain Toussaint Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:19:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: ryu@xxx.es is there someone here having a similar email address as this one: ryu@xxx.es it's the second time i receive such BADLY addressed email and my mail download app can't grok it so it stay on the server,i'm quite a bit tired to ask the clueless tech support of cogeco cable to delete it from their server Alain Toussaint Drummondville Quebec,Canada alaint@xxx.ca ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:25:03 -0700 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors >Mike, > >Right now, I have 24 pound/hour injectors (DENSO for Ford), in the 14 Ohm >range. I wouldn't want to go much over 30# at this time. Fitting the >existing fuel rails would be a big plus. These are the ones with O-Ring >seals at each end, ~14mm diameter, 84mm length (seal to seal). > >Because the existing injector is so well places, I am starting to think that >I might be better off to add a second set. Does anyone know if there are >smallish ones, for about 12-15 pounds/hour that Ford uses anywhere? > >BTW: Can someone give me a conversion factor to get from cm3/minute to >lbs/hour? > >Thanks, >Ord > >-----Original Message----- >From: ECMnut@xxx.com> >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 11:36 PM >Subject: Re: dual spray injectors > > >>Ord, >>it appears that Toyota's multivalve EFI engines eployed this injector >design. >>What sort of flow rates are you looking for? Sat. or P&H? >>MIke V. >> Divide by 10 is pretty close. Greg ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:31:12 -0700 Subject: Re: Vapor vs Atomization, and the winner is >I'm not to sure I beleive all of what's been said about this lately. > >A carb., while offering better atomization for metering might be good, >but alot of what gets metered winds up on the floor of the manifold >where it lays long enough to pick up some heat, and thus is vapor. >The exception being side drafts (and then mostly at higher rpms). > No disagreement--I was basing what I said on things like Alfas and Jags and Porsches with VERY straight ports, and one throat per cylinder (conversion onna Jag). This is where you can see the insanely lower WOT bsfc numbers. Greg ------------------------------ From: "Ward Spoonemore" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 10:53:22 -0800 Subject: RE: dual spray injectors Magneti Marelli make dual pattern pico inject for use with two intake valve system, Ward - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Ord Millar Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:06 AM To: Diy_Efi (E-mail) Subject: dual spray injectors Hi - I am just returning to the list; I was previously a lurker here but other interests got in the way for a while. Does anyone know where I can find some injectors that spray two cones? Alternately, how about an injector where the spray is at a small (15 degree) angle relative to the body? Or, in a perfect world, one that does both? (Two cones, at an angle). Worst case, I can try to work with some sort of deflector. I am working on a project to deliver fuel at both valves on a multi-valve head. Thanks, Ord ------------------------------ From: FHPREMACH@xxx.com Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:11:19 EST Subject: Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) In a message dated 99-01-22 22:41:09 EST, you write: << > can't even buy > >it to use in a race-car. > >> We used to run it in flattrack bikes, Triumph Hemi with 12.5 to on Hepolite pistons. ran good, didn't ping, but tried it in a two stroke and lost most of the power, most of the paint off the expansion chamber and threw flames out the end of the pipe. Outboard racers told me they had experienced it to.A frind of mine held several records and ran the lowest octane that didn't hurt the pistons. Avgas is too slow burning for anything we do. Also remember that Av motors are slow rpm, so slow buring fuel is used to push the entire stroke.Unless the motor has a lot of compression, and pings, don't bother. Besides, the 115/145 Avgas is long gone as I recall. Fred ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 13:42:41 -0600 Subject: Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM What is the CPU??? TIA Tom Jake Sternberg wrote: > I have a PCM (powertrain Control Module a.k.a. ECM) > from a 1999 GMC sierra pickup truck. The connectors > are almost bigger than the circuitboard itself. > ------------------------------ From: Jason Weir Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:55:06 -0500 Subject: Throttle Body sources I am looking for a source for a GM throttle body used on the 2.5 4 cyl for my new project, actually its the same one used in the Fieros, Ludis???. I don't want to get a junkyard unit and wondering if anyone has a source cheaper than the dealer, a reman would be fine... That was a fairly common motor and it would seem that someone is selling those things rebuilt... Did GM use any other single injector TBIs on any motors smaller than the 2.5, that still had the standard TPS, and IAC in it... thanks Jason ------------------------------ From: Jason Weir Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:11:17 -0500 Subject: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 Ok adding to my previous post, I have found that GM used a 300 CFM TBI unit from 83 to 86 on their 1.8L engines, this unit will better suit my purposes, now my project will be making the 7747 run this TBI unit, can anyone tell me if I have the right connectors, the TPS and IAC will work correctly.. Below is a link to Holley's OEM replacement version, which has different connectors than then newer TBI's, but although the connectors are different does that mean the the 7747 can't/won't work with the IAC and TPS???? Jason in over my head again, isn't this fun ------------------------------ From: Jason Weir Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:12:09 -0500 Subject: oops I forgot to add the link in so here it is http://www.holley.com/HiOctn/ProdLine/FuelInj/OERTBI/f500-3.html Jason ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:17:49 -0500 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors - -----Original Message----- From: Ord Millar To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 9:33 AM Subject: Re: dual spray injectors DIY Home Page, click on oem applications, click on ford, click on fuel injectors Bruce snip >I might be better off to add a second set. Does anyone know if there are >smallish ones, for about 12-15 pounds/hour that Ford uses anywhere? > >BTW: Can someone give me a conversion factor to get from cm3/minute to >lbs/hour? > >Thanks, >Ord > >-----Original Message----- >From: ECMnut@xxx.com> >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 11:36 PM >Subject: Re: dual spray injectors > > >>Ord, >>it appears that Toyota's multivalve EFI engines eployed this injector >design. >>What sort of flow rates are you looking for? Sat. or P&H? >>MIke V. >> > > ------------------------------ From: Jason Weir Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 15:17:03 -0500 Subject: GM VIN CODES here is a cool link to a great resource http://www.ntcnet.com/~dragon64/gmcodes.html Jason ------------------------------ From: John Andrianakis Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 21:57:09 +0200 Subject: Re: heated O2 sensor circuit question Ed wrote: > > I plan on relocating my O2 sensor further down into the header since the > original spot reads off only 2 of the 4 cylinders. Thing is, the > original sensor is a single wire, and I think I'd need a heated one for > the new location. > Any idea how to wire the heater circuit? Is it safe to wire the circuit > to a switched (engine on) power source or was the heaer designed to shut > off once it reaches operating temp? > > -Ed You can switch the heater on with the ignition switch.Its meant to be on all the time. ------------------------------ From: John Andrianakis Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:17:21 +0200 Subject: Re: Bosch ecu question LS wrote: > > I have idenitcal question on the Motronic DME 0261 200 088 > and KLR 0227 400 145 units from Porsche 951 (944T) > > MCU??? markings DME: > iB 57312 8738 > > MCU??? markings KLR: > iB 57391 8721 > > Anybody dissassembled Bosch ECU's? > > Fooled around with prom tables (fuel timing boost)? > > How about AFM to MAF replacement in software? > > Thanks Len. I havent worked on that particular one but I found a prom file from the fuel ecu and it looks simple. Cant realy tell without the emulator on a working car.A friend is putting together a 944t and I will be checking it out soon.I will post my findings asap. I have worked on Bosch ecus from Fiat Punto GTs,Audi A4 turbo and some late model BMW. Most of the time I deal with Magneti Marelli ecus and some Weber. John Andrianakis. ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:15:36 EST Subject: Re: dual spray injectors Not sure if I fully understand you... You have a "single spray" style of injector right now, but want a slightly larger "two hole" injector? Or do you want an additional small injector on each cylinder? I have a shot of the two-hole injector at: http://www.enzoco.com/mike/injector/ It is #4 in the group of pics.. Would something like that work, or are your current injectors pointed noticably toward one intake valve in each runner? If you go the add-on route, I have lots of 15 pound units.. Write me off-list if you need'em. Mike V > Right now, I have 24 pound/hour injectors (DENSO for Ford), in the 14 Ohm > range. I wouldn't want to go much over 30# at this time. Fitting the > existing fuel rails would be a big plus. These are the ones with O-Ring > seals at each end, ~14mm diameter, 84mm length (seal to seal). > > Because the existing injector is so well places, I am starting to think that > I might be better off to add a second set. Does anyone know if there are > smallish ones, for about 12-15 pounds/hour that Ford uses anywhere? ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 16:20:12 EST Subject: Re: SpeedBrain > Gentlemen, That applies to *someone* here, I just know it..... > I wanted to let you all know, for those of you that do not, that we > have a released a high performance replacement for the Ford EEC- > IV. Current models replace the stock computer systems for 89-95 > 5.0 Mustangs. Darn, just when I thought they were corraled, They go faster... Mike V. (mustang chaser) ------------------------------ From: "Ross Myers" Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 08:58:59 +1100 Subject: Re: Those Holden Bins I uploaded are N.G. >That is indeed fascinating. It's interesting...I ran the bin though my HC11 >disassembler and it actually produces meaningful code. The register block >seems to start at $3000 and at least a few registers appear true-blue HC11. > >It's neat: the address space of the PROM straddles the register space and >there's program code sitting at $1000 and at $5000, and there's some RAM >mapped in there too (e.g. $1800). There's some interesting address decoding >going on here. > >BTW, is there a year and engine VIN# for this PROM? 3.8LV6? I figure late >model...maybe 1995? I thought I wrote that info up, anyway, it's from a 1994 model Holden Commodore (no VIN avail), with 5L V8 (Not a 305 Chev), 4spd Auto Trans. I'm not sure on the PCM numbers but it has 2 plugs, a 24pin and 32pin, larger than an 808, a P5 maybe?. I found the checksum is stored at $6006+$6007, add all bytes from $5000 to $FFFF then subtract bytes $6000 - $6007. How bout Zipping that disassemble up and sharing?. Regards Ross Myers ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 17:00:39 -0500 Subject: Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM > >I have a PCM (powertrain Control Module a.k.a. ECM) >from a 1999 GMC sierra pickup truck. The connectors >are almost bigger than the circuitboard itself. > >Well, anyway.. i have it open, and here's the info >from the flash ROM chip: > >Intel >16236995 >AB28F400BX >E 5012 >U7400142Q >Flash > >44 pins > Cool. Just in case you didn't know, ftp://download.intel.com/support/flash/memory/bootblock/2900501.pdf is a datasheet for the A28F400BX 4-Mbit flash. >It's a surface mount device, but i plan to solder >little wires to it and to a connector so i can >plug it into my ROM burner (while it's in vivo). > >Does anyone have any suggestions or information >as to whether this could be a bad idea or has >anyone done it? I asked GM for a PCM programmer >kit but surprisingly, they refused to give me one. > Considering how rare such a PCM is in wreckers yards at this point and how expensive one must be from GM, I'd be loathe to try reading it in situ for fear of damaging it or another device on the board. No chance of desoldering it eh? - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: "Ward Spoonemore" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:45:32 -0800 Subject: RE: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 Not only will it work, and there is probably a calibration chip that is close to a "runner" for an engine close to that size. But you need to ID the candidate engine by "RPO" code to find the chip. Ward - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Jason Weir Sent: Saturday, January 23, 1999 12:11 PM To: DIY_EFI Discussion Group Subject: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 Ok adding to my previous post, I have found that GM used a 300 CFM TBI unit from 83 to 86 on their 1.8L engines, this unit will better suit my purposes, now my project will be making the 7747 run this TBI unit, can anyone tell me if I have the right connectors, the TPS and IAC will work correctly.. Below is a link to Holley's OEM replacement version, which has different connectors than then newer TBI's, but although the connectors are different does that mean the the 7747 can't/won't work with the IAC and TPS???? Jason in over my head again, isn't this fun ------------------------------ From: "Ward Spoonemore" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 14:45:34 -0800 Subject: RE: '7730 ECM 4 sale Ok I'll bite, how much ? Ward - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu [mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Jake Sternberg Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 8:24 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: '7730 ECM 4 sale I'm selling a '7730 ECM from a cavalier or something. You can have the cavalier Cal-Pak or a socketed Cal-Pak. Comes with all three connectors with about 3" of wire coming from them. Bought it through this list for a project that has died. Never hooked up (by me). Came from a very fresh wreck. Cheap. Email me. - -jake chickens@xxx.edu ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:27:51 -0500 Subject: Re: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 - -----Original Message----- From: Ward Spoonemore To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 5:53 PM Subject: RE: 1.8 TBI and the 7747 Oh, and what 4 cyl application used a 747?. Bruce >Not only will it work, and there is probably a calibration chip that is >close to a "runner" for an engine close to that size. >But you need to ID the candidate engine by "RPO" code to find the chip. >Ward ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 18:25:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Av gas Mike Pitts wrote: > > Air quality isn't the concern. AvGas probably burns cleaner! > The gov's concern is that AvGas doesn't carry the same road > tax as motor vehicle fuel. (Because planes don't use roads) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clarence L.Snyder > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 10:14 PM > Subject: Re: Av gas(was: DFI, Batch Fire, and other myths) > > >Greg Hermann wrote: > >> > >> >In Canada it's illegal to put anywhere but into a plane - > >> > >> No offense, but doncha love creeping socialism--or is it socialist > >> creeps??? :-) > >> > >> can't even buy > >> >it to use in a race-car. > >> > >> Regards, Greg > >Actually our air quality is bad enough already - a few days this summer > >in Kitchener Waterloo area made LA look like clear skies. Anything that > >helps me breath has to be considered as (possibly) worth while! > > No, the AV Gas is higher in lead than ANY licenced road fuel, and lead has been BANNED for environmental reasons. I guess they figure up at 4000 feet it gets diluted before you breath it, but they are working on getting rid of it there too. ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:00:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Fel-Pro EFI? >Do you have any experience with the Fel-Pro unit? Not personally. >What are its strengths and weaknesses? Pros: Wideband O2 option SEFI option Modern PC software for the laptop Cylinder by cylinder adjustable timing and fueling option Probably others Cons: Don't know of any except maybe price. >Is it re-programmable? (Not the A/F maps, but the CPU code) The code is only reprogrammable by the designers unless you open it, reverse it, and do it yourself. (Voiding the warranty I'm sure) >Flash memory? Most likely EEPROM for tables and EPROM for code. I'd love to have a Felpro to play with, but the cost is somewhat prohibitive for me at this time. - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Ord Millar" Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:02:27 -0500 Subject: Re: dual spray injectors I have to choose; I can either move the injectors to higher in the manifold before the runners split and use a twin spray type, or leave the existing one alone and add one for the second valve. Since the existing one is doing a good job for it's valve, I'm inclined to add a second small one, and possibly also downsize the existing one. Seems to me like it's better to have one in the right spot and one wrong that have both sprays hitting the runner walls. The downside is it means a second fuel rail, and some electronics. Since the additional injector is really only needed to keep the valve and runner clean (and maybe help with some low-prm torque?), I am hoping that I can get away with a less than ideal placement. Anyone have any recommendations? Ord - -----Original Message----- From: ECMnut@xxx.com> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 23, 1999 5:09 PM Subject: Re: dual spray injectors >Not sure if I fully understand you... You have a "single spray" style >of injector right now, but want a slightly larger "two hole" injector? >Or do you want an additional small injector on each cylinder? >I have a shot of the two-hole injector at: > http://www.enzoco.com/mike/injector/ >It is #4 in the group of pics.. Would something like that work, >or are your current injectors pointed noticably toward one >intake valve in each runner? If you go the add-on route, >I have lots of 15 pound units.. Write me off-list if you need'em. >Mike V > ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 19:32:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Those Holden Bins I uploaded are N.G. > > >I thought I wrote that info up, anyway, it's from a 1994 model Holden >Commodore (no VIN avail), with 5L V8 (Not a 305 Chev), 4spd Auto Trans. Sorry. Musta missed that. >I'm >not sure on the PCM numbers but it has 2 plugs, a 24pin and 32pin, larger >than an 808, a P5 maybe?. > >I found the checksum is stored at $6006+$6007, add all bytes from $5000 to >$FFFF then subtract bytes $6000 - $6007. > >How bout Zipping that disassemble up and sharing?. > Done. Look for "blcclst.zip" (198739 bytes) in the incoming directory. The ZIP contains 2 files. One is the .lst file which is the raw assembler listing as run through my home-brew HC11 disassembler. Keep in mind a few things: 1) The disassembler doesn't know about tables it encounters in the code and just disassembles them too, sometimes causing minor misalignment errors after the table. These misalignments never last more than a few bytes. I've gone through and tried to identify most in-line tables by removing the mnemonics beside them and fixing any slight misalignments that I noticed. Some may still exist. 2) Because the processor is probably a later generation than the HC11, there might be opcodes that aren't included in the HC11 set that are found in the binary. I didn't immediately notice any but, again, some may exist. 3) I went through the raw binary and identified 4 main code blocks at 1000h, 1801h, 5000h and 9000h. I didn't notice others. If you find any, let me know. The listing file is "blcc.lst", is quite large (some 15000 lines and 677038 bytes.) The second file is a convenient tabulation of the complete image allowing easy identification of bytes found at arbitrary locations. You'll see what I mean when you see it. It's "blcc.tbl", is 2424 lines and 165617 bytes in size. Both are plain ASCII text. Hopefully all the tab-stops and stuff line-up... - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: Vance Rose Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 19:03:24 -0800 Subject: Re: injector impedance At 03:09 PM 1/22/1999 -0500, you wrote: >The Ford injectors will fit GM applications? Has anyone actually tested this on >a TPI system? > > >Charles Brooks > >David Askren wrote: > >> > Ya can buy Ford 24lbs injectors for about 250.00. just don't tell die hard >> > gm people this- gets them all tweaked. >> > >> > Vance >> >> Summit has them in the latest catalog from Ford Motorsport >> Set of eight 19lb/hr $193 >> 24lb/hr $199 >> 30lb/hr $208 >> 36lb/hr $369 >> Dave > >Yup have set of 24lbs in pu. 383 tpi cal smogg legal. Vance ------------------------------ From: Charles Brooks Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 20:26:26 -0500 Subject: Re: SpeedBrain On your site it says you're working on a product for other makes of cars. Do you know when the product for GM vehicles will be out? Charles Brooks Auburn Performance Equipment wrote: > Gentlemen, > > I wanted to let you all know, for those of you that do not, that we > have a released a high performance replacement for the Ford EEC- > IV. Current models replace the stock computer systems for 89-95 > 5.0 Mustangs. > > It is a high performance computer system that, plugs right in, is fully > tunable, datalogs, and will rev to 10k. > > Feel free to learn more at our website at; > http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/sb.htm > > Regards, > > Matt > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > AUBURN PERFORMANCE EQUIPMENT > Home of the world's fastest 4.6 Cobra! > 1998 Winner 160mph class Big Bend Classic roadrace, Ft Stockton, TX > 1998 Winner 160mph class Gamblers Run roadrace, Elko, NV > 1998 Winner 165mph class Silverstate Classic roadrace, Ely, NV > > We just don't sell and install parts, we make them perform. > > ORDER LINE 1-508-752-7683 > 24 hr FAX LINE (508)752-5269 TECH LINE (508)797-9728 > WEBSITE & ON-LINE CATALOG: http://www.tiac.net/users/goape/index.htm > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #55 **************************** 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".