DIY_EFI Digest Friday, 29 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 070 In this issue: Re: Cubic Dollars Re: Bosch/Buick crossbreed Re: Cubic Dollars Smooth strategy (was Re: Switch Pitch) Re: home dyno kit?? Re: More DFI q's... Re: Cubic Dollars Re: Boneyard Harnesses (was Bosch/Buick crossbreed) Re: home dyno kit?? Re: More DFI q's... Knock sensor specs Re: Intake Runner Length fuel and timing map page Unsubbing Re: Knock sensor specs Re: Knock sensor specs Re: Last Holden Bin for a while?. Love This Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM Re: Intake Runner Length Re: fuel and timing map page RE: Switch Pitch Re: Love This Subject: Re: 2:1 Internal & Spur Gear RE: Love This Re: Love This Re: Boneyard Harnesses (was Bosch/Buick crossbreed) Re: accelerometer based dyno ideas See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:59:07 -0700 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars > He goes on to talk about registering the copyright and says: "You can >take legal action for infringement only after the copyright has been >registered". OK --this is what I was talking about--does anybody know what you gotta do to "register" a copyright?? I freely admit to being WAY out of date on this, but it would seem that they cannot sue you over it if they have not registered it. Where does one register a copyright, and what has to be submitted to do it?? Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: Tedscj@xxx.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:34:59 EST Subject: Re: Bosch/Buick crossbreed In a message dated 1/28/99 3:16:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, mpitts@xxx.com writes: << If anyone ever comes down to West Palm Beach, FL, I'll show where the best yard is at. :) They're awesome. >> Hey! I'm in Indian River County! Perhaps you could clue me in to a good yard or two. Right now, I go to a U- Pull it in Ft. Lauderdale to get parts. It's a good yard, but awful far! TIA, Ted ------------------------------ From: Clarence Wood Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:28:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars Hi Greg and all, I knew I should have included this..... Again all quotes from "How to sell your Software" by Bob Schenot. "Registration seems to take about four months. You can obtain the appropriate forms and get information from: Register of Copyright Library of Congress Washington, DC 20559 Public Information: (202) 707-3000 Forms Hotline: (202) 707-9100 "The copyright office publishes free circulars that will be useful to you--Circular1 ,'Copyright Basics'; Circular 2, 'Publications on Copyright'; and Circular 61, 'Copyright Registration for computer Programs.' "Registering a copyright requires you to submit the source code to the copyright office, where it is available to anyone. While the copyright office instructs you to submit the first and last twenty-five pages of your source code and blank out all the trade secrets (up to 50 percent of the code), the legal community has questioned whether this would be sufficient, or if only that which is deposited would be protected." "In any case, there is general agreement that copyright is not a defense against reverse engineering. Instead, I never let my source out to anyone...,but since my documentation contains all the 'public' information about the program, such as descriptions of key combination and screen layouts, I register a copyright on the documentation and help files and claim (but not register) a copyright on the program. Since my documentation is embedded in the .exe, and the .exe won't run without it, I can't imagine how someone could violate my copyright on the program without simultaneously violating the registered copyright of the documentation." "If you do register a copyright on the program itself, be sure to read Circular 61 very carefully." "If you choose not to register, the law requires that you deposit two copies with the Library of Congress if the work is 'published.' There are fines and other penalties for failure to comply." Clarence At 12:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, you wrote: > > >> He goes on to talk about registering the copyright and says: "You can >>take legal action for infringement only after the copyright has been >>registered". > >OK --this is what I was talking about--does anybody know what you gotta do >to "register" a copyright?? > >I freely admit to being WAY out of date on this, but it would seem that >they cannot sue you over it if they have not registered it. > >Where does one register a copyright, and what has to be submitted to do it?? > >Regards, Greg > > > ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:34:24 -0500 Subject: Smooth strategy (was Re: Switch Pitch) GM was and is very "smoothness" driven. Gm's perception of customers, especially in the Buick/Olds/Caddy markets is that they do not want to feel any shifts whatsoever. I will say, after working in 2 Chevy + Olds dealerships, that Oldsmobile customers tend to be *very* particular. So much so that entire days are sometimes consumed in the chasing of one or two mysterious squeaks. If you have any chances to roll around some of the car shows with well restored examples from the early 40's to late 50's, you'll see that the upper scale cars were designed to be very smooth. In the transmissions, there were vacuum powered clutches, variable speed transmissions, standard trans with torque converters. Even synchronizers were designed to improve "smoothness", as trucks into the 50's were still being built without them. (Ever drive a vehicle without synchros?) It seems there's a sort of balance between the "supply" and "demand" in product offerings. For many years, GM (and others) was able to influence the demand through their supply. Example? How many people realized how much they wanted a minivan before Chrysler introduced one? Because of this influence, and the fact that we as "performance oriented" were a minority, OEM cars tended to cater to the "softer" side, and their market at the dealership level grew around that. Now, I think that's changing, partly because of customer wants and largely because of EPA influence. And in a pattern which seems typical to me, as the cars get more sophisticated, so do the customers' expectations. Remember the days when imported cars had "nuttin buttons"? They said "performance/mild/economy" or "stiff/soft" and related to timing or suspension, but made no difference to the seat of your pants. Regardless, there's still a market for the people who want their cup holders replaced pronto but don't realize there's a bad skip in the engine. And that's it. We compare what we want to what's available, and as long as what's available doesn't change, our expectations stay at the same level. "Smoothness" has been a goal for years, and many buyers expect that. Recently, there's been an increase in the "performance oriented" market, and there are cars being built to supply it. Maybe someday there'll be enough market to make classically styled vehicles with the latest and greatest drivetrains (and cupholders), and then I'll be able to sell my toolboxes. Naah. Shannen Gwyn Reedy wrote: > > There were comments about the similarity between the DynaFlow and > Powerglide. I'm wondering if there weren't more similarities between DF and > TurboGlide? The latter was a no-shift transmission. > > Thinking back about all these earlier transmissions: Was Detroit slow to see > the need for better performance or was the market all attuned to smoothness > (or so thought Detroit)? > > Smoothness oriented: > Chrysler fluid drive > Dynaflow > PowerGlide (starting off in 1:1) > Ford-o-matic starting off in 2nd, kickdown to 1st > Hydramatic converting to an internal fluid coupling in 1956 to smooth out > the shifts. > > Not smooth, but not good performance: > 3 speed manual transmissions > When 4 speeds came, very high first gear ratios. Nice close ratios, but a > tall gear to start with. (Was that so the trans cold hold the torque?) > > At least there were manual shift overdrives... (I put one from a Chevy > behind the B-W automatic in my hot-rod Rambler station wagon once - worked > fine.) (Don't give me any s**t about that project or I'll have to tell all > about it...) > > These days the engines are much improved, but lots of the flexibility, > performance, and economy we get is due to transmission improvements, IMHO. > > Gwyn Reedy > Brandon, Florida > mailto:mgr@xxx.com ------------------------------ From: Ludis Langens Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:46:41 -0800 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? "Mike Pitts" wrote: > I should be able to > get between 128 and 256 samples per second interrogating just > two bytes (RPM and MPH). > > The earlier post about poor resolution made a good point (25 RPM > and 1.0 MPH), you can however query the raw time between cam > sensor pulses and the raw VSS count and do your own math to get > as precise as you wish. At least some of the P4 ECMs compute the vehicle speed as a 16 bit number - one byte for MPH and one byte for the fractional portion. If you peek at both of these bytes, it will give you the vehicle speed in increments of 0.004 MPH. This 16 bit value is filtered though, so you might want to grab the raw VSS count and timestamp data anyway. - -- Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ ------------------------------ From: Stuart Bunning Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 09:16:33 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: More DFI q's... I agree.... Although no two engines are the same it sure does help to compare maps from different configurations. It sure helps when you are starting from scratch. I am willing to setup such a page if anyone is interested in the idea and interested in sending me the data to compile such a page. ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED ????????? >>>I think if we can start a section on the homepage with maps (fuel and >>>timing) from various engines, factory tuned or not, it would be of great >>>help to those building/programming their own systems. >>> >>>Any comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>>Matt Beaubien >>>mbeaubie@xxx.ca >>>3 x 510 >>>1 x 300ZXT Best Regards, STUART BUNNING SALES ENGINEER KENELEC PTY LTD 23-25 REDLAND DRIVE MITCHAM VICTORIA 3132 AUSTRALIA PHONE: 61 3 9873 1022 FAX: 61 3 9873 0200 EMAIL: stuart@xxx.au WEB: http://www.kenelec.com.au/ ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:52:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Cubic Dollars >Hi Greg and all, > I knew I should have included this..... >Again all quotes from "How to sell your Software" by Bob Schenot. > >"Registration seems to take about four months. You can obtain the >appropriate forms and get information from: > >Register of Copyright >Library of Congress >Washington, DC 20559 > >Public Information: (202) 707-3000 >Forms Hotline: (202) 707-9100 > > "The copyright office publishes free circulars that will be useful to >you--Circular1 ,'Copyright Basics'; Circular 2, 'Publications on >Copyright'; and Circular 61, 'Copyright Registration for computer >Programs.' > "Registering a copyright requires you to submit the source code to the >copyright office, where it is available to anyone. While the copyright >office instructs you to submit the first and last twenty-five pages of >your source code and blank out all the trade secrets (up to 50 percent of >the code), the legal community has questioned whether this would be >sufficient, or if only that which is deposited would be protected." > "In any case, there is general agreement that copyright is not a defense >against reverse engineering. Instead, I never let my source out to >anyone...,but since my documentation contains all the 'public' information >about the program, such as descriptions of key combination and screen >layouts, I register a copyright on the documentation and help files and >claim (but not register) a copyright on the program. Since my >documentation is embedded in the .exe, and the .exe won't run without it, >I can't imagine how someone could violate my copyright on the program >without simultaneously violating the registered copyright of the >documentation." > "If you do register a copyright on the program itself, be sure to read >Circular 61 very carefully." > "If you choose not to register, the law requires that you deposit two >copies with the Library of Congress if the work is 'published.' There are >fines and other penalties for failure to comply." > >Clarence > THANKS, Clarence!!! That hits the spot!!!! After reading this, I think it is a pretty safe bet that GM et al have never registered on little bit of their ecu code, so there is no way they could sue over playing with it. It would not be too hard to call the public info # and ask if copies of registered material are available on line for review, and it would not be too much more trouble to get on their site and do a search, so as to be sure. BTW--if anyone finds GM source code on such a site, please pass along the URL, etc. ---I think some of us might have the site a bit jammed up for the next month or two!! :-) Anybody wanna bet a dinner over whether it's there or not???? Regards, Greg > > >At 12:59 PM 1/28/99 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >>> He goes on to talk about registering the copyright and says: "You can >>>take legal action for infringement only after the copyright has been >>>registered". >> >>OK --this is what I was talking about--does anybody know what you gotta do >>to "register" a copyright?? >> >>I freely admit to being WAY out of date on this, but it would seem that >>they cannot sue you over it if they have not registered it. >> >>Where does one register a copyright, and what has to be submitted to do it?? >> >>Regards, Greg >> >> >> ------------------------------ From: "Charles Brooks" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:55:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Boneyard Harnesses (was Bosch/Buick crossbreed) They must be copyrighted, HahA! :) Charles Brooks > >Around here, for example, *no* yard will sell a wiring harness. Not >even just before they feed the car to the crusher. Why? Who the hell >knows, but none of them will budge. ------------------------------ From: trinity@xxx.net (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:06:31 -0500 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? > >> At 08:24 AM 1/28/99 -0500, Dan Llewellyn2 wrote: > >> >level ground. At least were I live, level stretches of road where >> >you can get up to speed are rare. If they incorporated the data >> >from a G-field measuring device, like an Analog Digital ADXL05, >> >you could calculate horsepower even if the road was not level. > >Yes, but you still need the speed input since the accelerometer >cannot tell the difference between acceleration and gravity... >As far as the horsepower calculation is concerned, you would >use the acceleration from the accelerometer and the speed from >another sensor... The calculation (being mass * velocity * acceleration) >doesn't care whether the acceleration is due to gravity (going >uphill) or increase in speed. > I've got on the backburner a little performance computer project that hasn't yet come to much (no time of course). The idea at the time was to use an ADXL202 in PWM mode. If the accelerometer is mounted orthogonally to the gravity vector, it's not an issue since its contribution is zero (cosine of 90). I'd argue that most of this "on the road" horsepower testing will take place on a remote, level road with little traffic or hills etc. Once found, this road should made the standard to avoid adding additional uncertainties. If using an accelerometer on hilly roads, all bets are off unless one somehow characterizes the road by driving slowly and steadily along the road, recording the accelerometer and logging distance and then factoring the results out of acceleration runs later. After reading some of the "audio" ideas recently, I thought about a slightly different way to do performance calculating, using just the primary ignition coil signal and the statistics of the car in question. Why not hook (say) an HC11 to the coil primary and time period between edges. If the car is placed in, say, second gear and floored from 1000 to 7500RPM (my PGT fuel cut), one could use the ignition signal as both an RPM reference and also as a "delta-RPM" signal to determine how fast the engine is accelerating. On my PGTs V6, there's 3 pulses per revolution of the crank...is this enough I wonder? Time to pull out the notebook and start calculating. When I was playing with a G-Tech, I did the "2nd-gear flooring" thing and noted the maximum g-reading during the run. I used this g-value along with the loaded radius of the front wheels, the mass of the car (as weighed on a garbage dump scale) I determined the front-wheel torque required to produce this acceleration. By knowing the transmission and final drive gear ratios, and figuring in a 15% drivetrain loss fudge-factor, I was able to get pretty close to the factory torque figures for the car. Knowing the approximate speed at which this occured I was also able to then calculate approximate wheel HP and engine HP, which again, were pretty close to the factory numbers. Of course, one problem with this scheme is that wind resistance isn't accounted for which tends to reduce the acceleration rate as vehicle speed increases. >> One thing I was gonna mention is the Analog Devices ADXL202, a >> second generation, 2 axis +/- 5g accelerometer. It's even easier > >I looked at it when it first came out and the specs didn't look >very good to me. It's bad enough getting .01g resolution out >of an ADXL05 with any reasonable bandwith and the 202 looked worse to me. > My biggest problem with these accelerometers is that they have such a huge dynamic range (like +/- 5g) and my car is capable, in first gear, of maybe 0.6g and about 0.3g maximum in second gear (hey...that's what 2.5L, 164HP and 3058-lbs of car gets you :). At 12.5%/g, this amounts to a change in pulse width of 3.75%. Not much to maintain accuracy. At zero g and 1mS period, the output is 500uS. 3.75% is about 18.75uS or about 38 counts of a 2MHz HC11 timer clock. Not much to work with. Sorry for rambling ... - -- Mike ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:48:22 -0500 Subject: Re: More DFI q's... - -----Original Message----- From: Stuart Bunning To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 6:43 PM Subject: Re: More DFI q's... Don't be stunned by the silence to follow that comment. Lots of folks will consider that a really good idea, but not much action. Darn few folks will give up something as time consumming as a map, or prom address. Bruce > >I agree.... Although no two engines are the same it sure does help to >compare maps from different configurations. It sure helps when you are >starting from scratch. >I am willing to setup such a page if anyone is interested in the idea and >interested in sending me the data to compile such a page. > >ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED ????????? > >>>>I think if we can start a section on the homepage with maps (fuel and >>>>timing) from various engines, factory tuned or not, it would be of great >>>>help to those building/programming their own systems. >>>> >>>>Any comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> >>>>Matt Beaubien >>>>mbeaubie@xxx.ca >>>>3 x 510 >>>>1 x 300ZXT > > > > > >Best Regards, > >STUART BUNNING >SALES ENGINEER >KENELEC PTY LTD > >23-25 REDLAND DRIVE >MITCHAM VICTORIA 3132 >AUSTRALIA > >PHONE: 61 3 9873 1022 >FAX: 61 3 9873 0200 >EMAIL: stuart@xxx.au >WEB: http://www.kenelec.com.au/ > ------------------------------ From: Barry Tisdale Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:46:27 -0500 Subject: Knock sensor specs Since the KS thread began, been thinking how important it is. Did some poking around, after putting together the 555/LED monitor (which didn't work). DC on the KS is 2.36v; solid rapping on the block near the sensor puts an AC voltage of maybe 0.015v tops on the sensor line. Scan tool reads knocks, but the value presented can be anything from 1 to 255; when it hears a knock, new (seemingly random) value is set & held till the next 'knock' comes along. Knock retard degrees always reads zero. Don't think 0.01VAC is enough fluctuation to trigger the 555 reliably; even using a comparitor, that's barely enough signal to pick out of the background noise - lots of ignition wires nearby. Are these readings within normal limits?? Helm manual just says "an AC voltage should be present" (when rapping) - no value given, but 0.01v seems real low. Thanks for any feedback - Barry ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:09:08 -0500 Subject: Re: Intake Runner Length - -----Original Message----- From: Van Setten, Tim (AZ75) To: 'DIY-EFI' Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 4:30 PM Subject: Intake Runner Length We are using a speed density >system and also a dual-fuel setup. We turbo charge our little girlie 2300cc >VW's in a 900 lb car and head to the sand dunes. The dual fuel is >accomplished by adding a second set of injectors and injecting methanol only >under boost. This makes these air-cooled engines very happy and stops all >of the pinging problems etc. associated with 15 lbs of boost. What for ecm?. We want to try >different intake manifold combinations. For plenum, start at engine displacement, and going as high as 2x displacement wouldn't be a worry, as long as it worked. When I can I build the plenum, so I can add layers of spacers. I'd also, do that for runner lenghts if I were you. Now, the runner diameters is a real nasty issue, ie lots of possibles. Stock Car Racing Mag several years ago had an article about them as I recall. With a VW head aren't you rather limited in port diameter?. Bruce ------------------------------ From: Jason Weir Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:08:20 -0500 Subject: fuel and timing map page Count me in, I'll offer what I got, and I can do some HTML if needed... Jason Stuart Bunning wrote: > > I agree.... Although no two engines are the same it sure does help to > compare maps from different configurations. It sure helps when you are > starting from scratch. > I am willing to setup such a page if anyone is interested in the idea and > interested in sending me the data to compile such a page. > > ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED ????????? > > >>>I think if we can start a section on the homepage with maps (fuel and > >>>timing) from various engines, factory tuned or not, it would be of great > >>>help to those building/programming their own systems. > >>> > >>>Any comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance. > >>> > >>> > >>>Matt Beaubien > >>>mbeaubie@xxx.ca > >>>3 x 510 > >>>1 x 300ZXT > > Best Regards, > > STUART BUNNING > SALES ENGINEER > KENELEC PTY LTD > > 23-25 REDLAND DRIVE > MITCHAM VICTORIA 3132 > AUSTRALIA > > PHONE: 61 3 9873 1022 > FAX: 61 3 9873 0200 > EMAIL: stuart@xxx.au > WEB: http://www.kenelec.com.au/ ------------------------------ From: "Charles Brooks" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:13:21 -0500 Subject: Unsubbing Unfortunately I am losing a little free time to work related matters for a while. I'll be unsubbing for an unknown period of time. I've enjoyed my stay quite a bit and look forward to further education from you guys with the cone shaped hats :) Good luck with your projects. Charles Brooks ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:14:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Knock sensor specs - -----Original Message----- From: Barry Tisdale To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 7:58 PM Subject: Knock sensor specs >Since the KS thread began, been thinking how important it is. Did some poking around, after putting together the 555/LED monitor (which didn't work). The one off the GN has worked for others,,,,,, What did you use for trigger?. > >DC on the KS is 2.36v; solid rapping on the block near the sensor puts an AC voltage of maybe 0.015v tops on the sensor line. Scan tool reads knocks, but the value presented can be anything from 1 to 255; when it hears a knock, new (seemingly random) value is set & held till the next 'knock' comes along. Knock retard degrees always reads zero. There are degrees of knock retard, and knock counts (0-255) the knock counts are the number of counts heard in 1/8 of a second. Some calibrations for some reason just run 0-255 knock counts, and repeat that continually. Bruce > >Don't think 0.01VAC is enough fluctuation to trigger the 555 reliably; even using a comparitor, that's barely enough signal to pick out of the background noise - lots of ignition wires nearby. > >Are these readings within normal limits?? Helm manual just says "an AC voltage should be present" (when rapping) - no value given, but 0.01v seems real low. > >Thanks for any feedback - Barry > ------------------------------ From: kv@xxx.com Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:22:31 -0700 Subject: Re: Knock sensor specs I built the knock sense detector- it works fine- just hook it to the wire going into the ECM though... this is a full (rail-rail) logic signal. Hooking it to the output of the knock sensor will not work. When you look at the ECM wire you should see a negative pulse when you rap the block. All the 555 does is stretch it out so it is long enough that you can see it on an LED or a beeper. If you are still having probs... let me know. ________________________________________________ Kevin Vannorsdel IBM Arm Electronics Development 408-256-6492 Tie 276-6492 kv@xxx.com "Bruce Plecan" on 01/28/99 05:14:13 PM Please respond to diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu cc: (bcc: Kevin Vannorsdel/San Jose/IBM) Subject: Re: Knock sensor specs - -----Original Message----- From: Barry Tisdale To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 7:58 PM Subject: Knock sensor specs >Since the KS thread began, been thinking how important it is. Did some poking around, after putting together the 555/LED monitor (which didn't work). The one off the GN has worked for others,,,,,, What did you use for trigger?. > >DC on the KS is 2.36v; solid rapping on the block near the sensor puts an AC voltage of maybe 0.015v tops on the sensor line. Scan tool reads knocks, but the value presented can be anything from 1 to 255; when it hears a knock, new (seemingly random) value is set & held till the next 'knock' comes along. Knock retard degrees always reads zero. There are degrees of knock retard, and knock counts (0-255) the knock counts are the number of counts heard in 1/8 of a second. Some calibrations for some reason just run 0-255 knock counts, and repeat that continually. Bruce > >Don't think 0.01VAC is enough fluctuation to trigger the 555 reliably; even using a comparitor, that's barely enough signal to pick out of the background noise - lots of ignition wires nearby. > >Are these readings within normal limits?? Helm manual just says "an AC voltage should be present" (when rapping) - no value given, but 0.01v seems real low. > >Thanks for any feedback - Barry > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:28:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Last Holden Bin for a while?. - -----Original Message----- From: Ross Myers To: EFI List Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 1:54 AM Subject: Last Holden Bin for a while?. Whatza 082?, meaning what is the whole number? Thanks Bruce >This one is from a 94/95 V8 Manual, but the Engine is the upgraded HSV >185Kw. Also this ECM is an 082. > >Find it on the FTP site-. > >BMZL1790.BIN > >Bye > >Ross > ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:34:46 -0600 Subject: Love This Bruce or Greg One of you is going to love this!!!! http://www.mot.com/AECS/General/AIEGSensors/Graphics/IPS.html Get an extra (evaluation unit) and send it to me... Motorola's number is 1-800-521-6274. Tom ------------------------------ From: Ken Kelly Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:25:47 -0500 Subject: Re: 1999 truck PCM's ROM Jake, Last week I removed the two Flash chips from my 95 PCM. It was rather non-destructive, and I put sockets in there place. I took a piece of copper foil, and cut a hole in it just larger than the flash chip. I pressed it onto the board surface to use a a heat protector. I then used a heat gun to remove the chip. If you email me off list I will give you more detail on the procedure I used. One of the techs at work who does a lot of Surface mount repair work showed me the technique. Technology is moving forward. The 95 uses two 28F512 chips for a total of 1 meg. yours sounds like a 4 meg version, I thought the number should be 28F040 instead of 28F400. I know the 28F010 is a 1 meg chipm and the 28F020 is a 2 meg chip. Ken 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. > > 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: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:24:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Intake Runner Length >-----Original Message----- >From: Van Setten, Tim (AZ75) >To: 'DIY-EFI' >Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 4:30 PM >Subject: Intake Runner Length > > > We are using a speed density >>system and also a dual-fuel setup. We turbo charge our little girlie >2300cc >>VW's in a 900 lb car and head to the sand dunes. The dual fuel is >>accomplished by adding a second set of injectors and injecting methanol >only >>under boost. This makes these air-cooled engines very happy and stops all >>of the pinging problems etc. associated with 15 lbs of boost. > >What for ecm?. > > We want to try >>different intake manifold combinations. > > >For plenum, start at engine displacement, and going as high as 2x >displacement wouldn't be a worry, as long as it worked. >When I can I build the plenum, so I can add layers of spacers. >I'd also, do that for runner lenghts if I were you. >Now, the runner diameters is a real nasty issue, ie lots of possibles. >Stock Car Racing Mag several years ago had an article about them >as I recall. > With a VW head aren't you rather limited in port diameter?. >Bruce IIRC, at least for a hemi head and a round port, David Vizard used to say 0.9 times the diameter of the intake valve head was about right for the port , throttle, stack, & everything. For a somewhat shrouded valve, and less efficient port, my guess would be that something less than that would work best--- Just my $.02 Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: John Andrianakis Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 04:20:52 +0200 Subject: Re: fuel and timing map page Jason Weir wrote: > > Count me in, I'll offer what I got, and I can do some HTML if needed... > Jason > > Stuart Bunning wrote: > > > > I agree.... Although no two engines are the same it sure does help to > > compare maps from different configurations. It sure helps when you are > > starting from scratch. > > I am willing to setup such a page if anyone is interested in the idea and > > interested in sending me the data to compile such a page. > > > > ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED ????????? > > > > >>>I think if we can start a section on the homepage with maps (fuel and > > >>>timing) from various engines, factory tuned or not, it would be of great > > >>>help to those building/programming their own systems. > > >>> > > >>>Any comments or suggestions? Thanks in advance. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>Matt Beaubien > > >>>mbeaubie@xxx.ca > > >>>3 x 510 > > >>>1 x 300ZXT > > > > Best Regards, > > > > STUART BUNNING > > SALES ENGINEER > > KENELEC PTY LTD > > > > 23-25 REDLAND DRIVE > > MITCHAM VICTORIA 3132 > > AUSTRALIA > > > > PHONE: 61 3 9873 1022 > > FAX: 61 3 9873 0200 > > EMAIL: stuart@xxx.au > > WEB: http://www.kenelec.com.au/ I would gladly give some files and info mostly on European OEM systems if anyone is interested. John Andrianakis. ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:36:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Switch Pitch On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Gwyn Reedy wrote: > There were comments about the similarity between the DynaFlow and > Powerglide. I'm wondering if there weren't more similarities between DF and > TurboGlide? The latter was a no-shift transmission. > Yes, the turboglide, dynaflow and the first 2 years of the powerglide were similar, non-shifting, multi-element torque converter efforts from GM, who did not wish to pay royalties for the Simpson planetary patent and also didnt want to use Borg-Warners Ravigneaux-based transmissions. > Thinking back about all these earlier transmissions: Was Detroit slow to see > the need for better performance or was the market all attuned to smoothness > (or so thought Detroit)? > These 50s era horrible automatics were all GM. Ford was an early user of the Ravigneaux, although the early ones were 2 speeds. GM really dropped the ball [IMO] after the industry-first single coupling hydro went out of production in 1956. It wasnt until the BW 400 came out in 1964 that they had another first class automatic. Mopar, of course, introduced a Simpson type 3 speed in 1955. Even Nash used 3 speed automatics in the 1950s. ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:20:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This >Bruce or Greg > >One of you is going to love this!!!! > >http://www.mot.com/AECS/General/AIEGSensors/Graphics/IPS.html > >Get an extra (evaluation unit) and send it to me... Motorola's number is >1-800-521-6274. > >Tom Hi Tom-- Neat device--prolly will save a bunch over another industrial type transducer. THANKS!! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: Ken Mayer Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:52:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Subject: Re: 2:1 Internal & Spur Gear > From: Dan Llewellyn2 > Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 08:13:37 -0500 > > I just need the single gear to gear ratio - it won't be a planetarysetup. I > have already tried Browning, Boston, and a few others, > but their highest capacity stock gears are 5/16" face, straight cut, > and only good for a few horsepower. I got a few quotes on > custom gears, but each quote was over $1,000 per gear (!). > > I thought that if I could find some stock auto/truck gears that had the 2:1 > ratio and meshed, I could go to a junk yard or transmission shop > and pick some up inexpensively. I have a GM350 internal gear with > 66 teeth that only cost $10 - just don't have the matching spur gear. > Of course I am open to any other set that would work too. Do you know what the diametrical pitch of the gear is? If you can get access to a milling machine and rotary table (or dividing head), you can easily cut a spur gear. Cutters will be in the $40-60 range. If you can turn a blank on a lathe, a machine shop that specializes in gear cutting might be able to cut it for cheap on their gear hobbing machine. If you're near NYC, try Madison Gear & Sprocket in Hawthorne, NJ (973 area code). Also, try posting to rec.crafts.metalworking- someone there might be able to make the gear. Ken :-) ------------------------------ From: "Barry E. King" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:59:29 -0700 Subject: RE: Love This Okay, I'll bite. How would one go about converting from a conventional system with a return line to one without? Regards, Barry > -----Original Message----- > >Bruce or Greg > > > >One of you is going to love this!!!! > > > >http://www.mot.com/AECS/General/AIEGSensors/Graphics/IPS.html > > > >Get an extra (evaluation unit) and send it to me... Motorola's number is > >1-800-521-6274. > > > >Tom > > Hi Tom-- > > Neat device--prolly will save a bunch over another industrial type > transducer. THANKS!! > > Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:30:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This - -----Original Message----- From: Barry E. King To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 11:20 PM Subject: RE: Love This Controlling fuel pump speed/pressure. They give a little more info next page. Bruce >How would one go about converting from a conventional system with a return >line to one without? >Regards, >Barry ------------------------------ From: James Ballenger Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:34:27 -0500 Subject: Re: Boneyard Harnesses (was Bosch/Buick crossbreed) Teller.John@xxx.com wrote: > Try going to a U-Pull-It sort of junk yard. The ones any where near here > (D.C. suburbs) are all pretty well organized and insured and thus do not > allow cretins such as I onto their lots. As you get further from > metropolitan areas, and are willing to do the wrenching yourself, you can > pull just about anything you want. Any luck with local yards? I have found that a AAACO will let you take harness for just a few bucks, but if you even mention something more tangible like a steering wheel or something they will price it up. I guess harness' aren't worth much in the Ft. Belvior area. James Ballenger ------------------------------ From: Chris Conlon Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:56:24 -0500 Subject: Re: accelerometer based dyno ideas At 11:07 AM 1/28/99 -0800, Orin Eman wrote: >> At 08:24 AM 1/28/99 -0500, Dan Llewellyn2 wrote: > >> >you can get up to speed are rare. If they incorporated the data >> >from a G-field measuring device, like an Analog Digital ADXL05, > >Yes, but you still need the speed input since the accelerometer >cannot tell the difference between acceleration and gravity... Yeah, sort of. There are a lot of intermediate levels depending on how many simplifying assumptions you make. If you require the road to be flat (not necessarily level) and suspension travel to be effectively nil, you can subtract out the known constant 1g gravity vector. (This assumes a 2-axis accelerometer, which the adxl202 is.) If you try to solve the more realistic problem, and allow nonflat roads and suspension travel, it gets trickier. For my own amusement I've tried to see how much of that you could reliably factor out, but haven't gotten too far. >As far as the horsepower calculation is concerned, you would >use the acceleration from the accelerometer and the speed from >another sensor... If you have the speed, from RPM, VSS or whatever, I guess you could use that info in combination with the accelerometer info to compensate for nonlevel (and perhaps nonflat?) roads. I haven't really thought about this yet. In any case you still need mass plugged in as a given, right? To get horsepower rather than acceleration I mean. >> One thing I was gonna mention is the Analog Devices ADXL202, a >> second generation, 2 axis +/- 5g accelerometer. It's even easier > >I looked at it when it first came out and the specs didn't look >very good to me. It's bad enough getting .01g resolution out >of an ADXL05 with any reasonable bandwith and the 202 looked worse >to me. I agree that getting a high resolution*bandwidth product out of the xl05 is not easy, but I don't see how it's any worse for the xl202. The noise spec is exactly the same for both parts. Maybe if you needed to use the PWM output on the xl202 that would make it tougher, but the raw analog signal is easily available too. I'm not trying to irritate anyone here, maybe there's just something I'm missing? Chris C. ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #70 **************************** 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".