DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, 30 January 1999 Volume 04 : Number 075 In this issue: Re: Love This Code Tweaking (Was Cubic Dollars) Re: Rising rate fuel pressure regulator Cubic Nonsense Re: home dyno kit?? Re: Even better More UEGO stuff Re: Even better fuel pumps Re: home dyno kit?? Re: Love This Re: Different Strokes Re: fuel pumps Re: replace an EPROM with an EEPROM? Re: home dyno kit?? Fuel injector cleaner tools Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin Re: More UEGO stuff Re: fuel pumps Re: Love This Re: Love This Re: Cubic Nonsense Re: home dyno kit?? Re: Cubic Nonsense Re: More UEGO stuff Re: Love This Re: home dyno kit?? Re: More UEGO stuff Re: More UEGO stuff Re: Love This See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "ron.boley" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:38:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This Adding to Rogers comments, I would drive the pump in a PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) mode such that I can control the pressure. If we flip it around and I can control the fuel pressure the engine controller can keep the Fuel Injector pulse width fixed for longer periods of time. While its not what I would do with the faster CPU's these days it might make for a less expensive engine controller which appeals to the marketing people Ron Roger Heflin wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 1999, Barry E. King wrote: > > > Okay, I'll bite. > > > > How would one go about converting from a conventional system with a return > > line to one without? > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Barry > > Besides the physical conversion, you would need to add a input to the > computer that mesaures the pressure from the transducer, and use that > pressure to adjust the injector pulsewidths based on pressure. So > beyond physcially converting your would need significant computer > adjustements (probably even computer hardware adjustments to get the > addition A/D input to use for the injector fuel pressure that is to be > used in the calculation of injector pulsewidths. > > Roger ------------------------------ From: DC Smith Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:07:17 -0600 Subject: Code Tweaking (Was Cubic Dollars) Kind of along these lines... I got a phone call from a private investigator in Atlanta a while back. He told me he had heard I play with a lot of performance chip for my car, and was trying to pinpoint when chips had started to become "tweaked" by individuals. It seems he had a client that was being sued for selling performance chips. This nut case initiating the suit, claimed he "invented" performance chips in 1994 or something. He told me this 'nut' had even gone to try and sue GM for tweaking on their code. Jeez, what an idiot for trying that one.. GM just shrugged this guy off.. I told the PI to join this list to get the "straight poop" on modifying EFI chips.. Don't know if he ever did, or even remember what his name was.. I kinda got a kick out of that one, though.. :^) Greg Hermann wrote: > AWFULLY hard before they would register the copyright on it (which requires > putting their source code into public record) just so as to be able to sue > somebody over copying it. > > Bottom line is, I am not worried, nor do I think somebody like Hypertech > needs to worry. *********************************************************************** Dan Smith 84 Regal 12.13@112 (so far) GSCA# 1459 St.Charles, Missouri mailto:dcsmith@xxx.org http://www.tetranet.net/users/morepoweral *********************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: DC Smith Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 07:15:37 -0600 Subject: Re: Rising rate fuel pressure regulator Mike Pitts wrote: > > Some of you may remember my recent post about my desire to > build a rising rate pressure regulator to mount in the stock location. > Carl Summers informed me that he already has such a device. > Mike, WOW! Did that come off the space shuttle? :^) Nice Piece!! I don't know abbout mounting that on the fuel rail, though. I saw a add on to a TTA at Bowling Green once, that was piped after the stock regulator and had a huge diaphram on it. It just held back the fuel pressure after the stock regulator,in the return line. That thing will need brackets to keep it from breaking the fuel rail off. > I just received one and all I can say is WOW! What a nice piece > of engineering work! This is something I would expect to see on > a Formula-1 racer. > > If you want to take a peek, I made up a little webpage with photo > of Carl's regulator standing next to an OEM Bosch regulator. > > http://www.emi.net/~mpitts/reg.htm > > -Mike - -- *********************************************************************** Dan Smith 84 Regal 12.13@112 (so far) GSCA# 1459 St.Charles, Missouri mailto:dcsmith@xxx.org http://www.tetranet.net/users/morepoweral *********************************************************************** ------------------------------ From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:08:37 GMT Subject: Cubic Nonsense So one fine day as the pee-ants are standing around congratulating and reassuring themselves that the elephant can't hurt them in a s___ stomping contest, the elephant (GM) decides its going to end. Hello - this is GM air quality PAC. We are updating our campaign contributions Mr ( fill in the blank politician ) and we seem to have neglected helping to finance your fine work on the behalf of "concerned" americans. How many zeros would you like in this check? Shortly afterwards the EPA issues new ruling's that vehicles with modified ECU's must be re-certified with the duplicate of the manufacturers original test certification at the modifiers/owners expense in a yet to be determined government approved facility. Then that certification is good only for the specific make and model and year of the vehicle. Further, since the emissions system has been modified, the modifier takes full responsibility for the remainder of the 100,000 mile emissions warranty. If an end user vehicle "fails" any smog test, it will be prima facia declared to be the modified whatever"s fault which shall be restored to original manufacturers part prior to retest. Yada Yada Yada ISO 9001 - comply with federal regulation xxx submit testing plan 180 days prior to testing for EPA review and approval prior to testing - full disclosure of modifications - provide facilities for on site EPA monitoring contractor Ad absurdium. Anyone ever dealing with the government knows that's just the beginning. Vehicles with modified emissions systems not certified as above or failing air quality tests will be confiscated without recourse. And before you scream rights and other BS - you NEED to read the latest rules on vehicle and property confiscation as regards to illegal aliens. Essentially they boil down to this. Give an illegal a ride with any "should of known" or have one on your property and the government can seize it - even if its a day laborer cutting your lawn. And you think you can beat the elephant when he choses to stomp? Ker Plop - you're drowning in it, Thump squish. Your done. And there ain't an aftermarket company whose gross income match's GM, Ford or others booze and bimbos for Gummint Slush Fund. Money, large quantities of untraceable dead presidents, in the "right" hands gets anything GM wants. So now that we are divided into two camps, brave pee-ants and the elephant wary, what's to do. EFI-555, EFI-332, Programming 101 - learn and share as much as possible. The elephant is now indifferent - enjoy its ignorance. Back to EFI. 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: "Espen Hilde" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:56:58 +0100 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? A sudden change in advance would indicate a increase in hp at that point...... wouldnt it? Electromotive and many other systems uses a wheel with many thoths,it could give nice resolution for computing accleration, the home dyno should be incorporated in the log system,something for 332efi? put in some more advance at some points acclerate the car .the system creating a map of + and - hp of pevious runs?Automatic advance calibration .... together with egor and ion.....automatic calibrating efi isnt that what we all are dreaming of? just daydreaming again.... Espen Hilde ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:12:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Even better >That number doesn't seem to work can you double check??? Hmmm, it seems to work fine for me. Is anyone else having troubles with the hyperlink? http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04841934 - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:27:48 -0500 Subject: More UEGO stuff Any interest? Is this a waste of bandwidth? "This invention provides an self-calibrating buffer amplifier for a Universal Exhaust Gas Oxygen sensor interface circuit which couples and processes a voltage signal proportional to pumping cell current to a level and reference voltage suitable for input to an A-to-D convertor. The goal of this invention is to increase the accuracy of air-to-fuel ratio control by continually correcting for the effects of offset quantities in the amplifier stage necessary to the interface circuitry. This goal is accomplished by an approach which effectively generates and subtracts these offset quantities from the processed signal. " http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=US05211154__ - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:35:01 -0500 Subject: Re: Even better - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Pitts To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:26 AM Subject: Re: Even better Works fine, in Arcanum, OH, but we do have Doc working this am.. Cheers Bruce > >>That number doesn't seem to work can you double check??? > >Hmmm, it seems to work fine for me. Is anyone else having >troubles with the hyperlink? > >http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn10=US04841934 > >-Mike > > ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pilkenton" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:34:38 -0800 Subject: fuel pumps Well I'm deep into my engine conversion project and need to install an electric fuel pump for the EFI engine (3.1L V6). Question is do I have to put the fuel pump back in the tank or can I install the pump up by the engine. I know I need the high pressure type made for FI engines and not the carb (low pressure). Mounting anaftermarket in-line pump up by the engine sure would be more convenient. Any advice would be appreciated. Mike Pilkenton ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:47:17 -0500 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? >Electromotive and many other systems uses a wheel with many thoths, >it could give nice resolution for computing accleration, ... Also, if it has enough teeth, you can detect weak cylinders by comparing the waveform in the range of each cylinder. (ie: the teeth will slow ever so slightly for when a weak cylinder if firing) >automatic calibrating efi isnt that what we all are dreaming of? A Felpro with the wideband O2 option comes pretty darn close if not right on the money to the definition of self calibrating. And yes, I do dream of it. 8-) - -Mike ------------------------------ From: "Fran and Bud" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:00:55 +0000 Subject: Re: Love This For what it is worth, no one seems to have mentioned (or else I missed the post) that many "in the tank" fuel pumps rely on the gasoline in the tank to cool the pump and need at least 1/4 tank of gas to do this properly. If I had a vapor problem, I would at least eliminate this as a possibility by topping off my tank every time that it went below 1/2 and see if the problem went away. Particularly if the problem seems to be aggravated by a near empty tank as one post mentioned. Even a pump external to the tank, can be affected by other heat sources , lack of adequate air flow, etc. but would most likely not be affected by the low fuel level. - ---------- >From: Clarence Wood >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: Re: Love This >Date: Fri, Jan 29, 1999, 11:17 PM > >Thanks Greg! I think you have put your finger on a problem that I have >been having. Please elaborate on the float vent; on what junk cars can I >remove one and where do I look for it on the car? > >At 02:01 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Greg wrote: >(snip) >>But >>if you are doing variable pumping alone, for $#% sakes, use a float vent on >>the rails, so as to get the #$#% bubbles back to the tank!!! >> >>Regards, Greg >> >> >>>Bruce Plecan wrote: >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: James Weiler >>>> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >>>> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:07 AM >>>> Subject: RE: Love This >>>> >>>> For me it's not the plumbing that is the "news". It's being able to >>>> manipulate >>>> fuel line pressure without needing a mechanical device. As things sit now >>>> for TPI the fuel pressure is referenced to engine vac/boost. With this >>>> device >>>> a closed loop electrically controlled Fuel pressure trimmer is possible, >>>> meaning >>>> big injectors, lower pressure at idle, to help get reasonable pulse widths. >>>> Bruce >>>> >>>> >Sorry to get in this late but so what? I mean whats the advantage of >a >>>> one line EFI vs. 2 fuel line set-up? Besides less plumbing. >>>> >thanks >>>> >jw >>>> > >> >> >> ------------------------------ From: John Andrianakis Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 06:20:51 +0200 Subject: Re: Different Strokes David Sagers wrote: > > I'm building a twin turbo small block chevy for a 1981 Corvette, auto trans and all the power accessories. It'll be used for a hotrod street car, primarily on weekends and sunny days. > > In a conversation with the machine shop this afternoon the engine builder said I should consider going with a shorter stroke. I can build a 4" stroke 434 ci, a 3.75" 406 ci, or a 3.48" stroke 355 ci engine. The block I have is already clearanced for the 4" stroke so the additional cost of preparing the block isn't a factor. I already own the 4" crank and rods, and the crank can be traded out for a shorter stroke without any additional cost. > > The builder said that a short stroke engine will respond better to a turbo as it'll rev faster. So I'm looking for someone with knowledge and experience with turbo engines. Do I go with the shorter stoke that'll rev faster, or go with the 4" stroke that makes a lot of torque, especially in the low RPM ranges. Low RPM torque seems to be important as this is going to be a street engine generally run in the lower RPM ranges. > > Some of the things I want from the engine are throttle response and low rpm power. I was hoping that by going with the big 434 ci engine I could over come some of the slow acceleration associated with turbo lag in small engines. I think turbo engines like longer stroke better. Long fat exhaust pulses help turbo efficiency and reduce spool up time. Reducing freewheeling of the turbo assembly is a worthy design goal that can be achieved in two ways: longer stroke and better exhaust manifold design- equal length - -180 degrees headers. Just an opinion. John Andrianakis. ------------------------------ From: "Fran and Bud" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:17:57 +0000 Subject: Re: fuel pumps Best performance will be gained by mounting the pump low and as close to the gas tank as possible, making the low pressure (inlet) flow circuit short. Most pumps don't do well with suction, but are happy pushing all the gas they can get. - ---------- >From: "Mike Pilkenton" >To: "DIY-EFI" >Subject: fuel pumps >Date: Sat, Jan 30, 1999, 4:34 PM > >Well I'm deep into my engine conversion project and need to install an >electric fuel pump for the EFI engine (3.1L V6). Question is do I have to >put the fuel pump back in the tank or can I install the pump up by the >engine. I know I need the high pressure type made for FI engines and not >the carb (low pressure). Mounting anaftermarket in-line pump up by the >engine sure would be more convenient. Any advice would be appreciated. > >Mike Pilkenton > ------------------------------ From: "David A. Cooley" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:28:02 -0500 Subject: Re: replace an EPROM with an EEPROM? Pinouts are different... 27C256 is a 28 pin, 28256 is a 32 pin... At 05:06 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote: >Has anyone tried to replace an Eprom with and EEprom? >Specifically, Replace the 27c256 in a Memcal with a 28256? >Does anyone know if it would work? or is the pinout somehow different? >The reason I'm interested in doing this is because it would be more economical >and efficient. > >Also, what do people do about removing and replacing their Eproms from the >Memcals when reprogramming them? Do you solder in ZIF sockets? > >I want to start lookin at and modifying my Memcal, but have never done any of >this stuff before. > >Thanks, >Ted =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ From: Shannen Durphey Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:31:19 -0500 Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? Here's one for you to look at, Mike. Torque determination based on crankshaft speeds. http://www.patents.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/WO09829718A1 Mike Pitts wrote: > > >Electromotive and many other systems uses a wheel with many thoths, > >it could give nice resolution for computing accleration, ... > > Also, if it has enough teeth, you can detect weak cylinders > by comparing the waveform in the range of each cylinder. > (ie: the teeth will slow ever so slightly for when a weak cylinder > if firing) > > >automatic calibrating efi isnt that what we all are dreaming of? > > A Felpro with the wideband O2 option comes pretty darn close > if not right on the money to the definition of self calibrating. > > And yes, I do dream of it. 8-) > > -Mike ------------------------------ From: Thomas Matthews Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:03:39 -0500 Subject: Fuel injector cleaner tools Anyone have a source for the injector cleaning tools (on-car type) that will clean both TBI and TPI? I've gone into my local parts stores and asked, and the droid behind the counter inevitably looks at me like I am from Mars... Summitt used to carry these, but they don't any longer. TIA, Tom ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 10:11:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Oh Class, tap, tap, tap ECM'sa smokin On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > It makes sense that injecters in series don't open as fast. There is > more inductance. It takes the current (and the magnetic field) longer to > build to maximum strength. > Sounds reasonable to me, but have a look at US Pat 4553121 ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:09:33 -0500 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff NEVER, Need more data, Cheers Bruce - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Pitts To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:36 AM Subject: More UEGO stuff >Any interest? Is this a waste of bandwidth? > >"This invention provides an self-calibrating buffer amplifier >for a Universal Exhaust Gas Oxygen sensor interface circuit >which couples and processes a voltage signal proportional >to pumping cell current to a level and reference voltage suitable >for input to an A-to-D convertor. The goal of this invention is to >increase the accuracy of air-to-fuel ratio control by continually >correcting for the effects of offset quantities in the amplifier >stage necessary to the interface circuitry. This goal is accomplished >by an approach which effectively generates and subtracts these >offset quantities from the processed signal. " > >http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=US05211154__ > >-Mike > > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:18:38 -0500 Subject: Re: fuel pumps - -----Original Message----- From: Mike Pilkenton To: DIY-EFI Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:43 AM Subject: fuel pumps Close to gas tank, siphon feed, water fuel seperator (between tank, and pump), filter by pump (on engine side). Always remember fuel is a heat magnet. I sucks the heat out of everything near it. I like Mallory's, replace brushes at 35,000 miles, and pump at 60,000, that the interval that has worked for well over 100000 miles for me. Bruce >Well I'm deep into my engine conversion project and need to install an >electric fuel pump for the EFI engine (3.1L V6). Question is do I have to >put the fuel pump back in the tank or can I install the pump up by the >engine. I know I need the high pressure type made for FI engines and not >the carb (low pressure). Mounting anaftermarket in-line pump up by the >engine sure would be more convenient. Any advice would be appreciated. > >Mike Pilkenton > ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:16:09 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This >For what it is worth, no one seems to have mentioned (or else I missed the >post) that many "in the tank" fuel pumps rely on the gasoline in the tank to >cool the pump and need at least 1/4 tank of gas to do this properly. > >If I had a vapor problem, I would at least eliminate this as a possibility >by topping off my tank every time that it went below 1/2 and see if the >problem went away. Particularly if the problem seems to be aggravated by a >near empty tank as one post mentioned. > >Even a pump external to the tank, can be affected by other heat sources , >lack of adequate air flow, etc. but would most likely not be affected by the >low fuel level. Yep. I kinda believe in running either the fuel supply line, the return line, or both through little coolers like those meant for cooling power steering fluid so as to help with this too. If you keep adding heat to something, it's gotta go somewhere! :-) Regards, Greg > > >---------- >>From: Clarence Wood >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >>Subject: Re: Love This >>Date: Fri, Jan 29, 1999, 11:17 PM >> > >>Thanks Greg! I think you have put your finger on a problem that I have >>been having. Please elaborate on the float vent; on what junk cars can I >>remove one and where do I look for it on the car? >> >>At 02:01 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Greg wrote: >>(snip) >>>But >>>if you are doing variable pumping alone, for $#% sakes, use a float vent on >>>the rails, so as to get the #$#% bubbles back to the tank!!! >>> >>>Regards, Greg >>> >>> >>>>Bruce Plecan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: James Weiler >>>>> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >>>>> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:07 AM >>>>> Subject: RE: Love This >>>>> >>>>> For me it's not the plumbing that is the "news". It's being able to >>>>> manipulate >>>>> fuel line pressure without needing a mechanical device. As things sit now >>>>> for TPI the fuel pressure is referenced to engine vac/boost. With this >>>>> device >>>>> a closed loop electrically controlled Fuel pressure trimmer is possible, >>>>> meaning >>>>> big injectors, lower pressure at idle, to help get reasonable pulse >>>>>widths. >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >Sorry to get in this late but so what? I mean whats the advantage of >a >>>>> one line EFI vs. 2 fuel line set-up? Besides less plumbing. >>>>> >thanks >>>>> >jw >>>>> > >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:20:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This - -----Original Message----- From: Shannen Durphey To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:59 PM Subject: Re: Love This Bosch has a Lamda Valve Part No. 0280-150-306, that seems to fit this application. But, till I buy one that's all I know Bruce >Does anybody use a PWM fuel pressure regulator? Or know more about the >part referenced here? >http://efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu/diy_efi/archive/archive_num_88;lines=6114- 6151 > > How about the aftermarket systems that come with tc/sc? It just >seems funny to me to use mechanical regulators and vary pump speed, >instead of maintaining constant pump speed/volume and adjusting >regulated pressure. It seems so simple, and no one does it, that >there must be a "catch". > >Shannen >Bruce Plecan wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: James Weiler >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> >> Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 1:07 AM >> Subject: RE: Love This >> >> For me it's not the plumbing that is the "news". It's being able to >> manipulate >> fuel line pressure without needing a mechanical device. As things sit now >> for TPI the fuel pressure is referenced to engine vac/boost. With this >> device >> a closed loop electrically controlled Fuel pressure trimmer is possible, >> meaning >> big injectors, lower pressure at idle, to help get reasonable pulse widths. >> Bruce >> >> >Sorry to get in this late but so what? I mean whats the advantage of >a >> one line EFI vs. 2 fuel line set-up? Besides less plumbing. >> >thanks >> >jw >> > > ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:20:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Cubic Nonsense On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Robert Harris wrote: > So one fine day as the pee-ants are standing around congratulating and > reassuring themselves that the elephant can't hurt them in a s___ stomping > contest, the elephant (GM) decides its going to end. > > Hello - this is GM air quality PAC. We are updating our campaign > contributions Mr ( fill in the blank politician ) and we seem to have > neglected helping to finance your fine work on the behalf of "concerned" > americans. How many zeros would you like in this check? > > Shortly afterwards the EPA issues new ruling's that vehicles with modified > ECU's must be re-certified with the duplicate of the manufacturers original > test certification at the modifiers/owners expense in a yet to be determined > government approved facility. Then that certification is good only for the > specific make and model and year of the vehicle. Further, since the emissions > system has been modified, the modifier takes full responsibility for the > remainder of the 100,000 mile emissions warranty. If an end user vehicle > "fails" any smog test, it will be prima facia declared to be the modified > whatever"s fault which shall be restored to original manufacturers part prior > to retest. Yada Yada Yada ISO 9001 - comply with federal regulation xxx > submit testing plan 180 days prior to testing for EPA review and approval > prior to testing - full disclosure of modifications - provide facilities for > on site EPA monitoring contiractor > > Ad absurdium. Anyone ever dealing with the government knows that's just the > beginning. > > Vehicles with modified emissions systems not certified as above or failing air > quality tests will be confiscated without recourse. > I don't think GM will want that passed. That would mean they also have to have their modified proms recertified, and I bet they don't go to that much trouble with a service update. And they update quite a few proms to fix things, and I really doubt the go through the entire EPA process each time. Roger ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:23:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Espen Hilde wrote: > > A sudden change in advance would indicate a increase in hp at that > point...... > wouldnt it? > Electromotive and many other systems uses a wheel with many thoths,it could > give nice resolution for computing accleration, the home > dyno should be incorporated in the log system,something for 332efi? > put in some more advance at some points acclerate the car .the system > creating a map of + and - hp of pevious runs?Automatic advance calibration > .... > together with egor and ion.....automatic calibrating efi isnt that what we > all are dreaming of? > just daydreaming again.... > Espen Hilde I would appear to cause a increase for one or two firings. I believe the maker of the home dyno had to do some smoothing to get reasonable data, and I don't think advancing the timing would have a major affect over 3-4 firings, and certainly not over a few more firings wit h some smoothing. Getting there 10 degrees earlier should only be about 10/720 increase in hp which a bit of smoothing would clear right up. > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:30:35 -0500 Subject: Re: Cubic Nonsense - -----Original Message----- From: Roger Heflin To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 3:26 PM Subject: Re: Cubic Nonsense > > >On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Robert Harris wrote: > >> So one fine day as the pee-ants are standing around congratulating and >> reassuring themselves that the elephant can't hurt them in a s___ stomping >> contest, the elephant (GM) decides its going to end. >> >> Hello - this is GM air quality PAC. We are updating our campaign >> contributions Mr ( fill in the blank politician ) and we seem to have >> neglected helping to finance your fine work on the behalf of "concerned" >> americans. How many zeros would you like in this check? >> >> Shortly afterwards the EPA issues new ruling's that vehicles with modified >> ECU's must be re-certified with the duplicate of the manufacturers original >> test certification at the modifiers/owners expense in a yet to be determined >> government approved facility. Then that certification is good only for the >> specific make and model and year of the vehicle. Further, since the emissions >> system has been modified, the modifier takes full responsibility for the >> remainder of the 100,000 mile emissions warranty. If an end user vehicle >> "fails" any smog test, it will be prima facia declared to be the modified >> whatever"s fault which shall be restored to original manufacturers part prior >> to retest. Yada Yada Yada ISO 9001 - comply with federal regulation xxx >> submit testing plan 180 days prior to testing for EPA review and approval >> prior to testing - full disclosure of modifications - provide >facilities for >> on site EPA monitoring contiractor >> >> Ad absurdium. Anyone ever dealing with the government knows that's just the >> beginning. >> >> Vehicles with modified emissions systems not certified as above or failing air >> quality tests will be confiscated without recourse. >> >I don't think GM will want that passed. That would mean they also >have to have their modified proms recertified, and I bet they don't go >to that much trouble with a service update. And they update quite a >few proms to fix things, and I really doubt the go through the entire >EPA process each time. > > Roger > > ------------------------------ From: Steve Gorkowski Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:25:13 -0600 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff If one would come as a kit for under $200.00 with sensor. How many would buy the kit ? No sense to design if one if no one was interested in a wide O2 meter. Steve Mike Pitts wrote: > Any interest? Is this a waste of bandwidth? > > "This invention provides an self-calibrating buffer amplifier > for a Universal Exhaust Gas Oxygen sensor interface circuit > which couples and processes a voltage signal proportional > to pumping cell current to a level and reference voltage suitable > for input to an A-to-D convertor. The goal of this invention is to > increase the accuracy of air-to-fuel ratio control by continually > correcting for the effects of offset quantities in the amplifier > stage necessary to the interface circuitry. This goal is accomplished > by an approach which effectively generates and subtracts these > offset quantities from the processed signal. " > > http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=US05211154__ > > -Mike ------------------------------ From: Chris Conlon Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:31:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Love This At 02:01 PM 1/29/99 -0700, Greg Hermann wrote: >>With this device a closed loop electrically controlled Fuel pressure >>trimmer is possible, meaning big injectors, lower pressure at idle, >>to help get reasonable pulse widths. >>Bruce > >Hey--if you wanna do it right--use a rising rate regulator IN COMBINATION >with a pwm voltage control to the fuel pump AND a calculated fuel pressure >correction to the injector pw calc. It would hafta be a primary--secondary >fuel pressure control loop to be stable--program what the fuel pump is >supposed to do according to load/rpm ()with a look-up table), let the My take on this is that the first level is a simple feedback loop, adjuting fuel pump duty cycle to try and keep fuel pressure constant. Also the usual pulsation damper (or whatever they're called), and somewhere for vapor bubbles to go. A float valve sounds like the Right Way, but it doesn't sound like they're easy to get, not ones that are qualified for fuel rail duty anyway. How about just using a small bleed orifice, like a nitrous jet, feeding the same old return line? You'd end up with a *little* more fuel heating but it's cheap, easy to do, safe, reliable, and the fuel vapor would have someplace to go. That being said I don't think the first level is very good, because the loop bandwidth will be low. Steady state is fine, transients, as always, will be less good. So next your *actual* fuel pressure becomes an input to the ECU, and adjusts your injector pulse width. I think a somewhat larger than usual pulsation damper might be good; fuel rail pressure probably has a lot of the same pulation issues as intake manifold air. The next stage is where Bruce wants to be, the desired fuel pressure is settable, and the actual current fuel pressure is still used to adjust injector PW. The *possible* shortfall here is when you suddenly need a lot more fuel, but since you are still measuring FP it may not be a big issue. The next step from there would be to try and get better fuel pressure response time, via a PID-controller type of setup. Use delta-MAP * RPM or some other measure of changing load to try and put more power thru the fuel pump *before* dropping fuel pressure tells you that you need to. But either way you're still using the actual FP to calc injector PW, so you're still way better off than before. The reasons I don't think you need a mechanical regulator are (1) You're already measuring FP to a high degree of accuracy. The resultant injector PW is going to be a fair bit more accurate than using a mechanical regulator and assuming it's keeping FP constant within say +/- 0.5%. FP variation is somewhat inevitable, at least now we can measure and correct for it. (2) A large pulsation damper gives me the feeling of a safety net wrt possibly large, very fast FP changes caused by individual injectors opening and closing. (Which may not be easily calculated out due to high BW.) Now the next step is putting a fuel temp sensor just before the rail and compensating for fuel temperature too... Hell, I'm sold. Even if I can't get one of those specific Moto units, I don't see why I can't get *something* to do the job, and a PWM controller for the fuel pump is easy. A module from www.powertrends.com is probably more than good enough. I'm just glad this thread came up in time for me to use the ideas on my current project engine. Chris C. ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:29:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: home dyno kit?? On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Mike Pitts wrote: > >Electromotive and many other systems uses a wheel with many thoths, > >it could give nice resolution for computing accleration, ... > > Also, if it has enough teeth, you can detect weak cylinders > by comparing the waveform in the range of each cylinder. > (ie: the teeth will slow ever so slightly for when a weak cylinder > if firing) > It is teeth every 6 degrees. So there are quite a few teeth. I thought GM was using a wheel with 4 teeth (every 90 degrees) to catch misfires, so every 6 degrees would seem to give really accurate info. I have one of those trigger wheels. Any ideal where I can get a crank sensor and what I would have to do to it to make this work? Run it into an op-amp and amp the signal and then do something with it? At 6000 rpm thought, those signals will be running at 3khz so an audio recorder may be a problem, and a more exoitic signal recorder or circuit may be required. Roger ------------------------------ From: Orin Eman Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:41:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff > Any interest? Is this a waste of bandwidth? Yes, keep them coming... Orin. ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pitts" Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 16:31:41 -0500 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff >If one would come as a kit for under $200.00 with sensor. How >many would buy the kit ? No sense to design if one if no one >was interested in a wide O2 meter. If it included an analog output, I would buy at least two for myself. I would like to have one permanently mounted in each of my two cars, with one of them feeding an input into the car's PCM. If it was a readout only, I would still buy one for certain. An analog output of 0-5 volts would be great, non-linear is fine as I could create a linearising table in eprom. I can think of at least three other people locally who would also buy one immediately. As long as these are truely accure wide-band sensors, you wouldn't be able to build enough of them to keep up with the demand I'm sure. - -Mike ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 15:11:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This > >The reasons I don't think you need a mechanical regulator are >(1) You're already measuring FP to a high degree of accuracy. The >resultant injector PW is going to be a fair bit more accurate than >using a mechanical regulator and assuming it's keeping FP constant >within say +/- 0.5%. FP variation is somewhat inevitable, at least >now we can measure and correct for it. (2) A large pulsation damper >gives me the feeling of a safety net wrt possibly large, very fast >FP changes caused by individual injectors opening and closing. >(Which may not be easily calculated out due to high BW.) > >Now the next step is putting a fuel temp sensor just before the >rail and compensating for fuel temperature too... Hi Chris-- > Ok--but watch it with your bigger pulsation damper--if you are going to change fuel pressure with engine operating conditiona, a big capacitance will screw up your response rate ROYALLY!! Regards, Greg > >Hell, I'm sold. Even if I can't get one of those specific Moto units, >I don't see why I can't get *something* to do the job, and a PWM >controller for the fuel pump is easy. A module from >www.powertrends.com is probably more than good enough. I'm just >glad this thread came up in time for me to use the ideas on my >current project engine. > > > Chris C. ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #75 **************************** 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".