DIY_EFI Digest Monday, 1 February 1999 Volume 04 : Number 079 In this issue: RE: Switch Pitch Re: Love This Re: Love This Re: More UEGO stuff Re: More UEGO stuff) Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. Re: Lamda Valve Re: Different Strokes Re: replace an EPROM with an EEPROM? RE: Love This Re: Love This Re: Love This fusible link questions Lexus EFI info Re: Adjusting parameters that determine BLM cell - GM ECM Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. Re: UEGO IDEA was(Re: More UEGO stuff) Re: Adam vs Vapor Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jim Davies Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:45:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: RE: Switch Pitch On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Gwyn Reedy wrote: > Jim, > > You obviously know a lot more about this than I do. Would you care to > elaborate on the Simpson planetary gearset patent and the Ravigneaux design? > Or where can one learn more? > The USPTO is the best place to go. The patents would be before the cutoff date [early 1970s] for internet full text, although you might get some that reference. Try a patent library, the USPTO has a list, or your local librarian would know. ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:54:50 -0600 Subject: Re: Love This xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > The evap. test has been increased from 1 hr to 3 days so is more > difficult to past. Does any one know where i can get a low > permeation fuel neck hose? > alex NAPA - about $5 a foot Tom ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:57:58 -0600 Subject: Re: Love This Get em Ward. Has anyone calculated the vapor pressure @ 200 degrees and compare it with the fuel pressure. I don't think we have a problem... And if we do, IMHO it should be solved with a tiny jet in the return line. Regards Tom Ward Spoonemore wrote: > I think you should check the temp of your fuel after about 30 minutes > running it should be 20- 30 deg less than the coolant temp, remember most of > the fuel is being returned (hot) to the tank at normal driving, The major > problem is keep the pump from running dry and tearing up the pump. > > The "no return" systems came into favor as a result of more restrictive > rules on evap system's. If the fuel isn't returned to the tank the vapor > pressure is much reduced because the fuel is no at ambient temp, (except for > bone head door stop Camaros that have the tank in top of the muffler). > > Ward ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:52:42 -0500 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff The circuitry needed to control the UEGO sensor, prevent current to the ion pump when the sensor is cold, and regulate the heater can be made for less than $20.00. The output would be about 0-5 Volts. Anything else (LCD readout, data logging, HEGO emulation, etc) would, of course, cost extra. Ray Drouillard On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:27:17 +1100 "Ross Myers" writes: > > >>Hi all, >> Any idea how much the EGOR would cost? >> In another message someone mentioned building something for under >>$200 .Would this be a wide range sensor and viewed on an LCD screen? Could >>a PIC be used to read the info and send it to the screen? >>PAUL > > >Just to add my bit, I know Motec sells a wide band monitoring device >for >over $1000, it also uses a 68332 Micro!!!, go here to view - >http://www.motec.com.au/lambda.htm > >Regards > >Ross Myers > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 23:49:42 -0500 Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff) Going one step beyond that: You can replace the regular HEGO sensor with a UEGO sensor that has additional circuitry that allows any mixture to be seen as stoich by the stock computer. It can be made to see 11.5:1 (to use your example) as stoich at WOT, and around 16:1 as stoich during light throttle cruise. There were a few of us toying with that idea a few months ago. The circuitry to do that would be fairly simple. Simply feed the UEGO signal and an appropriate DC level into a adder, then amplify it to get the desired slope. Ray Drouillard On Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:02:39 -0800 "Walter Sherwin" writes: >Sounds like there is a lot of pent up UEGO talent out there. Here is >an >idea for a product that about half of us could really use right now >(I'd >buy two if I could find such an animal). Picture >this........................................................you are >working >on a GM style MAP based system, that is to be converted to artificial >aspiration. Perhaps it was originally artificially aspirated, or >perhaps it >was not. Once the basic control "system" is in place, you and I are >still >faced with the challenge of remappping the open loop VE tables. >Remapping >the VE's can be done labouriously, through data logging, and post hex >editing. > >What about a control box which would take a UEGO signal, and perform >an >appropriate transform equation, and then export the resultant signal >to an >output port which one could connect to the O2 sensor pin of an OEM >MAP >computer. The goal would be to make an artificial setpoint (say >11.5:1 >A/F ratio) appear to the OEM computer as stoich. If this were >possible, >then one could use the OEM computer to generate BLM's and iteratively >(read >this as safely) reach the perfect "MAP" while driving, or while on a >chassis >dyno. Imagine, in one afternoon, you could do the work of several >days. >This would even help the normally aspirated guys. > >Just food for thought. If anyone comes up with one of these (or knows >where >I can find one) then let me know, please. > > > >Thanks; >Walt. > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bruce Plecan >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > >Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 9:39 PM >Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Raymond C Drouillard >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > >>Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 11:39 PM >>Subject: Re: More UEGO stuff >> >>Gee, sounds so easy. Hmm, care to whip up a ION?. >>I certainly hope you weren't making light of Steve's work. >>Bruce >> >> >>>I would buy one. Of course, if I happen to "stumble" across a >design >>>before the kit is available, I would simply build it myself. The >>>circuitry on a UEGO isn't all that complicated. In its most basic >form, >>>it is a single op-amp and a few discretes. Add a few more >components for >>>a double-ended power supply, something to shut off the ion pump when >it's >>>not warm, something to regulate the heater, and you have it. >>> >>>Ray Drouillard >>> >>> >>>On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:25:13 -0600 Steve Gorkowski >>>writes: >>>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>___________________________________________________________________ >>>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >>>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at >http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >>>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] >>> >> > > ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ From: ECMnut@xxx.com Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 23:24:11 EST Subject: Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. Thanks Ross, interesting page.. Mike V > Most of the Aussies on the list will know about this company, but for the > other folks who don't they have some nice stuff. > > http://www.efidirect.com.au/kalmakermenu.htm > ------------------------------ From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 04:35:37 GMT Subject: Re: Lamda Valve Perzactly - the valve CAN be used as a component in a fuel pressure regulator. But - it was simply a bypass valve as part of a complex fuel control system - not a fuel pressure regulator in the classic sense. Looking at one, notice is has a nice clean largish hole all the way thru. And yes, I would use and have advocated repeatedly to use the Lambda Valve whenever a bypass or controllable restriction is needed. First candidate. This valve is a strong candidate for a "Dejection" valve on a Hilborn fueled 302 - simply to trim the over-rich fuel condition at part throttle in conjunction with EGO Lezz say you want a nice high pressure injector system with an excellent spray. The Lambda will routinely handle up to about 100 psi fuel pressure. Plumb a tee off a Bosch CIS high pressure pump. Feed the input of a Lambda valve. Run the line to a little finger sized CIS nozzle - aimed to where you want the fuel injected. Itty bitty nozzle is far easier to plumb in than big ugly solenoid combined with nozzle. The CIS nozzle is a breakover design. Needs about 30 PSI to start flowing. This means no drain back when pressure drops - so line stays hydraulic after shut down instead of piss dribbling into manifold. Has a nice cone spray - mechanically atomized to boot by a vibrating pin. Control is exactly like you would control any solenoid injector - cept you get a higher pressure range, finer spray and much less mechanical fangling to get it in place. Just a thought. 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: Tom Sharpe Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:44:01 -0600 Subject: Re: Different Strokes David Sagers wrote: > 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 SBC needs longer rods. The local 434 alcohol motors turn 7500+ and make 675+ HP w/ a 4BBL and a Donovan aluminum block. The longer stroke motors are hard on blocks and cranks, stock blocks won't last at all in a 432. 410s are now the rage. I have also seen a 355 (400 block 327 crank) at 11000 rpm. 383s, and 377s. Mine is a 6" rod 406. Turbo motors need extremely strong bottom ends. IMHO, the 432 will break the block a 6000 rpm w/ 15 lbs boost, and the crank will be gone too. Go with the 406 or smaller. just another $.02 Tom ------------------------------ From: Chad Clendening Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:48:14 -0600 Subject: Re: replace an EPROM with an EEPROM? I have personally got them from Jameco electronics( p/n 74843), 1-800-831-4242. I have also been provided some samples from a semicoductor supplier. The ones I have bought are the AT28C256-15PC for about $12.00 a piece. Datasheets are available at the ATMEL website. These are true EEPROM devices, as you can write each byte individually. There is no erasing needed to over-write a byte. The flash / eeprom shouldn't be a concern for automotive ECM use as you would have to program it using a programmer unless you can bootload the GM ecm and then write to the program chip. I don't know if this is possible or not? I do know that method works great for standard HC11 chips. The 28F256 IS a 32 pin flash chip. I have 2 samples but havn't touched them. I believe you need to erase the things before writing over the previous program. This is also a 12 volt programming chip meaning you need to apply +12v to program or erase the chip. I personally prefer the AMD29F010 ( 512Kx8) for flash. It is a 5 volt device, dosn't require you to write the entire chip to 00's to erase it, and I have been quoted a price the same or less than the 28F256 in 2000-4000 / yr quantities. To the other questions on the EEPROM: 1) the eeprom DOES NOT loose memory when power is removed. It is simply able to be erased using electricity instead of UV light. 2) You can program it by a variety of methods. EPROM programmers work, It can be written in a matter similiar to SRAM with some hitches - the AT28C256 WORKS in the same pinout as a 62256 SRAM chip ( 256Kx8). 3) you cannot read from the device while writing to it. It has special logic ( data polling) to tell you when the chip is done writing a location. Anything read from the chip while writing can be considered trash. I have heard of some new types where this is not the case. 4) It MAY be possible to write it in the the ECM if the write enable decoding is done on the ECM. I really doubt this as the EPROMS generally need the program pin held at +5v when not programming. I have sucked out the contents of a EPROM from the car ECM using a ribbon cable extending the MUXed bus of a 6811 running a monitor. A 40 pin DIP test clip allows this to be done in about 2 minutes. This gets tricky as the processor on the ECM must be disabled, set in the proper mode... It requires digging very deeply into processor manuals. I wouldn't suggest this as a first uC project! Chad ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:13:43 -0700 Subject: RE: Love This >I think you should check the temp of your fuel after about 30 minutes >running it should be 20- 30 deg less than the coolant temp, remember most of >the fuel is being returned (hot) to the tank at normal driving, The major >problem is keep the pump from running dry and tearing up the pump. YO-- The old Bosch D-jetronic systems on Volvos would vapor lock AT WILL on account of heating up the fuel in the tank too much under sustained high engine load. And I mean the electric pump at the back not even being able to lift the fuel out of the tank to itself. Fuel in the tank almost literally boiling!!! Not running the pump dry was NOT the major problem HERE!!! Regards, Greg > >The "no return" systems came into favor as a result of more restrictive >rules on evap system's. If the fuel isn't returned to the tank the vapor >pressure is much reduced because the fuel is no at ambient temp, (except for >bone head door stop Camaros that have the tank in top of the muffler). > > >Ward > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu >[mailto:owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu]On Behalf Of Greg >Hermann >Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 8:22 AM >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: RE: Love This > > >>> >I know Toyota uses the system in the 1ZZ-FE and claims lower evap >>> >emissions as the reason, FWIW. Less vapor lock? > >Keeping the fuel in the tank cooler keeps its vapor pressure down, and >helps reduce evap emissions. Yes, keeping the tank cooler also provides >more net positive suction head (NPSH) to an in line fuel pump, but it does >nothing to help with keeping fuel vapor out of the fuel rails during >hard/hot running or after a hot soak. > >With no bypass fuel flow, this second problem WILL be worse. > >Greg >>> >>> DO NOT let mfgr BS about less evap emissions get confused with getting >the >>> vapor bubbles out of the fuel rails!!! >>> >>The evap. test has been increased from 1 hr to 3 days so is more >>difficult to past. Does any one know where i can get a low >>permeation fuel neck hose? >>alex ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:24:29 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This >ron.boley wrote: > >> 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 > >1. Raise fuel pressure with RPM (to lower pulse width) to get more >capacity from >small injectors. - -------------------------------------- 2. Allow heat in rails to heat fuel for better vaporization and >economy under cruse conditions. I doubt it--but you knew that, dincha Tom?? Regards, Greg - --------------------------- 3. Reduce load on electrical system when not WOT >(better economy). > >How do you PWM a 15 amp load??? Someone design a circuit please. Can the driver >board be mase to work?? > >TIA TOM ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:30:35 -0700 Subject: Re: Love This >Get em Ward. Has anyone calculated the vapor pressure @ 200 degrees and >compare >it with the fuel pressure. I don't think we have a problem... And if we do, >IMHO it should be solved with a tiny jet in the return line. Regards Tom A tiny jet would work, but you are dealing with several different boiling components in the fuel, some of them pretty damn low, particularly in winter blends. It IS a real issue, particularly under high sustained loads, as in climbing a long grade with a trailer, etc. Regards, Greg > >Ward Spoonemore wrote: > >> I think you should check the temp of your fuel after about 30 minutes >> running it should be 20- 30 deg less than the coolant temp, remember most of >> the fuel is being returned (hot) to the tank at normal driving, The major >> problem is keep the pump from running dry and tearing up the pump. >> >> The "no return" systems came into favor as a result of more restrictive >> rules on evap system's. If the fuel isn't returned to the tank the vapor >> pressure is much reduced because the fuel is no at ambient temp, (except for >> bone head door stop Camaros that have the tank in top of the muffler). >> >> Ward ------------------------------ From: James Weiler Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 21:48:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: fusible link questions gents, Can somebody tell me why fusible links are all the rage now rather than a fuse? Is there some niffty piece of info on these things that I'm missing? Secondly, how do you convert fusible link guage to Amps? i.e. 20 GA fusible link will blow at what amperage? thanks to all in advance jw ------------------------------ From: Mike Morrin Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 18:54:37 +1300 Subject: Lexus EFI info I posted a few months ago about a friend who is fitting a Lexus V8 into a Jaguar XJ6. I finally saw the engine, and it appears to have all of the EFI components except the ECU. He will be running a manual transmission (Toyota Supra), and thus will not have a transmission ECU. Will a stock Lexus ECU run without a transmission ECU? Does it require a VSS or other non-engine-related signals? Are there anyone out there who can modify a Lexus ECU to run in this application? regards, Mike ------------------------------ From: Roger Heflin Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 00:02:07 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Adjusting parameters that determine BLM cell - GM ECM On Sun, 31 Jan 1999, Mike wrote: > >> > >> If your BLM is at 110 or so, your running way fat. Any chance of turning > >> down the fuel pressure a pound or two or three? Or is it okay up top and > >> rich down low? > >> > > > >The part throttle tables are rather rich. At wot I am running 850-870 > >mv which should be pretty good. It also varies quite a bit from cell > >to cell on how excessivly rich things are. There is at least 3 cells > >that are within a reasonable amount. > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but the block learn multiplier and integrator are > ignored at WOT (or more correctly, open loop), at any RPM, so any tuning you > do here won't affect WOT operation. If the system is running closed-loop, > there aren't any tables per se (except maybe the block cells which are > derived from the integrator anyway) that are used to adjust fuel. It's all > done off the integrator and O2 sensor. I wonder if you can find if there's > an injector "scaling" factor that could be used to apply a reduction in IPW > rather than tweaking the logic. I was hoping there were tables for each block learn cell. I guess there are not any tables for the BLM's. I have found what I believe may be the injector constant (0x867C), I don't have the stock prom I started with, but I have some other copies of stock proms, and it looks like that value was originally 0x09B9 (2489), my current value is 0x0C4E (3150), the ratio of the two is 1.265, the stock injectors were 22 lb and the current ones are 30 lb (ratio 1.364), so if that is the injector adjustment it needs to be adjusted higher. I am figuring on trying to adjust things by about 2% or so at a time. The injector adjustment will affect the BLM stuff and the WOT tables right? Is there something else this will affect? I know I will have to watch the WOT O2 levels and make sure they don't get too low, but it is pretty fat throught the range, so things should be pretty safe so long as I am careful. > > To me, 850-870 on the O2 still sounds a tad fat but it's really a call that > should be made after dyno pulls with other O2 voltages seen for comparison. > I thought the Buick GN crowd shoot for somewhere around 700-800mV... > Yeah, I have heard best hp is closer to 800-810 or so. Someone on the f-body list dyno tuned and got 810 as best hp. Roger ------------------------------ From: Andrew Choset Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 01:54:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. I became very interested in this when I saw the website, so I proceeded to e-mail the manufacturer, in order to find out if I could make use of the product in my 88 IROC with 350TPI. Unfortunately, here's the reply I received: >sorry, this is not possible. It is designed to work with a Holden Delco ECM... >Cheers >Brad-- >The Toy Shop Automotive Boutique >EFI DIRECT Pty Ltd >Technology ~ Excellence >The Home of KalMaker Software Is this the case? I'd appreciate any insight into the matter. Thanks, Andrew Choset >> Most of the Aussies on the list will know about this company, but for the >> other folks who don't they have some nice stuff. >> >> http://www.efidirect.com.au/kalmakermenu.htm >> > ------------------------------ From: Stuart Bunning Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:23:34 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: UEGO IDEA was(Re: More UEGO stuff) Sounds Good But wouldn't this only work for OPEN LOOP mode?? Once you nail it of your car is cold and hasn't enable closed loop mode even if the ECU still generated BLM's at WOT or cruise when cold based on O2 sencor voltage it doesn't alter fueling to try to stay at 14.7:1 anyway. or am i wrong ???? >What about a control box which would take a UEGO signal, and perform an >appropriate transform equation, and then export the resultant signal to an >output port which one could connect to the O2 sensor pin of an OEM MAP >computer. The goal would be to make an artificial setpoint (say 11.5:1 >A/F ratio) appear to the OEM computer as stoich. If this were possible, >then one could use the OEM computer to generate BLM's and iteratively (read >this as safely) reach the perfect "MAP" while driving, or while on a chassis >dyno. Imagine, in one afternoon, you could do the work of several days. >This would even help the normally aspirated guys. > 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: Stuart Bunning Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:26:45 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Adam vs Vapor WHAT OTHER LIST... FEED ME. FEEEEEEEEEED ME At 06:21 PM 31/1/99 -0500, you wrote: >On another list it was mentioned some of the blokes in Oz may have >compared some IR Carb'd stuff to Plenum, EFI, using maybe even the >same size runners. Was curious if anyone around here was involved, >or know directly what the results were.... >Cheers >Bruce > > 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: Stuart Bunning Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 17:51:24 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Tweak your Delco's boys!!!!. As far as I know the KALMAKER will work in nearly all DELCO ecu in Australia manufactured up intil about 1996 except the latest model cars the use the newer generation ECU and MAF instead of MAP. 1227277,1227808,16183082 and 16206305 and the 16176424 PCM are about all the p/n's I know that will run KALMAKER Apart from the first two the 277 and 808 that need a extra chip installed to enable the 8192 baud ALDL they are all basically the same UNIT inside if you remove the cover as the pinout is identical and memcal's can be swapped between them all except PCM to ECM. The USA equivivent to the 808 is i believe the 1227165 (165) But I have also plugged BIN's from USA that I found into my bench ECU and they worked fine so I assume the P4 ecu has various partnumbers throught the world and KALMAKER should work perfectly on the 165 at least. What ECU does the 88 IROC with 350TPI have on it. >>> >>>The boys at KALMAKER are very switched on. But they may have zero experience in the USA >>>stuff... >>> >>> >>>sorry, this is not possible. It is designed to work with a Holden Delco >>>ECM... 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/ ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #79 **************************** 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".