DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, 18 February 1999 Volume 04 : Number 120 In this issue: RE: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: multimeter advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: multimeter advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed re: multimeter advice needed re: multimeter advice needed Re: PWM fuel pump Re: PWM fuel pump Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: PWM fuel pump Re: multimeter advice needed Re: multimeter advice needed Re: PWM fuel pump Re: PWM fuel pump modifying fuel rail SV: Air Filter Pontiac Fiero/Firebird SV: 4 cyl engine advice needed Re: modifying fuel rail See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:02:52 -0600 Subject: RE: 4 cyl engine advice needed A Quad 4 puts out respectable HP in street trim and wouldn't be much taller than the stock engine. The weight should be the same or close. The only draw back is rear wheel drive motor mounts would need to be fabricated. Also the Cosworth Vega engine would be fun. Update it with modern ECM and go. > -----Original Message----- > From: bearbvd@xxx.net] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 6:39 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed > > >this should start a nice long thread. > > > >I need some advice on the possibility of doing an engine swap in my 77 > mgb. > >here is the scoop. new stock, these critters put out a huge 65 bhp with > >something just under > >1800cc. big cast iron block and head, with awful simesed intake/exhaust > >ports. > > > >with a better distributor, a downdraft Weber and the usual, mine is > probably > >a little healthier. > >and when I finish my efi project, it'll get better yet. > > > >however it has occurred to me that a later model 4cyl might be a real > idea, > >(and I might get a better efi in the bargain). > > > >lots of people seem to be happy with putting in the 215 cu alum. rover > v8, > >or the '63 Buick v8. > > But where a Buick V-8 (215) will go, a Buick V-6 will go, and then a turbo > :-) > > But, you might need a bigger tranny and rear----(and your tires might > vaporize) > > Greg > >and while I think everyone should have a v8 on an engine stand in their > >garage, and I feel guilty not having one, I am not sure I can justify the > >expense of putting a v8 in the mgb, (new rear, new trans, some fairly > hard > >to find parts and lots of time. > > > >so I am trying to think of hot 4cyl engine/5 speed trans combos. I have > >heard a lot about > >the turbo fuego engine in the Renaults. who does better than a cast iron > 65 > >bhp engine and 4 speed trans ? , I thought about a BMW 320i engine/trans. > > > >any ideas ?? > > > >thanks, Ted Stowe > ------------------------------ From: "Bruce Plecan" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:06:45 -0500 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed - -----Original Message----- From: Jim Yeagley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 8:49 PM Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed That ford 2.3 with turbo is about 450 lbs.. That isn't too much less that a v-8, and about 100 lbs more than a Buick v-6. Bruce >Ted, >Although turbo V-6 Buicks and countless import configurations offer great >performance gains, I would rather agree with Frederick about the Ford >Turbo-4. Not only many T-Birds, but Mustangs and SVO Mustangs, too. Most >came with Borg-Warner T-5 5spd trans, also. I don't know where you live or >what kind of connections you have at yards, but you're probably sure to find >this Ford setup to be waaay cheaper than imports and Buick SEFI Turbo'd 6's. >The Turbo-4 was an excellent performer in my 120,000 mile GT350 Mustang, but >if you want more Ford Motorsports sells cams, heads, etc for these motors. >An SVO Mustang adds intercooler for more go-power, and my favorite low buck >mod is a vacuum solenoid plumbed in the wastegate hose, that bleeds boost >pressure to atmosphere when a switch is thrown. Instant "wow!" You'd have >to look into that computer to avoid the violent "shutdown" when boost >pressures go above 12-15 psi. >I'm cheap, but I like to call myself practical. >Jim Yeagley ------------------------------ From: Jim Davies Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:19:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: multimeter advice needed On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Don Holtz wrote: > I seem to remember that inductive current meters only work on AC, not DC! > No, inductive DC meters are pretty common, like the Sun VAT40/60 etc. ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pilkenton" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:22:49 -0800 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Yep you are referring to the famous 2.3L Ford motor. Extremely popular from early 80s up to 95 or so. This motor is also real popular in all the 4 cyl racing circuits such as sprint, NASCAR Dash 4, dune buggies, etc. Lots of aftermarket stuff available for it from places like Racer Walsh and Esslinger. Available in carb, FI, turbo, twin plugs, crossflow head, etc. Lots of varieties out there. Mike Pilkenton - -----Original Message----- From: Frederic Breitwieser To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:40 PM Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed >> lots of people seem to be happy with putting in the 215 cu alum. rover v8, >> or the '63 Buick v8. > >Heavy, heavy, heavy. > >While Clive suggested is very good. Toyota with a RWD >Corolla transmission should work just fine, and of course, >they bolt together easily enough without any bizarre fangles >for engine/tranny adaptors. > >The first thing that popped into my mind was the Turbo 4 cyl >from Ford, used in their thunderbirds of the mid to late >80's, they ran VERY well, and quite a few of them were >manual trans (5-speed), drag the whole thing over with the >computer and you will have a road terror based on the >fantastic power to weight ratio. I haven't seen one in a >while, but I don't recall the Ford turbo motor being >anywhere near close to the hood of the T-bird, therefore it >might very well fit into your MG. > >Though, there is nothing stopping you from attaching a turbo >to a Toyota engine if you prefer to go that route. Just use >chromoly rings in your engine, and you should be fine if you >keep the compression under 9:1. > >> expense of putting a v8 in the mgb, (new rear, new trans, some fairly hard >> to find parts and lots of time. > >Another option, if you are concerned about the MGB not >holding up to the additional torque of a V8, is to make from >scratch a basic ladder frame - if my memory serves me the MG >is not a unibody, but correct me if I'm wrong. While >building a frame from scratch is fairly inexpensive (so I'm >finding), its extremely time consuming if you do it >yourself. I estimate I will have close to 200 hours on my >chassis when I'm done, but that includes a roll cage, rear >bulkhead, front bulkhead, all nice and triangulated. > >> the turbo fuego engine in the Renaults. who does better than a cast iron 65 >> bhp engine and 4 speed trans ? , I thought about a BMW 320i engine/trans. > >Stay away from the BMW 2002 engine... they are terrible >IMHO. However, any of the late model engines should be >fine, since all the BMW's are RWD, makes the conversion >easier. > >I still like Clive's Toyota idea, probably will fit the >easiest and certainly doable - as how many corolla's are >there in a junkyard... the tranny portion of it would be >cheap. > > >-- >Frederic Breitwieser >Bridgeport, CT 06606 > >http://www.xephic.dynip.com >1993 Superchaged Lincoln Continental >1989 500cid Turbocharged HWMMV >1975 Dodge D200 Club Cab (soon to be twin turbo 440) >2000 Buick GTP (twin turbo V6) > ------------------------------ From: Tedscj@xxx.com Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:26:05 EST Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed In a message dated 2/17/99 7:04:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com writes: > > lots of people seem to be happy with putting in the 215 cu alum. rover v8, > > or the '63 Buick v8. > > Heavy, heavy, heavy. > Actually, I believe the alum. V8 is LIGHTER than the original B series 4cyl. and DEFINITELY lighter than a Ford 2.3! > Another option, if you are concerned about the MGB not > holding up to the additional torque of a V8, is to make from > scratch a basic ladder frame - if my memory serves me the MG > is not a unibody, but correct me if I'm wrong MGBs are unibody. You know, you can do a lot with those series B 4cyl engines. Vizard has a good and extensive book on modifying the A series motor. The B series (which is what you've got) is just a larger version of the same thing. 100hp is easy enough to get out of a 1275cc A series, so I'd imagine you could get close to 140 from your engine. And you don't have to spend a lot of money. The key is a lot of work on your cylinder head (the information on how to do it is already out there. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.) And a VERY HIGH compression ratio. Like 12 to 1. No problem on 91 oct. Stock CR is, I think, 7.5 for a rubber bumper car like yours, which is pitiful considering how much this engine can take, even with street gas. I think the saying goes "if you can't get the air in there, then squeeze the hell out of what you got!" Ted ------------------------------ From: "Mike Pilkenton" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 18:30:44 -0800 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed I also agree this would be a much cheaper approach than an import setup. Cheap and easy to find. Also popular in Ford Rangers with the 5sp setup. I looked into this engine a while back myself and found out that 160 to 170 hp was very reasonable and streetable with basic mods (no turbo). This was straight from Esslinger who specialize in racing 2.3L 4 bangers (that's ALL they do!). You can even get a stroker crank for 2.8L conversions. Mike - -----Original Message----- From: Jim Yeagley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 6:14 PM Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed >Ted, > >Although turbo V-6 Buicks and countless import configurations offer great >performance gains, I would rather agree with Frederick about the Ford >Turbo-4. Not only many T-Birds, but Mustangs and SVO Mustangs, too. Most >came with Borg-Warner T-5 5spd trans, also. I don't know where you live or >what kind of connections you have at yards, but you're probably sure to find >this Ford setup to be waaay cheaper than imports and Buick SEFI Turbo'd 6's. > >The Turbo-4 was an excellent performer in my 120,000 mile GT350 Mustang, but >if you want more Ford Motorsports sells cams, heads, etc for these motors. >An SVO Mustang adds intercooler for more go-power, and my favorite low buck >mod is a vacuum solenoid plumbed in the wastegate hose, that bleeds boost >pressure to atmosphere when a switch is thrown. Instant "wow!" You'd have >to look into that computer to avoid the violent "shutdown" when boost >pressures go above 12-15 psi. > >I'm cheap, but I like to call myself practical. > >Jim Yeagley >Member: www.indyram.org >webmaster@xxx.org >jimyeagley@xxx.net > > > ------------------------------ From: KD6JDJ@xxx.com Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:33:29 EST Subject: Re: multimeter advice needed EXTECH Instruments has a multimeterthat will read starter current and charging current. I wonder if their model B380935 priced at $189 would be of interest to you ? I think that it measures frequency from 0.5 to 9999 hz. A starter on a normal american V8 will draw over 200 amps . A clamp-on DC current meter is a must ( for convenience ). Try http://WWW.extech.com or matbe phone 781 890 7440 . They seem to have a good tech. help for deciding which meter to buy . I bought a 200 amp clamp- on and wish that I had bought a more expensive unit . The one that I have does not turn itself off automatically. I sometimes forget and run the battery down. Jerry Gang, I'm looking for a digital multimeter that can also read frequency (what range I don't know, anybody have any recomendations here?) and handle current high enough to measure alt. output and starter draw so proly close to 100 Amps. Don't know if they come this high. Proly my dream meter is a fluke but I don't want to hand over my first born and perhaps an appendage too. It would be ideal if it could measure current by an inductive pick-up. Don't know if all this is possible at a reasonable price, I may be asking too much. Thanks for any and all advice, jw ------------------------------ From: "Clarence L.Snyder" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:57:56 -0500 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Tedscj@xxx.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/17/99 7:04:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, > frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com writes: > > > > lots of people seem to be happy with putting in the 215 cu alum. rover v8, > > > or the '63 Buick v8. > > > > Heavy, heavy, heavy. > > > > Actually, I believe the alum. V8 is LIGHTER than the original B series 4cyl. > and DEFINITELY lighter than a Ford 2.3! > > > Another option, if you are concerned about the MGB not > > holding up to the additional torque of a V8, is to make from > > scratch a basic ladder frame - if my memory serves me the MG > > is not a unibody, but correct me if I'm wrong > > MGBs are unibody. > > You know, you can do a lot with those series B 4cyl engines. Vizard has a > good and extensive book on modifying the A series motor. The B series (which > is what you've got) is just a larger version of the same thing. 100hp is easy > enough to get out of a 1275cc A series, so I'd imagine you could get close to > 140 from your engine. And you don't have to spend a lot of money. The key is > a lot of work on your cylinder head (the information on how to do it is > already out there. You don't have to reinvent the wheel.) And a VERY HIGH > compression ratio. Like 12 to 1. No problem on 91 oct. Stock CR is, I > think, 7.5 for a rubber bumper car like yours, which is pitiful considering > how much this engine can take, even with street gas. > I think the saying goes "if you can't get the air in there, then squeeze the > hell out of what you got!" > > Ted A friend years ago reworked a 1800 B engine to take a twincam head (from a twincam "A" and dropped it into the twincam car. Very high compression, and EXTREMELY quick. Also a very tight fit, with headers and all. From what I hear he's a surgeon now! ------------------------------ From: goflo@xxx.net Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:14:24 -0800 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed Jon Fedock wrote: > > There is a guy around here that has a MG ("B" I think) with a mild Ford > 2300 and 5-speed (out of a Mustang). It runs *much* better than you would > expect and gets 30mpg to boot. I am *not* a Ford person, but the 2300 is > just about a perfect match. The guy said it "just about put itself in > there." :) Relatively straightforward mods to the 2.3 double stock Hp at reasonable RPM. In a "B" it could be a monster... Of course to maintain surprise you'd have to have a buddy hard ahead driving a tow truck... :) Jack ------------------------------ From: "R. W. Hughes" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:06:47 -0600 Subject: re: multimeter advice needed > It would be ideal if it could measure current by an inductive pick-up. > Don't know if all this is possible at a reasonable price, I may be asking > too much. Tenma makes a hall-effect clamp-on that puts out 1mv per amp ac or dc with pretty good frequency reponse. I think it is 1000amps full scale and minimum resolution will be in the .1 to 1 amp range. Look for a meter with 200mv range if you want to use one of these. - -- Robert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering Houston, Texas rwhughe@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: "R. W. Hughes" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:10:49 -0600 Subject: re: multimeter advice needed > It would be ideal if it could measure current by an inductive pick-up. > Don't know if all this is possible at a reasonable price, I may be asking > too much. Tenma makes a hall-effect clamp-on that puts out 1mv per amp ac or dc with pretty good frequency reponse. I think it is 1000amps full scale and minimum resolution will be in the .1 to 1 amp range. Look for a meter with 200mv range if you want to use one of these. I forgot to mention I paid $50US for mine - -- Robert W. Hughes (Bob) BackYard Engineering Houston, Texas rwhughe@xxx.net ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:17:53 -0600 Subject: Re: PWM fuel pump Jeffrey T. Birt wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm new on this list so this is the first post that I have seen on the subject > of controlling pressure via PWM of the pump. It seems that trying to control a > pump this way would cause premature failure of the pump. Generally starting a > pump (of any type) is much harder on it than continuos operation. PWM would stop > the pump and then restart it under load. It would be much harder on the pump to > start it with 30 lb or so of pressure > against it. > IMHO, the pump never stops, just runs slower.... > Next, picture this scenario. Your tooling along @ 20 mph and your pump is > developing (x) lbs. of pressure. You then mash the accelerator down and the ECU > determines that you now need (x+y) lbs. Currently the fuel system is only @ (x) > lbs., when you accelerate you are effectively lowering the restriction that your > pump is developing pressure against. The duty cycle of you injector(s) go up. > More fuel in the same time period equals less restriction. The pump has to > compensate for the sudden loss of pressure (x) and try to build up even more > pressure (x+y). This situation will lead to a lag in fuel pressure on sudden > acceleration. Hopefully, the pump will respond in milliseconds, the controller in nanoseconds - as fast as the injectors. Tom S ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:23:35 -0600 Subject: Re: PWM fuel pump rauscher@xxx.com wrote: > Getting back on this late... but better then never... > > I think your right on the money here Tom, a PIC or small micro is > the way to go. Due to all the inputs required, and the fuel pressure > curve desired, doing this in analog is not the way to go. > > I have an analog error-amp/charge-pump feedback system working, but > this will only provide for a single pressure. The pressure requested is > by a pot, the real pressure is fed-back via a fuel pressure sensor. This > would be adequate for a TBI system. A port system would need at the > least a manifold pressure sensor (MAP) adjustment also. Bob, I want to use that Motorola/99 Mustang map adjusted fuel pressure sensor that puts out 0-5 volts to feedback the analog circuit... then we have a map + pot adjustable fuel pressure. Phase two is to drive it from an analog or pwm signal from the ECU. how about a schematic for phase one???? Tia Tom > At this point, I've gots' to get the EFI system fully operational on the car, > then I can start playing more with this stuff. > PS I need this on my current vehicle as well as several others on the list..... ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:45:18 -0600 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed > >Toyota 1.8 L 16v EFI > >or 4AGEZ SC from MR2 > >use mid 80s rear drive corrolla 5sp with it > > Toys are OK. I also like the T-Bird idea. I had a Nissan 240SX, 4 popper, 16 valve cammer, and they are a dream also, and super dependable - if you can find one. PS. They are north/south and rwd. Take the whole package. The GM quad 4s are plentifull if you want an auto - I don't know about the 5 spd. Tom S ------------------------------ From: Tom Sharpe Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:46:40 -0600 Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed James Montebello wrote: > > so I am trying to think of hot 4cyl engine/5 speed trans > > combos. I have heard a lot about the turbo fuego engine in the > > Renaults. who does better than a cast iron 65 bhp engine and 4 > > speed trans ? , I thought about a BMW 320i engine/trans. > > Recent Nissan twincam fours from 2 to 2.4 liters. The 240SX can > donate a rear drive 5-speed. I *think* most of the Nissan fours > will bolt up to that. The 2.0 used in the Sentra SE-R and NX2000 > is an especially nice engine. 140hp with hydraulic lash adjusters > and a chain-driven cam. Smooth and low maintenance. I strongly > considered one of these for a Europa. > > james montebello 10-4 TomPS. the Maxima V6 3 liter will also bolt up........... ------------------------------ From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:04:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: 4 cyl engine advice needed > > I'll second this. The 4AGE line is a good high revving and completly capable > TRD designed race engine still in use in the Mid-Atlantic class racers. I > had my NA revved to 9600 rpm before the engine blew. Plenty of power and > without modifing the bottom end a tru 170hp is capable from them. The SC > version is a little more complicated with the Supercharger but still a > really good powerplant. > > >Toyota 1.8 L 16v EFI > >or 4AGEZ SC from MR2 > >use mid 80s rear drive corrolla 5sp with it > > > >> > >> any ideas ?? > > > > > >if you don't want to stick to a 4 the Buick 3.8 is good material > > Come on clive, you can't compare a 3.8 to a 1.6 DOHC Race engine. It is a > good plant but 4cyl's scream when roosted! didn't compare it just offered up the option a NA 4age will do 200 + HP with good head work and still be reliable Clive ------------------------------ From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:05:18 -0700 Subject: Re: PWM fuel pump >Jeffrey T. Birt wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm new on this list so this is the first post that I have seen on >>the subject >> of controlling pressure via PWM of the pump. It seems that trying to >>control a >> pump this way would cause premature failure of the pump. Generally >>starting a >> pump (of any type) is much harder on it than continuos operation. PWM >>would stop >> the pump and then restart it under load. It would be much harder on the >>pump to >> start it with 30 lb or so of pressure >> against it. > >> IMHO, the pump never stops, just runs slower.... > >> Next, picture this scenario. Your tooling along @ 20 mph and your pump is >> developing (x) lbs. of pressure. You then mash the accelerator down and >>the ECU >> determines that you now need (x+y) lbs. Currently the fuel system is >>only @ (x) >> lbs., when you accelerate you are effectively lowering the restriction >>that your >> pump is developing pressure against. The duty cycle of you injector(s) >>go up. >> More fuel in the same time period equals less restriction. The pump has to >> compensate for the sudden loss of pressure (x) and try to build up even more >> pressure (x+y). This situation will lead to a lag in fuel pressure on sudden >> acceleration. > >Hopefully, the pump will respond in milliseconds, the controller in >nanoseconds - as >fast as the injectors. > >Tom S Yep--Tom is right---just don't put any kind of an accumulator downstream of the pump!! Regards, Greg ------------------------------ From: Raymond C Drouillard Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:04:06 -0500 Subject: Re: multimeter advice needed On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:58:39 -0800 Don Holtz writes: >Here is an idea: > >Try using a current sensing resistor. They are usuaully 1mhom (1E-3 ohm), >and a regular voltmeter. Put the resistor in series with the load, and >measure the voltage across it. For a 1m ohm resistor, 100A would read as >100A*.001 ohm=.1V for 1A => 1A*.001ohm = 1mV. These values are readable >by any resonable DMM, and the current sense resistors should be available >at any industrial electronic supply shop (ie. Electrosonic in Canada). > >Note: I^2R=(100A)^2*(.001ohm)10W, so use at least a 10W resistor! A few years ago, I read a construction article for a high-current ammeter. It was a couple of jumper cable type clamps with a short piece of copper wire of a known resistance between them. Small sockets were provided for voltmeter probes (see above). > > >I seem to remember that inductive current meters only work on AC, not >DC! I have never seen a DC current meter that reads magnetically. It could be done with a hall effect sensor, though. It would be an interesting construction project. If you calibrate it to read in the 100A range, you could read in the 10A range by wrapping the wire through the loop ten times. > >Cheers, >Don Holtz ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:04:06 -0500 Subject: Re: multimeter advice needed On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:58:39 -0800 Don Holtz writes: >Here is an idea: > >Try using a current sensing resistor. They are usuaully 1mhom (1E-3 ohm), >and a regular voltmeter. Put the resistor in series with the load, and >measure the voltage across it. For a 1m ohm resistor, 100A would read as >100A*.001 ohm=.1V for 1A => 1A*.001ohm = 1mV. These values are readable >by any resonable DMM, and the current sense resistors should be available >at any industrial electronic supply shop (ie. Electrosonic in Canada). > >Note: I^2R=(100A)^2*(.001ohm)10W, so use at least a 10W resistor! A few years ago, I read a construction article for a high-current ammeter. It was a couple of jumper cable type clamps with a short piece of copper wire of a known resistance between them. Small sockets were provided for voltmeter probes (see above). > > >I seem to remember that inductive current meters only work on AC, not >DC! I have never seen a DC current meter that reads magnetically. It could be done with a hall effect sensor, though. It would be an interesting construction project. If you calibrate it to read in the 100A range, you could read in the 10A range by wrapping the wire through the loop ten times. > >Cheers, >Don Holtz ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 01:19:08 -0500 Subject: Re: PWM fuel pump On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:05:18 -0700 bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) writes: >>Jeffrey T. Birt wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm new on this list so this is the first post that I have seen >on >>>the subject >>> of controlling pressure via PWM of the pump. It seems that trying >to >>>control a >>> pump this way would cause premature failure of the pump. Generally >>>starting a >>> pump (of any type) is much harder on it than continuos operation. >PWM >>>would stop >>> the pump and then restart it under load. It would be much harder >on the >>>pump to >>> start it with 30 lb or so of pressure >>> against it. >> >>> IMHO, the pump never stops, just runs slower.... >> >>> Next, picture this scenario. Your tooling along @ 20 mph and >your pump is >>> developing (x) lbs. of pressure. You then mash the accelerator >down and >>>the ECU >>> determines that you now need (x+y) lbs. Currently the fuel system >is >>>only @ (x) >>> lbs., when you accelerate you are effectively lowering the >restriction >>>that your >>> pump is developing pressure against. The duty cycle of you >injector(s) >>>go up. >>> More fuel in the same time period equals less restriction. The >pump has to >>> compensate for the sudden loss of pressure (x) and try to build up >even more >>> pressure (x+y). This situation will lead to a lag in fuel pressure >on sudden >>> acceleration. >> >>Hopefully, the pump will respond in milliseconds, the controller in >>nanoseconds - as >>fast as the injectors. >> >>Tom S > >Yep--Tom is right---just don't put any kind of an accumulator >downstream of >the pump!! > >Regards, Greg > Perhaps looking at the TPS will help. Any quick increase in throttle opening can be translated into an immediate increase in the duty cycle to the PWM. After a brief time (OK, so some experimentation will be necessary), it can go into "closed loop". Also, it might be necessary to do this on the reverse side. A quick decrease in throttle opening can result in reduced power to the fuel pump. Ray Drouillard ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 01:19:08 -0500 Subject: Re: PWM fuel pump On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 21:05:18 -0700 bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) writes: >>Jeffrey T. Birt wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm new on this list so this is the first post that I have seen >on >>>the subject >>> of controlling pressure via PWM of the pump. It seems that trying >to >>>control a >>> pump this way would cause premature failure of the pump. Generally >>>starting a >>> pump (of any type) is much harder on it than continuos operation. >PWM >>>would stop >>> the pump and then restart it under load. It would be much harder >on the >>>pump to >>> start it with 30 lb or so of pressure >>> against it. >> >>> IMHO, the pump never stops, just runs slower.... >> >>> Next, picture this scenario. Your tooling along @ 20 mph and >your pump is >>> developing (x) lbs. of pressure. You then mash the accelerator >down and >>>the ECU >>> determines that you now need (x+y) lbs. Currently the fuel system >is >>>only @ (x) >>> lbs., when you accelerate you are effectively lowering the >restriction >>>that your >>> pump is developing pressure against. The duty cycle of you >injector(s) >>>go up. >>> More fuel in the same time period equals less restriction. The >pump has to >>> compensate for the sudden loss of pressure (x) and try to build up >even more >>> pressure (x+y). This situation will lead to a lag in fuel pressure >on sudden >>> acceleration. >> >>Hopefully, the pump will respond in milliseconds, the controller in >>nanoseconds - as >>fast as the injectors. >> >>Tom S > >Yep--Tom is right---just don't put any kind of an accumulator >downstream of >the pump!! > >Regards, Greg > Perhaps looking at the TPS will help. Any quick increase in throttle opening can be translated into an immediate increase in the duty cycle to the PWM. After a brief time (OK, so some experimentation will be necessary), it can go into "closed loop". Also, it might be necessary to do this on the reverse side. A quick decrease in throttle opening can result in reduced power to the fuel pump. Ray Drouillard ___________________________________________________________________ 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: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:05:00 -0500 Subject: modifying fuel rail I have a steel Bosch regulator bung I need to attach to a steel GM fuel rail. The rail OD is .750; I made a side cut into the bung with a 3/4" end mill, so the bung fits the curve of the rail very tightly. I have some 1/16" prefluxed brazing rods and some silver solder. Which method would be most appropriate for attaching the regulator bung to the rail? ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ From: "Gustaf Ulander" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:45:21 +0100 Subject: SV: Air Filter Pontiac Fiero/Firebird Hi - ---------- > Från: Ludis Langens > Till: Diy_efi > Ämne: Re: Air Filter Pontiac Fiero/Firebird > Datum: den 17 februari 1999 20:37 > > Gustaf Ulander wrote: > > I am offered a K&N air filter for Pontiac Fiero V6 1985-88/Firebird TPI > > 1985-92 for FREE, but since I have no idea how the filter looks, I don't > > know if I can use it on my application. What I'm looking for is a cone > > style filter or something similar. > > This is not a cone style filter. It is a replacement for the stock > factory filter. It is a hollow cylinder that breathes inside-out. It > goes into a metal housing about the size of a car A/C compressor. Do you mean it draws air from the inside of the cylinder? Sounds strange. A cylindrical filter would work for me too - you don't happen to know of a picture of this? Regards Gustaf ------------------------------ From: "Gustaf Ulander" Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 07:42:49 +0100 Subject: SV: 4 cyl engine advice needed - ---------- > Från: Jason > VW 2.0L 16v engine (134hp stock). It was designed for transverse > mounting and FWD...but...can be mounted otherwise and an Audi 5-spd > tranny bolts right up nicely to make it a RWD config. w/ Audi running > gear. Come to think of it, you could just leave it transverse...and > adapt an Audi Quattro/VW Syncro AWD set-up. That would be way beyond > your project scope though (I'm assuming). But since the Audi is FWD (or 4WD...) too, wouldn't that make for either a FWD or 4WD MGB? Hmm... OK, wild thought here. How about a Volvo 850 inline 5? This mounts to the 960/S/V90 (you did get that one in the states, right) 5-speed manual "M90"-box. Standard output of this engine from 140 to 250 bhp... At least a nice thought? And different... //Gustaf ------------------------------ From: FHPREMACH@xxx.com Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:06:09 EST Subject: Re: modifying fuel rail In a message dated 2/17/99 10:43:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, dave.williams@xxx.us writes: << have a steel Bosch regulator bung I need to attach to a steel GM fuel rail. The rail OD is .750; I made a side cut into the bung with a 3/4" end mill, so the bung fits the curve of the rail very tightly. I have some 1/16" prefluxed brazing rods and some silver solder. Which method would be most appropriate for attaching the regulator bung to the rail? >> Since the strength of the materials is not a problem with either method, I would go with silver brazing as long as the fit is in the .004 or less range. It will distort less as the heat is lower. Silver just requires a tighter fitup as it will not fill gaps as readily as bronze. It is the prefered method when doing aircraft quality fittings and hard lines. They just have the advantage of having induction brazing heads instead of torches. Fred ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #120 ***************************** 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".