DIY_EFI Digest Monday, March 29 1999 Volume 04 : Number 199 In this issue: Chip for Northstar Re: Chip for Northstar Re: Chip for Northstar Negative Overlap" or more commonly known as Pressure Balance cams Re: EPROM Emulator Re: Chip for Northstar RE: EPROM Emulator Re: EPROM Emulator Plugs vs. Boost Are all GM IACs the same? Re: EPROM Emulator Re: Plugs vs. Boost Re: AW: diy flow bench Re: OBD II guys "Black box recorder" (Looong) Re: Plugs vs. Boost Re: Chip for Northstar Re: EST observations (kinda long Odometer redundancy (ECM capture) Fuel Injection System Re: Valve Overlap RE: Plugs vs. Boost Re: Fuel Injection System See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 04:06:28 PST From: "Chris Moore" Subject: Chip for Northstar Hi, I have a very unique car. I have a 1987 Fiero GT with a 1995 Cadillac Northstar. It runs great but it will not peel out. I only know of about 5 of these projects in the Nation and they all have this problem. My engine only has 16,000 miles on it. (just for you info). I think that it is the Torque Management located in the PROM. Torque Management was to make sure you do not peel out under a heavy load situation. It kills injectors and plays with the timing. It is all explained in the GM manual. I had Super Chip try to make a chip for me and they said that they could take care of the problem. It still did not fix it. I was wondering if you guys could help me out? Please let me know. Thank you. Chris Moore ASE Master Auto Tech Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 07:54:53 -0500 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar At 04:06 AM 3/29/99 -0800, you wrote: >Hi, > I have a very unique car. I have a 1987 Fiero GT with a 1995 >Cadillac Northstar. It runs great but it will not peel out. I only >know of about 5 of these projects in the Nation and they all have this >problem. My engine only has 16,000 miles on it. (just for you info). I >think that it is the Torque Management located in the PROM. Torque >Management was to make sure you do not peel out under a heavy load >situation. It kills injectors and plays with the timing. It is all >explained in the GM manual. I had Super Chip try to make a chip for me >and they said that they could take care of the problem. It still did >not fix it. I was wondering if you guys could help me out? Please let >me know. Thank you. Chris, Did you transplant the ABS and Traction control as well? If not, that may be the problem... The Caddy PCM looks for input from the ABS and TC modules... If it doesn't see it, and the chip still thinks the modules are there it will severely torque limit thinking there is a problem that could cause loss of control. You need to find someone with the GM Cal Docs that can disable the ABS/TC parameters. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. =========================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 05:28:26 PST From: "Chris Moore" Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar Hi, I did hook up the brake module which is the traction control and the abs control computer. I do not have any wheel inputs though. How can I get this to work? Explain more about the GM CAL Docs. Thanks. Chris Moore >From: "David A. Cooley" >Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar >Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 07:54:53 -0500 > >At 04:06 AM 3/29/99 -0800, you wrote: >>Hi, >> I have a very unique car. I have a 1987 Fiero GT with a 1995 >>Cadillac Northstar. It runs great but it will not peel out. I only >>know of about 5 of these projects in the Nation and they all have this >>problem. My engine only has 16,000 miles on it. (just for you info). I >>think that it is the Torque Management located in the PROM. Torque >>Management was to make sure you do not peel out under a heavy load >>situation. It kills injectors and plays with the timing. It is all >>explained in the GM manual. I had Super Chip try to make a chip for me >>and they said that they could take care of the problem. It still did >>not fix it. I was wondering if you guys could help me out? Please let >>me know. Thank you. > >Chris, >Did you transplant the ABS and Traction control as well? >If not, that may be the problem... The Caddy PCM looks for input from the >ABS and TC modules... If it doesn't see it, and the chip still thinks the >modules are there it will severely torque limit thinking there is a problem >that could cause loss of control. >You need to find someone with the GM Cal Docs that can disable the ABS/TC >parameters. >=========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. >=========================================================== Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:43:49 GMT From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Subject: Negative Overlap" or more commonly known as Pressure Balance cams So spank me silly. Some one asks what the theory is, Some one explains and supplies a reference, and then someone else whips out his manhood and tries to ram it home because he personally does not agree. First rule: If you don't personally know the person writing (especially including me), put your hip boots on and consider the source and the value of free advice. Next, - tend to go with the published experts - they probably have a much better chance of knowing what they are talking about - especially if they have been well tested, hired as consultants, won many races and are extremely respected through out the industry. When in doubt, go with your own local engine builder guru racing type. Since his buns are subject to toasting for losing, odds are he probably has a clue - unlike many on the internet. And finally - take it with a sense of humor. Engines are far more forgiving of religious dogma than we are. 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 06:36:15 -0800 (PST) From: andy quaas Subject: Re: EPROM Emulator Put me down for one. Andy Quaas - --- "David A. Cooley" wrote: > At 06:36 PM 3/28/99 +1000, you wrote: > > >Can you post a URL? > > Sure can: > > http://www.paulandmark.u-net.com/electron/Computer/Eprom_Emulator/eprom_emul > ator.htm > > I've re-done the PCB so there are no jumpers, but now > it's double sided... > Sent out a few quotes last night, and depending on > quantity, will change > overall price. > If I can get a list of those that want boards after > looking over the site > to make sure it's what you want, then I'll have a > guess on price each and > can make a group buy on the boards. > > =========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: > N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. > Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is > futile...you will be approximated. > =========================================================== > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @xxx.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 10:16:13 -0500 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar Hi Chris, The wheel sensors not being there may be the key... There is a "Brake Torque" mode the PCM uses that cuts back timing and fuel when it doesn't see wheel (or VSS) input but see's throttle/rpm etc... The GM Cal Doc's are the actual calibration documents showing what tables etc are where in the chip. VERY helpful for modifying code as you can flag it to say that the ABS/Traction control isn't there. - -----Original Message----- From: Chris Moore To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar >Hi, > I did hook up the brake module which is the traction control and the >abs control computer. I do not have any wheel inputs though. How can I >get this to work? Explain more about the GM CAL Docs. Thanks. > >Chris Moore > > >>From: "David A. Cooley" >>Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >>Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar >>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 07:54:53 -0500 >> >>At 04:06 AM 3/29/99 -0800, you wrote: >>>Hi, >>> I have a very unique car. I have a 1987 Fiero GT with a 1995 >>>Cadillac Northstar. It runs great but it will not peel out. I only >>>know of about 5 of these projects in the Nation and they all have this >>>problem. My engine only has 16,000 miles on it. (just for you info). >I >>>think that it is the Torque Management located in the PROM. Torque >>>Management was to make sure you do not peel out under a heavy load >>>situation. It kills injectors and plays with the timing. It is all >>>explained in the GM manual. I had Super Chip try to make a chip for >me >>>and they said that they could take care of the problem. It still did >>>not fix it. I was wondering if you guys could help me out? Please >let >>>me know. Thank you. >> >>Chris, >>Did you transplant the ABS and Traction control as well? >>If not, that may be the problem... The Caddy PCM looks for input from >the >>ABS and TC modules... If it doesn't see it, and the chip still thinks >the >>modules are there it will severely torque limit thinking there is a >problem >>that could cause loss of control. >>You need to find someone with the GM Cal Docs that can disable the >ABS/TC >>parameters. >>=========================================================== >> David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net >> Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 >> I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be >approximated. >>=========================================================== > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:56:25 -0700 From: Marc Piccioni Subject: RE: EPROM Emulator David, All my name to the list of interested people, I might be able to help getting decent prices on parts. /Marc - -----Original Message----- From: David A. Cooley To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Sunday, 28 March 1999 12:29 Subject: EPROM Emulator >Hey all, >Found a cheap emulator on the web that supports up to 27512 eproms...... >Have to build it though, just circuit and parts list... >Ran it through Protel and have the GERBER files for a double sided PCB... >Parts should be about $50.00, not sure what PCB's run to have made... Any >suggestions on how to go about this appreciated, and if anyone wants to run >with this, I can send you the files. >Thanks, >Dave > >=========================================================== > David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated. >=========================================================== begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AL0`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`% !```!````# ````,``# #````"P`/#@`````"`?\/ M`0```%L`````````@2L?I+ZC$!F=;@#=`0]4`@````!D:7E?969I0&5S;"YE M;F5]E9FE 97-L+F5N9RYO:&EO+7-T871E+F5D=2<` M`````@$+, $````D````4TU44#I$25E?149)0$533"Y%3D6T$=*^ MG$1%4U0`````'@`># $````%````4TU44 `````>`!\,`0```!@```!M<&EC M8VEO;FE 871T8V%N861A+FYE= `#``80"E/(F ,`!Q!'`P``'@`($ $```!E M````1$%6240L04Q,35E.04U%5$]42$5,25-43T9)3E1%4D535$5$4$5/4$Q% M+$E-24=(5$)%04),151/2$5,4$=%5%1)3D=$14-%3E104DE#15-/3E!!4E13 M+TU!4D,M+2TM+4]220`````"`0D0`0```.,#``#?`P``508``$Q:1G4QN]?\ M_P`*`0\"%0*H!>L"@P!0`O()`@!C: K 2!N80> ('1J;QXP:!X@ M; 0`!4!O/&8@"X 3T!>@$\%D( AP96\+4&4L($G1';!I9V@%0&(>( &@AR @ M'C(>@&QP(&<1P/)T"X!G( 6!"? %0!-0/FDB@ 0@`B ?T K ='/2+ARL+TT* MP&,*AQMZGQ<``$ =!@J+'K S-@WPJR6,$U!O$]!C!4 M*:)Z3P409PN !T % MT >0 IHPJ%1@xxx.APT614P+B (4 ;P91W0/,!N-7AM=$ @X!V0IG,( M8!YP+FX1P#X*A814;ROP9&EY7PW 3&E +U$:X#(N"?!G0"YO:&EO+1/ 8?,3 MT"_P9'4M`"\?,"XN5@xxx.350-3 R M.C(Y,PJ%-#!B:BEA*_!%4,A23TTVT&UU"V >0&9R'*P*A3Y(+.$'0&RY')8^ M1@A@-% A`" 1<'QE82' $^ W9",R'G)W#&5B'F$PL"!S=7 >(V)U`Q ?P&D%0!YP)PA@(* @0&IU'M%C M:?\DX#^P!4 `HSYYGE(#D4 #`V! 82!0*3(?`R!!@A& /T(>@4=% M4OI"15 @,9 @( 0@`A %P'TZ@&0(8"$B`) -L!_ 4-1#0CYY4$'306<>4$DD'G $`"$`/+!_%Z!! M`#"Q'(!!;X!0 `(," LV('\>;X!'@`]``$````%````4D4Z '( ````#[CP`' ` end ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 08:16:00 -0800 From: Eric Aos Subject: Re: EPROM Emulator Count me in for a board or two. PS, am I the only one needing a burner? they have a DIY burner as well.. hint hint :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:46:35 -0700 From: Jason_Leone@xxx.com Subject: Plugs vs. Boost <> When properly prepared, I agree. Anyone remember the old 1.5L F1 engines putting out 1000hp? EFI content: Let's talk about plugs vs. boost...what's the consensus here? Colder plugs for boost? Single electrode vs. multi electrode? Gapped smaller? Thoughts on that? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:01:46 -0800 (PST) From: andy quaas Subject: Are all GM IACs the same? I know of 2 types of GM IAC motors: both have 4 wires, one has 2 rows of 2 pins, the other has one row of 4 pins (this is newer, i think). Can you replace on with the other by putting on a new connector? Andy _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @xxx.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:03:07 -0500 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: EPROM Emulator Hi Eric, I'm working on getting the burner in PROTEL as well...! - -----Original Message----- From: Eric Aos To: 'diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 11:15 AM Subject: Re: EPROM Emulator >Count me in for a board or two. > >PS, am I the only one needing a burner? they have a DIY burner as well.. >hint hint :) > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:11:47 -0500 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: Plugs vs. Boost What has worked the best for the Buick GN's is one heat range colder and using the CR42TS instead of the R42TS... Has a larger diameter center electrode and wider ground electrode (conducts heat away faster to eliminate pre-ignition from hot electrodes) and gapped down 3-5 thousandths smaller from stock spec's. - -----Original Message----- From: Jason_Leone@xxx.com> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 12:13 PM Subject: Plugs vs. Boost ><> > >When properly prepared, I agree. Anyone remember the old 1.5L F1 engines putting >out 1000hp? > > >EFI content: >Let's talk about plugs vs. boost...what's the consensus here? Colder plugs for >boost? Single electrode vs. multi electrode? Gapped smaller? Thoughts on that? > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:30:09 +0000 From: H Villemure Subject: Re: AW: diy flow bench Wayne, I have a hard time finding those articles. Do you have them handy? In PDF or anything? Or is there a site where to get them? I have an idea of how I would design one, but I do not have much experience and could spare a few hundred hours :) by reading about this topic. Thank you, > > Matt, > If you are interested in a diy flowbench Popular Hotting had a two > part > story on building a very good flow bench. The articles were dated Sept. > 93 and > Oct. 93. I know it is accurate as I have built a 600 cfm version and am > very > pleased with the results. Cost was about $700. Another style of > flowbench was > articled in Mopar Tech Special issue #7. It would be cheaper but I > don't know > how accurate it would be. > Hope this helps. If you can't find the articles I would be glad to send > you > my drawing of the flowbench. > TIA Wayne - -- Helene V. ___________________ welcome to mk2@xxx.com visit us at http://come.to/helene-and-matti ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:24:56 -0800 From: Terry Martin Subject: Re: OBD II guys "Black box recorder" (Looong) > > > I read a few days ago somewhere about a flight recorder system being > > > introduced, hooked into airbag system. > > > alex > > GM claimed up to 10 crashes can be recorded by airbag control module > > IIRC. > > This was in 96 or 97. > > Shannen > The new model will record mph, rpm, time and about eight other > useful items for accident investigation and your day in court. > alex 07/22/1998 - GM to Fit Cars with 'Black Box' Crash Recorders Austin, Texas - General Motors will begin installing "black box" crash data-recording equipment in nine of its 1999-model cars, reports the Detroit News. The system, which GM calls its "advanced event data recorder," saves data from the final few moments preceding a crash to better enable engineers and investigators to reconstruct the event. In an accident, GM's 1998 models already record the airbag's state of readiness, when the airbag deployed and whether the seat belt was in use. The new system adds vehicle and engine speeds, throttle position and brake use for the five-second period before the crash; the data is captured in one-second intervals in a process conceptually similar to an endless-loop tape. Models scheduled to be fitted with the new system include Buick's Century, Park Avenue and Regal; Cadillac's Eldorado, Deville and Seville; Chevrolet's Camaro and Corvette; and Pontiac's Firebird. The devices are part of a broad spectrum of equipment or controls known as Intelligent Transportation Systems, or ITS. [Federal Register: November 9, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 216)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 60270-60271] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09no98-17] ======================================================================= - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 571 [Docket No. NHTSA 98-4672] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Price T. Bingham, a private individual. The petitioner requested that the agency initiate rulemaking to require air bag sensors to be designed so that data is recorded during a crash and can be read by crash investigators. The agency agrees that the recording of crash data from air bag sensors, as well as other vehicle sensors, can provide information that is very valuable in understanding crashes. This information can then be used in a variety of ways to improve motor vehicle safety. The agency is denying the petition because the auto industry is already voluntarily moving in the direction recommended by the petitioner. Further, the agency believes this area presents some issues that are, at least for the present time, best addressed in a non-regulatory context. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Clarke Harper, Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: J. Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC- 20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366- 3820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from Price T. Bingham, a private individual. Mr. Bingham stated that air bag sensors are capable of collecting and recording data that could be extremely valuable to crash investigators. He stated his concern in light of air bag deployments that might be ``spontaneous,'' but did not limit his petition to that issue. The petitioner asked the agency to initiate rulemaking to require manufacturers to design their air bag sensors so that data are collected and recorded during a crash so that they can be read by crash investigators. [[Page 60271]] NHTSA notes that the safety community in recent years has had considerable interest in the concept of crash event recorders. Such recorders can, in conjunction with the air bag and other sensors already provided on many vehicles, collect and record a variety of relevant crash data. These data include such things as vehicle speed, belt use, and crash pulse. The additional and more accurate data about crashes that could be provided by crash event recorders would enable investigators to develop a significantly better understanding of how and why crashes occur. This information could then be used in a variety of ways to improve motor vehicle safety, e.g., the information could be used to improve vehicle designs, improve safety standards, and develop improved public education campaigns. A more immediate safety benefit can occur if the occurrence of a crash is immediately and automatically communicated to local emergency services, thereby shortening the response time of the correct emergency services. NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Research is currently testing, in the Buffalo, New York area, an Automated Collision Notification system that uses single point electronic crash sensors, a global positioning system receiver and a cellular phone to facilitate emergency services dispatch. This program has been the subject of recent press articles, copies of which are being placed in the docket. The agency notes that on June 10, 1997, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) adopted a series of recommendations concerning air bag safety and occupant restraint use which, among other things, called on NHTSA and the vehicle manufacturers ``to develop and implement * * * a plan to gather better information on crash pulses and other crash parameters in actual crashes, utilizing current or augmented crash sensing and recording devices.'' The recommendations followed a public forum convened by the NTSB in March 1997. Also, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, in its April 1998 Advanced Air Bag Technology Assessment, included a recommendation that NHTSA study the feasibility of installing and obtaining crash data for safety analyses from crash recorders on vehicles. The auto industry is already beginning to voluntarily install crash event recorders on some vehicles. For example, General Motors (GM) has had crash event recorders on some of its vehicles for several years and is planning to install more advanced systems in the future. NHTSA notes that, as part of a recent investigation carried out by its Special Crash Investigations program, it was able to use information obtained from a GM vehicle equipped with a crash event recorder. Persons who are interested in knowing more about GM's program for crash event recorders may wish to read a recent article on that subject that was published in the Detroit News. The agency is placing a copy of that article in the docket. Also, at the agency's invitation, GM made a presentation concerning its crash event recorders at NHTSA's September 17, 1998 quarterly meeting held to answer questions from the public and the regulated industries regarding the agency's vehicle regulatory and research program. Information presented by GM at this meeting is being placed in the docket. While NHTSA believes that crash event recorders have the potential to provide valuable information for its vehicle regulatory program, the agency believes that a rulemaking to require such recorders is not now appropriate. First, as discussed above, the industry is already moving to voluntarily provide such recorders. Second, as the development and installation of these recorders, and decisions about what data should be recorded and how they should be retrieved, are in their infancy, NHTSA believes it is premature to consider regulating such devices. Given this context, such a rulemaking would not appear to be a good use of limited agency resources. Moreover, there are a variety of issues related to the implementation of crash event recorders that may be better addressed, at least initially, outside the rulemaking context. In addition to deciding what specific crash data to record, other issues include, among other things, possible standardization of the means for retrieving the data, access to the data by the agency and crash investigators, and privacy issues. The agency notes that the means for retrieving data from crash event recorders is currently proprietary. This means that the involvement of the vehicle manufacturer is necessary to retrieve the data. NHTSA has not had any difficulty obtaining cooperation from vehicle manufacturers to obtain data from crash event recorders. While the retrieval of such data would be facilitated if the means for retrieving it were standardized, a number of issues may need to be addressed in order to achieve such standardization, e.g., analysis of available alternative means for retrieval and consideration of privacy and related issues. NHTSA introduced the topic of crash event recorders (these devices are also called event data recorders or EDRs) for action to the Motor Vehicle Safety Research Advisory Committee (MVSRAC) during its April 29, 1998 meeting. MVSRAC consists of 16 members representing governments, industry, academia, the medical community and public interest groups and functions to advise NHTSA about complex technical topics. MVSRAC approved setting up a working group on EDRs under the Crashworthiness Subcommittee. The agency solicited names from the full committee and subcommittee for nomination to work on the working group. The first meeting of the working group took place in October, and others are planned for next year. NHTSA believes that the approach of relying on the efforts of individual manufacturers to voluntarily introduce crash event recorders, coupled by the work of the MVSRAC working group on this subject, is the best way to proceed at this time. The involvement of the MVSRAC working group will ensure that issues relating to the implementation and use of crash event recorders receive the attention of a wide variety of experts, and that the agency obtains the benefit of hearing the views of those experts. Moreover, NHTSA will ensure that MVSRAC considers topics of particular interest to the agency, including access to the data by the agency. For the reasons discussed above, the agency is denying Mr. Bingham's petition for rulemaking. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 3, 1998. James R. Hackney, Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards. [FR Doc. 98-29922 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P - -- http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/ Hear what a paid insurance company hack has to say about my career prospects. http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/pacheco.wav ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:34:03 +0000 From: Frederic Breitwieser Subject: Re: Plugs vs. Boost > Let's talk about plugs vs. boost...what's the consensus here? Colder plugs for > boost? Single electrode vs. multi electrode? Gapped smaller? Thoughts on that? On my 4.1L twin-turbo monstrosity we used colder plugs (longer insulator) with a .045 gap instead of the stock .032 gap, using platinum tipped plugs of some sort. I've never had good luck with splitfires, mostly because the split parts tends to burn up for some reason, though that might just be my engines. - -- 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) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:41:54 -0500 From: Ken Kelly Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar Chris, If you can figure out the correct ratio, I would pick up the VSS signal scale it to the wheel frequency, and feed all the wheel sensor inputs with that signal. It would always have the right input, and never see wheel slip!! All you really need to know is how many pulses per revolution the wheel sensors output. Ken "David A. Cooley" wrote: > > Hi Chris, > The wheel sensors not being there may be the key... > There is a "Brake Torque" mode the PCM uses that cuts back timing and fuel > when it doesn't see wheel (or VSS) input but see's throttle/rpm etc... > The GM Cal Doc's are the actual calibration documents showing what tables > etc are where in the chip. > VERY helpful for modifying code as you can flag it to say that the > ABS/Traction control isn't there. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Moore > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> > Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 8:40 AM > Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar > > >Hi, > > I did hook up the brake module which is the traction control and the > >abs control computer. I do not have any wheel inputs though. How can I > >get this to work? Explain more about the GM CAL Docs. Thanks. > > > >Chris Moore > > > > > >>From: "David A. Cooley" > >>Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > >>To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > >>Subject: Re: Chip for Northstar > >>Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 07:54:53 -0500 > >> > >>At 04:06 AM 3/29/99 -0800, you wrote: > >>>Hi, > >>> I have a very unique car. I have a 1987 Fiero GT with a 1995 > >>>Cadillac Northstar. It runs great but it will not peel out. I only > >>>know of about 5 of these projects in the Nation and they all have this > >>>problem. My engine only has 16,000 miles on it. (just for you info). > >I > >>>think that it is the Torque Management located in the PROM. Torque > >>>Management was to make sure you do not peel out under a heavy load > >>>situation. It kills injectors and plays with the timing. It is all > >>>explained in the GM manual. I had Super Chip try to make a chip for > >me > >>>and they said that they could take care of the problem. It still did > >>>not fix it. I was wondering if you guys could help me out? Please > >let > >>>me know. Thank you. > >> > >>Chris, > >>Did you transplant the ABS and Traction control as well? > >>If not, that may be the problem... The Caddy PCM looks for input from > >the > >>ABS and TC modules... If it doesn't see it, and the chip still thinks > >the > >>modules are there it will severely torque limit thinking there is a > >problem > >>that could cause loss of control. > >>You need to find someone with the GM Cal Docs that can disable the > >ABS/TC > >>parameters. > >>=========================================================== > >> David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net > >> Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 > >> I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be > >approximated. > >>=========================================================== > > > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:36:41 -0800 From: Terry Martin Subject: Re: EST observations (kinda long I just rejoined the group, so excuse my butting into a thread. You look like you've captured the PWM signal (Pulse Width Modulated), and it looks like you've interpreted it right to me. Tedscj@xxx.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/23/99 1:34:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, Tedscj@xxx.com > writes: > > > > > What I saw: I am going to try to represent what I saw with text. I hope > > this > > works. > > > > Pretend that the "I"s are shaped like 'cone shaped hats', they are spikes > > that > > go up or down. > > > > RPM Reference Pulse from module to ECM: > > > > at @1200 RPM > > > > ________I_________I_________I_________I > > I I I I > > > > at @ 3000 RPM > > > > ___I___I___I___I___I > > I I I I I > > > > > And the EST signal from ECM to module: > > > > at @1200 RPM > > > > ________I________I________I________I > > I I I I > > > > at @3000 > > > > ___I___I___I___I___I > > I I I I I I > > > > > > Next come the assumptions: > > First, I am assuming the upward spikes represent the 'rising edges' and the > > downward spikes represent the 'falling edges' that you would see on a > scope. > > > > Ex. > > > > ____I____I____I____I on my tape recorder > > I I I I > > would be: > > -]__[-]__[-]__[-]__[ on a scope > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > Well, my ASCII drawings didn't come out right. > If your interested, here's a JPG of a drawing I made of what I saw: > > http://members.aol.com/tedscj/EST.JPG > > Ted - -- http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/ Hear what a paid insurance company hack has to say about my career prospects. http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/pacheco.wav ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:41:47 -0800 From: Terry Martin Subject: Odometer redundancy (ECM capture) Can anyone confirm if either GM or Ford uses a scheme to capture the mileage in non-volatile ram. I think the weird dash cluster (ie '95 Caprice) may do it, and make it accessible to the PCM, but haven't tackled the project yet. I'm specifically interested in Ford's EEC's and if implemented, which year/models. Thanks - -- http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/ Hear what a paid insurance company hack has to say about my career prospects. http://mindlink.net/terry_martin/pacheco.wav ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 12:51:21 EST From: RSRACE@xxx.com Subject: Fuel Injection System I would like to know if someone could give me a list of parts that i may need to make a fuel injection system. I have a test car that will be used for racing. It is a 4 cyl. water-cooled VW. Some help with programming would be greatly appreciated Thanks Tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 09:54:17 -0800 From: "Steve" Subject: Re: Valve Overlap >Bob- > >I remember watching the Zakspeed Capris blowing 3 feet of flame out the pipe >right before they hit the apex. Same reason? > >-Mark > > Most likely they were mechanically injected and there was no fuel cut when the throttle was closed. Porsche 935's used to do it all the time before they were electronically controlled. Also the fuel going through on the overrun would cool the combustion chamber and would ignite at the tail pipe exit where there was enough oxygen to burn. The reason most current race cars don't do it is to conserve fuel. That means less used over a race distance so the car carry's less fuel and is lighter. Supposedly the Honda F1 V12 engines went back to adding fuel on overrun for qualifying because Senna felt it gave better throttle response. Steve ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 14:29:54 -0400 From: "BUTLER, Tom" Subject: RE: Plugs vs. Boost Doesn't a longer insulator result in a hotter plug? > -----Original Message----- > From: Frederic Breitwieser [SMTP:frederic.breitwieser@xxx.com] > Sent: Monday, March 29, 1999 1:34 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Plugs vs. Boost > > > Let's talk about plugs vs. boost...what's the consensus here? Colder > plugs for > > boost? Single electrode vs. multi electrode? Gapped smaller? Thoughts on > that? > > On my 4.1L twin-turbo monstrosity we used colder plugs > (longer insulator) with a .045 gap instead of the stock .032 > gap, using platinum tipped plugs of some sort. > > I've never had good luck with splitfires, mostly because the > split parts tends to burn up for some reason, though that > might just be my engines. > > > -- > 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) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:30:28 -0500 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: Fuel Injection System Hi Tom, Best place to start would be the DIY_EFI web page. Take the links to OEM fi systems and there is a ton of info there. - -----Original Message----- From: RSRACE@xxx.com> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Monday, March 29, 1999 1:21 PM Subject: Fuel Injection System > > I would like to know if someone could give me a list of parts that i may >need to make a fuel injection system. I have a test car that will be used for >racing. It is a 4 cyl. water-cooled VW. Some help with programming would be >greatly appreciated > >Thanks >Tom > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #199 ***************************** 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".