DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, April 8 1999 Volume 04 : Number 217 In this issue: Rev limiter in Renix ECU Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #214 Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? Torque measurement AW: Rev limiter in Renix ECU RE: Engine load vs RPM and torque Re: TEC II Re: Torque measurement 302 or 460 build up Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque RE: Torque measurement Re: TEC II Haltech, MSD, 13B-REW Re: Torque measurement Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 Re: 302 or 460 build up Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? RE: Torque measurement RE: Torque measurement Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 05:22:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Easterbrook Subject: Rev limiter in Renix ECU I have a Renault Alpine GTAV6 turbo with a modified engine, running extra injectors from a seperate fuel computer to provide the correct mixture (on top of a chipped ECU). I need to raise the standard rev limiter which is built into the ECU and if I can't do that I need to remove it. I have tried many ECU chipping "experts" but none of them seem to know much about this ECU (which makes me wonder how they can sell chip upgrades for them!). Help! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @xxx.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:37:55 EDT From: ECMnut@xxx.com Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #214 Many moons ago, before I paid much attention to EFI, I had a 84 colt 1.6L turbo that that appeared to have two injectors just below the TB, where the intake runners divided. However memory is sometimes dead wrong. MV ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:56:03 EDT From: ECMnut@xxx.com Subject: Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? Andre, please give me some details on the CT-20.. I have an EFI project that could benifit from it. What engines/cars was it in? All I can find are CT-26's TIA Mike V In a message dated 4/7/99 5:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, ferrariformulauno@xxx.com writes: > All the toyota CT-20/26's that I have seen and rebuilt were with steel > shafts. We used to > make a T3 fit in a Toyota turbo since you cannot buy individual components > from Toyota. They ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:48:35 -0300 From: "Ord Millar" Subject: Torque measurement I have some strain guages that I was thinking of attaching to my motor mounts, the idea being to measure the torque output of the engine. I want to calibrate it by imobilizing the crank relative to the block, and then using a torque wrench to apply a know torque in the oposite direction at the crank pulley bolt. Is there a reason why this won't work? It seems too easy... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:01:16 +0100 From: "Rausch, Bernd" Subject: AW: Rev limiter in Renix ECU Hi Martin, I am currently working on my Alpine V6 Cup engine. With the help of this list, I am slowly learning how to do thing right. Ah, and many thanks to Greg for his help, again. My Renix ECU has a cpu with rom (I do not remember the type, I think a sort of 68HC11), so there is no chance modifying the software. There are ECUs with separate eprom, and if you are interested, I can provide you with bin´s from the following cars: Fahtzeugtyp ! Dateiname ! EPROMBezeichnung - -------------------------------!----------------!-------------------- R21 Turbo 175 PS ! R21TURB ! XXXXXXXX R21 Turbo KAT 162 PS ! R21TUKAT ! FENIX3B* 764303 Alpine V6 Turbo Kat Bj 91 ! APKAT91 ! FENIX1B 508107 Alpine A610 Bj 92 ! A61092 ! FENIX3B* 155623 Since my ECU has no eprom, there was no chance to modify it. I use an aftermarket ECU from a German manufacturer (Lenz). What engine / mods and what turbo are you using ? greetings, bernd rausch netzwerktechnik - -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Martin Easterbrook [mailto:martin_easterbrook@xxx.uk] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 8. April 1999 14:22 An: DIY_EFI@xxx.edu Betreff: Rev limiter in Renix ECU I have a Renault Alpine GTAV6 turbo with a modified engine, running extra injectors from a seperate fuel computer to provide the correct mixture (on top of a chipped ECU). I need to raise the standard rev limiter which is built into the ECU and if I can't do that I need to remove it. I have tried many ECU chipping "experts" but none of them seem to know much about this ECU (which makes me wonder how they can sell chip upgrades for them!). Help! _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @xxx.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:53:34 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Engine load vs RPM and torque reciprocating forces increase at the square of the RPM so 15 psi at 5500 would most likely be better over all with a good piston and ample bearing clearance. My $.02 > -----Original Message----- > From: bearbvd@xxx.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 8:46 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque > > >Hi all, > > > >This is a little off charter but is still related somewhat (especially to > >those with artificial aspiration.) > > > >I'm looking for some software or code (Matlab, Working Model etc...) that > >will allow me to calculate the loads seen by the piston, rod, etc for > >various torque/speed combinations. For instance, is it better to make 100 > HP > >using 15 psi of boost at 5500 rpm or 100 HP at 6500 RPM using 7 psi of > >boost... > > > >I'd like to be able to input the weights of the piston and rod, and the > >torque value to obtain their loadings. Most people will tell you the > largest > >loads are seen on the exhuast stroke at TDC, > > This is in tension--- > > but that doesn't explain why > >those turbo Honda's start bending rods at 10 psi... > > This is instability under compressive loading (column failure. > > > >I have a small single cyl that I'm going to be putting a blower on. In > it's > >current configuration, the factory tells me additional revs will > seriously > >comprimise reliability. OK, but with the blower, what is the ideal speed > for > >my desired HP? > > > >Repond off list if you feel compelled. Thanks. > > Right off the top--I section rods are more stable under compression > loading > (boost), as are aluminium rods (heftier section for same weight) (which is > why fuelers like them). H section rods will be lighter for same strength, > to get higher revs, but not as stable under high compressive loads. > Aluminium is not good for SUSTAINED high revs because of no fixed > endurance > limit in tension. > > Regards, Greg > > > > > >Matt Beaubien > >mbeaubie@xxx.ca > >3 x 510 > >1 x 300ZXT > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:25:31 -0700 From: Jason_Leone@xxx.com Subject: Re: TEC II <> No. <> AND...again, I say that a standard 4-wire Bosch 0-1v EGO is fine. If it's good enough for a GT2 turbo 911, I think it can do the job. The TEC II tables for the A/F ratio are good to use, but you should NOT rely on a large EGO correction value factor. In fact, close loop in general is out the window under WOT (it can run closed loop at WOT, if you want it too...but I think the EGO is too slow at high rpm). Sounds like you're a little gun shy about this one, eh? If I was using the TEC II for an 800hp twin-turbo car...I'd use a "wide" band EGO (or two, in conjunction w/ various EGT sensors). For most NA engines, and 440hp turbo V6 engines...the Bosch EGO works fine w/ the TEC II. When tuning, it's good to use a secondary A/F ratio device though (I have access to a SMOG station gas analyzer), to compare claimed A/F indications. When tuning, always create rich fuel maps at first, then lean it out later...nothing new there. <> I'm not going to disagree on this one! I will say that the TEC II is pretty damn good for the money, and the injector minimum PW issue can be solved in other ways. For instance, do the fuel calculation to properly match the injector sizing to the hp potential (fuel need). Having 750cc/min injectors in a little turbo Honda will usually make for some idle suffering...but the TEC II will cut the duty cycle back (maybe down to 40% or so), and the car can be tuned to idle smoothly. That's a generic example, but it's true. I think most people will agree that the TEC II is great at the track, and it's very capable for a street car. So, the TEC II doesn't offer the highest resolution tables (it's only an 8x8 or "64" style), but it makes for easy programming. I do with it had larger tables though (like a "256" style). Jason ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:14:49 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Torque measurement I think your signal will be very noisy. Also orienting the gauges correctly to maximize the output will take some trial and error. Lastly, the mounts are pretty stiff for the load they carry and won't flex much, the metal part that is. Gary Derian > I have some strain guages that I was thinking of attaching to my motor > mounts, the idea being to measure the torque output of the engine. I want > to calibrate it by imobilizing the crank relative to the block, and then > using a torque wrench to apply a know torque in the oposite direction at the > crank pulley bolt. > > Is there a reason why this won't work? It seems too easy... > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:53:18 -0400 From: Pat Ford Subject: 302 or 460 build up Hi All; This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 will be closer to 400hp) Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:57:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Subject: Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque > > reciprocating forces increase at the square of the RPM so 15 psi at 5500 > would most likely be better over all with a good piston and ample bearing > clearance. My $.02 I get 40% more force at 6500 than 5500 absolute boost from 21.5-29 lbs gives about 35% more force looks like 5500 with 15 lbs would be a little better assuming you did not have to go to beefier rods/pistons Clive > > >I'm looking for some software or code (Matlab, Working Model etc...) that > > >will allow me to calculate the loads seen by the piston, rod, etc for > > >various torque/speed combinations. For instance, is it better to make 100 > > HP > > >using 15 psi of boost at 5500 rpm or 100 HP at 6500 RPM using 7 psi of > > >boost... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:09:52 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Torque measurement Since the motor mounts are connected to the block , you need to rotate the block to compress the load cell not the crank. The hardest part with this method is figuring out the scale in foot pounds. Usually load cells are calibrated with certified weights hung from a known length, usually a 1 foot long bar, hence 'foot- pound' I don't know how you could calculate the moment of movement that the block would place on the load cell. I would guess if you bolted a 1 foot bar on the engine at the center line of the crank and placed a 1 pound weight on the end of the bar, you would be able to calibrate the load cell out put for 1 foot Lb. Of course you would want to cal it to 300 ft.Lbs or what you think the engine would put out. If you use a 2 foot bar then 1 pound on the end would apply a force of 2 foot Lbs. This would save some cal weight. Your idea is excellent and should give some good results. Another way to read the torque would be to connect a load cell to the block about where the front freeze plug is, and the other end to the frame. This will make a solid motor mount that might damage the Trans case if you torque it to hard. You might want to try this using the same cal procedure, and if it works go to the mount system. Don > -----Original Message----- > From: Ord Millar [SMTP:ord@xxx.ca] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 8:49 AM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Torque measurement > > I have some strain guages that I was thinking of attaching to my motor > mounts, the idea being to measure the torque output of the engine. I want > to calibrate it by imobilizing the crank relative to the block, and then > using a torque wrench to apply a know torque in the oposite direction at > the > crank pulley bolt. > > Is there a reason why this won't work? It seems too easy... > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:39:54 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: TEC II ><> > >No. > ><UEGO is foolishness, and asking for expensive repairs!>> > >AND...again, I say that a standard 4-wire Bosch 0-1v EGO is fine. If it's good >enough for a GT2 turbo 911, I think it can do the job. That bosch IS the LS II WIDE BAND O2 sensor!! Otherwise known as a UEGO sensor. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:51:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul Ko Subject: Haltech, MSD, 13B-REW I have a set of baffling problems which I would like to ask this list. But let me start by describing my setup and some assumptions. I have a rx7 rotary engine, 13B-REW, setup with a Haltech E6A management system. I am using the stock factory rx7 magnetic trigger pickups on the E-shaft. Two MSD "signal stabilizers" are used, one for the home magnetic pickup and one for the synchro. These "signal stabilizers" changes the output of the magnetic pickup to a square-wave, which is the only input the E6A can use. All three coils at fired by MSD spark boxes, one for each coil. The MSD spark boxes are fired thru the white wire directly from the Haltech ignition output. Settings on Haltech: Both input triggers: rising Ignition output: rising Output constant duty: 30% trigger pickup 67 degrees BTC multitooth 24 tooth offset 5 Problem: I cannot get the timing light to fire at the timing mark on the pulley wheel. I means the ignition is off, way off. The mark is ~45 degrees before where it should be. Strange thing with the rotary engine is that it still runs even if the timing is way off. The car runs but inconsistently with misfires. Assumptions: 1. I am assuming the inductive pickup on the timing gun is correct. I've read somewhere that the inductive pickups on timing guns has problems reading a coil fired by a MSD spark box. 2. The MSD spark boxes fire from a rising edge thru the white wire. I assumed this because the testing procedure for testing spark on the box is to ground the white wire and release it and the coil fires instantaneously on the release. 3. The MSD 8509 signal stabilizer is getting and outputing the correct signals. The instructions which came with this MSD 8509 is a joke. I am assuming the 8509 inputs a rising magnetic trigger wave, ie, a sine wave with a fall, rise, fall signal where the trigger point is at the rise. The problem may be that the mazda signal is a falling wave, ie, rise, fall, rise signal where the trigger point is at the fall. I've tried reversing these leads to the 8509 and still the timing gun is still ~40 degrees off the mark. So which one is right, because the engine runs either way the leads are hooked up. I assumed the 8509 outputs a rising square-wave because thats what the unit is originally designed for, to fire a MSD spark box directly. 4. I am assuming the setting on the Haltech timing numbers is right. Those numbers are supposed to be off another running 13B-REW. However, I don't want to change these numbers until I know the correct setup of the 8509 and MSD spark box triggers. Thanks, your help is greatly appreciated. Paul Ko pko@xxx.com http://www.mindspring.com/~pko Formula SAE UCDavis Team Captain http://mae.engr.ucdavis.edu/~fsae ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:26:37 -0400 (EDT) From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Subject: Re: Torque measurement > > Since the motor mounts are connected to the block , you need to rotate the > block to compress the load cell not the crank. > The hardest part with this method is figuring out the scale in foot pounds. > Usually load cells are calibrated with certified weights hung from a known > length, usually a 1 foot long bar, hence 'foot- pound' I don't know how you > could calculate the moment of movement that the block would place on the > load cell. I would guess if you bolted a 1 foot bar on the engine at the > center line of the crank and placed a 1 pound weight on the end of the bar, > you would be able to calibrate the load cell out put for 1 foot Lb. Of > course you would > want to cal it to 300 ft.Lbs or what you think the engine would put out. If > you use a 2 foot bar then 1 pound on the end would apply a force of 2 foot > Lbs. This would save some cal weight. Your idea is excellent and should > give some good results. Another way to read the torque would be to connect a > load cell to the block about where the front freeze plug is, and the other > end to the frame. This will make a solid motor mount that might damage the > Trans case if you torque it to hard. You might want to try this using the > same cal procedure, and if it works go to the mount system. except the bar has weight better to place it vertical and use a scale to get the weight required a 5" bar and 80 lbs pull would be 400 ft lbs Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:01:01 -0500 From: "N T" Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up Gosh the 460 [actually a 7.5] is a little bit much for a "light" car! :) Sure would be fun to drive though. The constant replacement of melted tires would get expensive . Why not consider a 351? The 351 is a bit more durable than a 302, and the last time I drove a 351 I sure noticed quite a bit more low end than a 302. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Ford To: diyefi Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 11:53 AM Subject: 302 or 460 build up > Hi All; > This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. > I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car > Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) > > what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 will > be closer to 400hp) > > Pat Ford email: pford@xxx.com > QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com > (613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews > (613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8 > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:12:24 -0600 (MDT) From: Matt Beaubien Subject: Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque Greg, > >I'd like to be able to input the weights of the piston and rod, and the > >torque value to obtain their loadings. Most people will tell you the largest > >loads are seen on the exhuast stroke at TDC, > > This is in tension--- > > but that doesn't explain why > >those turbo Honda's start bending rods at 10 psi... > > This is instability under compressive loading (column failure. I realize the difference, even though my first year statics course was 5 years ago ;-). What I'm getting at is most references say that the tension loads are so much greater that you don't have to worry about the compressive loads. Not so when artificial aspiration or severe knock is encountered. > Aluminium is not good for SUSTAINED high revs because of no fixed endurance > limit in tension. Drag racers sure can get away with a lot that OEM's or even oval/road racers can't. Are you uncomfortable driving cars with Al suspension pieces due to no endurance limit...? Matt Beaubien mbeaubie@xxx.ca 3 x 510 1 x 300ZXT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:28:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Stuart Hastings Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #216 I'm interested in improving the performance of my boat. The boat engine is a 1988-model Chevy 4.3L V6, with a 2bbl carburetor. This is an early 4.3L V6, with no balance shaft, and no roller tappets. Outboard Marine Corp, my engines' "marinizer," rated it at 175 crankshaft HP or 160 propshaft HP. (Current practice is to rate boat engine HP at the prop.) OMC also offered this engine with a 4bbl carburetor, and claimed 205 crankshaft HP for it. I checked with OMC, and the carb/intake is the ONLY difference between these engines. OMC has confirmed that the 4bbl setup will add 30HP to my engine. (I recall compression as 8.4:1(?unsure), and OMC specifies 89 octane gas.) My particular engine has about 220 hours, and seems to have been well cared-for; compression is still about 165psi in all cylinders. I've done some preliminary queries, and discovered I can buy a used 4bbl carburetor + manifold for about $350, plus shipping and miscellaneous expenses (gaskets, carb rebuild kit, new throttle linkage). Probably $450 total by the time I'm done. I'm thinking if a lousy carburetor is so expensive, what about using EFI? I scanned the DIY-EFI archives for 4.3L, and discovered the preferred 4.3L EFI is the extremely rare SFI used on the Syclone, and the almost-as-good second-best is the CIS (one injector, six ports). However, the CIS system seems to have an aluminum intake manifold, so I don't think I can use it without the added expense of "fresh-water" cooling. Volvo and MerCruiser sell V6 engines with TBI EFI, but these are much newer and rarer than 4bbls, so I haven't even bothered asking about junked ones. If you're not a boater, please understand that most cheap boats use low-pressure lake water for cooling, and ignore the consequent slow digestion of the iron block. Really. In the Real World, most boat engines die of neglect long before they rust away anyway. A side-effect of "raw-water" cooled engines is their use of very-low-temperature thermostats; since the cooling water is almost unpressurized, a 160F thermostat lessens the likelihood of steam bubbles and burned valves. Another unique boat engine problem is the exhaust. Most marinized car engines have water-jacketed exhaust manifolds, because anything as hot as an exhaust manifold is a fire hazard on a boat. I think this means that an EGO is pretty much out of the question on a boat engine, but I presume most EFI systems can be made to run OK open-loop if I'm not concerned about absolute maximum performance. Most sterndrive systems exhaust underwater through the propeller hub because a) it's cool and safe, b) it's quiet, c) water flow will vacuum exhaust from the engine while running at speed. I don't think the boat exhaust system is a significant restriction for this V6 engine; does anyone on the list know otherwise? I presume that adding an aluminum CIS intake manifold to my raw-water-cooled engine will turn it into a giant battery :-) with accellerated galvanic corrosion. It's possible to fit these engines with a (misnamed) "fresh-water cooling" system, consisting of a heat exchanger, extra plumbing, automotive coolant, and a 180F thermostat, but that's another $300-$500 investment. The higher running temperature is good for combustion efficiency, oil life, and engine durability, but many such boat engines will require an oil cooler too (still more $$). This is all a little extravagant for a motor that runs about 50 hours per year in fresh (non-salt) water. I don't know what the Syclone/SFI manifold is made of, but I presume it's rare enough in junkyards that it's not a realistic candidate. That brings me to TBI. I gather (from reading the DIY-EFI archives &etc) that balance-shaft V6 TBI systems are fairly common (read "cheap") in junkyards; they were used in El Caminos, Caprices, and Astros. I haven't actually seen one, so I don't know if the intake manifold is Aluminum or Iron. Said donor vehicles probably all have balance shafts underneath their intake manifolds, and roller camshafts for reduced friction. However, I see no reason why a balance shaft manifold won't fit my ... "unbalanced" :-) V6 block and heads. Alas, the existing GM roller tappets won't fit in my block; if I really wanted a roller cam, the easiest route would be to marinize a "Vortec" engine myself. I'll guess there are a few V6 aftermarket roller cams, and I'll guess they're pretty expensive too. In the long run, it would probably be more cost-effective to trade for a newer boat. Currently-offered V6 sterndrives (MerCruiser & Volvo) are still Chevy V6s with balance shafts, roller cams, 9.4:1 compression, and 2bbl/4bbl/TBI fuel systems, and are rated at 190/205/210 propshaft HP when turning 4400/4600/4600 RPM. Assuming the 15HP crank-to-prop overhead in my own sterndrive, this would suggest approximately 205/220/225 crankshaft HP for these modern marinized V6s. For compaison, the 1988 non-balance-shaft V6s had 2bbl/4bbl intakes, and were rated at 175/205 crankshaft HP when turning 4400/4600 RPM. It also suggests the roller cam and newer heads ("Vortec"?) of the modern engines are worth 30HP all by themselves. The MerCruiser TBI system claims to have a "water cooled fuel system"; I don't know what that is, or why it's necessary on a boat (where under-hood temps are probably much cooler than a typical car). Does anyone know what this is, and why it's necessary (IMHO, Mercury wouldn't fit this if it wasn't *absolutely* necessary). I'll interject something about my own capabilities here. I'm a programmer by trade, and while it sounds fun to disassemble ROMs and tweak BL tables with a laptop while under way, I don't have time for such a big project. EFI for my boat is only feasible if I can get a stock system from a junked car that will tolerate the marine environment and "bolt-up" readily. Ideally, I'd like to buy a complete system from one donor car, including distributor, intake, TBI, computer, sensors, and fuel pump. I can probably deal with some throttle bracket fabrication, new fuel lines, and I think I can add a fuel pump to my boat's gas tank. However, if an EFI project gets any bigger, I can't handle it at this stage of my life (I have four kids, oldest is 8; they are why I have the boat :-). Since the point of this project is to increase HP, there's no point in pursuing it unless the generic GM TBI system would supply 200+ crankshaft HP from my unbalanced, non-roller-cam V6. 1. Are GM 4.3L V6 TBI systems capable of 200+ HP? 2. Is the GM 4.3L V6 TBI manifold made of Aluminum or Iron (or Plastic?). 3. I presume the standard TBI in-tank pump needs some baffling; what *exactly* is required? Can I swipe the tank-wall fitting (probably steel) from a TBI car and modify it for my boats aluminum gas tank? 4. Automotive carburetors typically vent bowl fumes externally. Marine carbs vent bowl fumes into the carb intake (above the butterflys), so fumes don't collect in the bilge and explode. I presume that a properly-installed TBI system won't leak gas or fumes into the bilge. Correct? 5. My Prestolite non-electronic "marine" distributor has fine metal screening glued over the bottom vent holes. Can I "marinize" an electronic TBI distributor by duplicating this screening? A distributorless system elegantly avoids this, but then I presume I need the flywheel pickup that may or may not fit my heavy, clutchless marine flywheel. And my marine bellhousing probably doesn't have any provision for a crank sensor either. 6. Are there any blatant misconceptions in my thinking, outlined above? 7. If an appropriate TBI system exists (cheap, powerful, marine-compatible), what donor cars should I look for? 8. Would I be smarter to grit my teeth and buy a used 4bbl for $450? 9. Would I be smarter yet to forget the whole project, because the existing 2bbl works fine, and an additional 30HP (17%) won't improve the boat's performance by very much ;-) ? My research so far has been a few Fuel Injection books, and the DIY-EFI archives, and the DIY-EFI stuff is much more useful. I'm very impressed with the depth of the technical discussions on this list; thus far, the price of my research has been inversely proportional to its value :-) . Thanks in advance, stuart hastings stuart@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 16:45:41 -0400 From: "Jim Yeagley" Subject: Re: 302 or 460 build up Pat, I wouldn't expect a whole lot of torque from the 302. It's got a pretty short stroke, 3" I think, and short stroke motors are typically made for high revving, upper rpm horsepower. Not to say you can't get low end from it, but it would not be cost effective. The 460 spells torque. If you want to stick with the Windsor engine family(302), why not go with a 351W? It's pretty much a stroked 302, slightly taller and wider, but most 302 bracketry will bolt right up. Plus, considering the popularity of the 5.0l Mustang, go fast goodies are plentiful. Jim Yeagley 1996 Dodge Indy Ram See it and many others at: www.indyram.org 1975 Pontiac Grandville Brougham Conv. (in baskets) webmaster@xxx.org jimyeagley@xxx.net - -----Original Message----- >Hi All; > This isn't strickly efi but efi will go on it so.. >I'm getting a 302 ( 5.0L) or a 460 (7.3L) to build for a light car >Hp isn't what I'm after I want torque ( more fun, less tickets) > >what would you guys suggest for around 300hp and lotsa grunt( the 460 will >be closer to 400hp) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:00:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Grandi Subject: Re: Ceramic turbocharger info source?? Mike The listing I have for CT-20 turbos does'nt tell me which ones are ceramic or not. Hope this helps,most of these are Japanese only cars: All Toyota 85 Corolla 85 Corolla Diesel 85,86,87 4 Runner 85 Crown 85 Pickup 86,87 Camry 88 4X2 and 4x4 88 Sport Truck Also check out the Japanese Lexus SC300, they made a twin turbo version of this inline motor for Japan only that had 2 ceramic turbos.. Good luck! - --- ECMnut@xxx.com wrote: > Andre, > please give me some details on the CT-20.. I have an EFI project > that could benifit from it. What engines/cars was it in? > All I can find are CT-26's > TIA > Mike V > > In a message dated 4/7/99 5:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, > ferrariformulauno@xxx.com writes: > > > All the toyota CT-20/26's that I have seen and rebuilt were with steel > > shafts. We used to > > make a T3 fit in a Toyota turbo since you cannot buy individual components > > from Toyota. They > > === Andre _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @xxx.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:05:35 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Torque measurement You are correct. I should have said make the bar 2 foot long, drill a hole dead center,bolt it center line with the crank, then hang the weight on the end in the direction of torque reaction.That way the bar weight is balanced and does not affect the over all torque. > -----Original Message----- > From: Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020 > [SMTP:clive@xxx.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 2:27 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Torque measurement > > > > > Since the motor mounts are connected to the block , you need to rotate > the > > block to compress the load cell not the crank. > > The hardest part with this method is figuring out the scale in foot > pounds. > > Usually load cells are calibrated with certified weights hung from a > known > > length, usually a 1 foot long bar, hence 'foot- pound' I don't know how > you > > could calculate the moment of movement that the block would place on the > > load cell. I would guess if you bolted a 1 foot bar on the engine at the > > center line of the crank and placed a 1 pound weight on the end of the > bar, > > you would be able to calibrate the load cell out put for 1 foot Lb. Of > > course you would > > want to cal it to 300 ft.Lbs or what you think the engine would put out. > If > > you use a 2 foot bar then 1 pound on the end would apply a force of 2 > foot > > Lbs. This would save some cal weight. Your idea is excellent and > should > > give some good results. Another way to read the torque would be to > connect a > > load cell to the block about where the front freeze plug is, and the > other > > end to the frame. This will make a solid motor mount that might damage > the > > Trans case if you torque it to hard. You might want to try this using > the > > same cal procedure, and if it works go to the mount system. > > > except the bar has weight > better to place it vertical and use a scale to get the weight required > a 5" bar and 80 lbs pull would be 400 ft lbs > > Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:24:55 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: RE: Torque measurement >Since the motor mounts are connected to the block , you need to rotate the >block to compress the load cell not the crank. >The hardest part with this method is figuring out the scale in foot pounds. >Usually load cells are calibrated with certified weights hung from a known >length, usually a 1 foot long bar, hence 'foot- pound' I don't know how you >could calculate the moment of movement that the block would place on the >load cell. I would guess if you bolted a 1 foot bar on the engine at the >center line of the crank and placed a 1 pound weight on the end of the bar, >you would be able to calibrate the load cell out put for 1 foot Lb. Of >course you would >want to cal it to 300 ft.Lbs or what you think the engine would put out. If >you use a 2 foot bar then 1 pound on the end would apply a force of 2 foot >Lbs. This would save some cal weight. Your idea is excellent and should >give some good results. Another way to read the torque would be to connect a >load cell to the block about where the front freeze plug is, and the other >end to the frame. This will make a solid motor mount that might damage the >Trans case if you torque it to hard. You might want to try this using the >same cal procedure, and if it works go to the mount system. > >Don > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ord Millar [SMTP:ord@xxx.ca] >> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 8:49 AM >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: Torque measurement >> >> I have some strain guages that I was thinking of attaching to my motor >> mounts, the idea being to measure the torque output of the engine. I want >> to calibrate it by imobilizing the crank relative to the block, and then >> using a torque wrench to apply a know torque in the oposite direction at >> the >> crank pulley bolt. >> >> Is there a reason why this won't work? It seems too easy... Well--you would be measuring the torque output of the TRANSMISSION, not the engine--so you would need to calibrate the thing a fair amount higher for the low gears. Look at the engine-tranny package as a black box to visualize why this is so. And calibrating with a bar stuck through the output yoke, with the tranny in gear, might be a lot easier approach. Greg >> >> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:07:38 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque >Greg, > >> >I'd like to be able to input the weights of the piston and rod, and the >> >torque value to obtain their loadings. Most people will tell you the largest >> >loads are seen on the exhuast stroke at TDC, >> >> This is in tension--- >> >> but that doesn't explain why >> >those turbo Honda's start bending rods at 10 psi... >> >> This is instability under compressive loading (column failure. > >I realize the difference, even though my first year statics course was 5 >years ago ;-). What I'm getting at is most references say that the tension >loads are so much greater that you don't have to worry about the compressive >loads. Not so when artificial aspiration or severe knock is encountered. > >> Aluminium is not good for SUSTAINED high revs because of no fixed endurance >> limit in tension. > >Drag racers sure can get away with a lot that OEM's or even oval/road racers >can't. Are you uncomfortable driving cars with Al suspension pieces due to >no endurance limit...? > YES!! Also uncomfortable on ski lifts that use cast aluminium balancer arms between sheaves on their towers!! Use a Ti alloy if weight is that big an issue!! (Nothing beats cubic $$$$$!!) Forged Al is OK in cyclic compressive loading (like a full floating wheel hub), but, as much as I like the forged (6061 alloy) Alcoa wheels, even they crack quite a lot in the wrong kind of service! Regards, Greg >Matt Beaubien >mbeaubie@xxx.ca >3 x 510 >1 x 300ZXT ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:42:54 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Engine load vs RPM and torque Inertia forces at TDC and BDC are easily calculated with a little trig. Gas pressure forces can be calculated by knowing compression and temperature rise. Also, knowing power, BMEP can be calculated and an indicator diagram inferred. It is generally accepted that maximum pressure occurs at 12 deg ATDC. Gary Derian > Hi all, > > This is a little off charter but is still related somewhat (especially to > those with artificial aspiration.) > > I'm looking for some software or code (Matlab, Working Model etc...) that > will allow me to calculate the loads seen by the piston, rod, etc for > various torque/speed combinations. For instance, is it better to make 100 HP > using 15 psi of boost at 5500 rpm or 100 HP at 6500 RPM using 7 psi of > boost... > > I'd like to be able to input the weights of the piston and rod, and the > torque value to obtain their loadings. Most people will tell you the largest > loads are seen on the exhuast stroke at TDC, but that doesn't explain why > those turbo Honda's start bending rods at 10 psi... > > I have a small single cyl that I'm going to be putting a blower on. In it's > current configuration, the factory tells me additional revs will seriously > comprimise reliability. OK, but with the blower, what is the ideal speed for > my desired HP? > > Repond off list if you feel compelled. Thanks. > > > Matt Beaubien > mbeaubie@xxx.ca > 3 x 510 > 1 x 300ZXT ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #217 ***************************** 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".