DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, May 1 1999 Volume 04 : Number 254 In this issue: Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Ignition Sensors Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Flame - Not Re: Need Fuel Injector Data Transplant Re: atomization enhancement Re: Transplant Re: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Fuel injection plugs Re: Flame - Not Re: Need Fuel Injector Data See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:33:06 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > PS > I really hit to comment that my dad used to use an engine called > a "Waterloo Boy", which was a hit-and-miss engine. It had a governer > that would cut fuel flow and spark above a certain RPM so that the engine > would only fire when it got slow enough to need it. It's an interesting > design, and fun to watch (and listen to) > > PUT na na na PUT na na PUT PUT PUT na na na na... > > The more you load it, the more it fires. Sounds like a John Deere 2cyl tractor. Massive flywheel and long stroke crank made for similar sounds at idle. Shannen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:04:31 -0700 From: "Fran and Bud" Subject: Re: Ignition Sensors Hi Tom, I want to build a DIS system for an old Flathead Ford, (1948). Probably try to copy a modern Chevy V8. Any engineering samples that would help?? Bud - ---------- >From: TManson@xxx.com (Manson, Tom) >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu (diy_efi) >Subject: Ignition Sensors >Date: Fri, Apr 30, 1999, 7:36 AM > > >Howdy folks, I am brand new to the list as of yesterday. I work for Micro >Switch/Honeywell where we make all sorts of ignition sensors, I build test >equipment to test these sensors. We have dozens of styles of sensors, both >gear-tooth and vane, that we supply to Bosch, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. >Functionally they are all pretty much the same, the packaging(mounting) and >connectors used are what makes them all unique. If any of you working on >your own control system would like some 'engineering' samples, let me know. > >Tom Manson >Micro Switch/Honeywell > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 19:21:06 -0700 From: goflo@xxx.net Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Shannen Durphey wrote: > > The more you load it, the more it fires. > Sounds like a John Deere 2cyl tractor. Massive flywheel and long > stroke crank made for similar sounds at idle. > Shannen Resurrected a turn-of-the-century Hercules irrigation motor some years ago - Same deal. Kicked in circa 200 rpm, out around 375. Huge flywheel. Carb was a can of gas with a hole in it. Intake valve was sucked open, blown shut. Ex valve operated by cam. Ran great. Tried like hell, but could'nt interest customer in boost, nitrous, FI... Jack ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:56:59 -0400 From: Raymond C Drouillard Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 07:59:02 -0600 bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) writes: >>I like that idea. A variable displacement hydraulic pump at the engine >>and four variable displacement pumps (one at each wheel), along with an >>accumulater would allow you to size the engine for the maximum sustained >>load (say 100 MPH up a 7% slope fully loaded). Size the accumulater so >>that it can store enough energy to accelerate the vehicle's mass from 0 >>to 100 MPH. >> > >This is called a "hydrostatic drive" . A common implementation of it is on >the large snow cats which ski areas use as groomers for their slopes. I >think the big problem with it is that the drive's efficiency is low enough >that any gains in engine efficiency are negated. I certainly can't claim to have invented the idea :) Actually, my dad has a hydrostatic drive on his Bolens lawn tractor. I actually got the idea from an old article in the Mother Earth News (mid 70s). Some college students took a bradley GT (homebuilt) body and outfitted it with a Brigs & Stratton engine and a system similar to what I just described. They were going for mileage more than drivability and power ('70s, remember?). Well, the thing actually got about 70 MPG and did 0-60 in eight seconds. Not too shabby for an econobox. It had a top speed of 70 because of the small engine. I understand that your standard off-road (or lawn tractor) hydrostat drive has an efficiency of around 50%. I suspect that there are hydraulic pumps and motors available that are more efficient, but I could be wrong... 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] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:37:50 -0400 From: Raymond C Drouillard Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 10:42:39 +0200 "Espen Hilde" writes: >Hi! >I agree with using a variable transmition to keep the rpm at max torque but >we have to have a variable size engine to, to get max torque we have to >have wot.if we drive at wot the output will be to high for our use. If you change the ratio of the transmission enough to get the RPMs down in the 1000 and under range, you can lower the power output drastically. The main caveat is to design the cam profile so that the engine will run efficiently at that speed. You don't need variable displacement or variable compression ratio to do this. Variable valve timing will do the trick - and the technology is already fairly commonplace. >Variable stroke is a help but it will be a ineffichent combustion camber with >the short stroke and the compression ratio will not be good still runningwot. >VW made a variable compression ratio combustion camber, dont ask me how >they did it.....variable combustion camber and variable stroke would >do the trick .....easy uh....Ore several independant engines coupled >together >Espen > >---------- >> From: James Ballenger >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs >> Date: 30. april 1999 04:47 >> >> >> >> Howard Wilkinson wrote: >> >> > The most reasonable way to control engine power output is by >> > gearing so that RPM is controlled by load. A continuously >variable >> > transmission system could allow an engine to operate at full >throttle >> > all the time except at idle when it would need to be throttled. >> > Allowing the engine to always operate at WOT would greatly >increase >> > efficiency. H.W. >> >> Ok, I know this isnt right. If we had continously variable >transmissions, >> we would be running them at peak torque not at wot. VE is greatest >at >peak >> torque, the reason we rev engines higher to acheive high horsepower >is to >combat >> inefficient gearing. At wot, there is significantly reduced ve and >not >enough >> time to get good mixture and combustion, therefore lower torque. >The >reason >> this is an asset is because it produces more torque per unit time, >ie >power. >> With a continuously variable transmission we could run the engine >all day >long >> at peak torque and get double or triple the gas mileage, more power, >and >reduced >> wear. Again, im just a student so tell me where i goofed but I have >discussed >> this with others before and feel somehat confident that this is >right. >> >> James Ballenger ___________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 23:15:43 -0400 From: Raymond C Drouillard Subject: Re: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs >Electric or hydraulic drive allows the engine to operate more efficiently >but the drive train loses efficiency compared to a direct mechanical drive. >Mechanical to electric to mechanical is at best 75%. Hydraulic has high >losses at high speeds. The one advantage for electric with a small battery >and small engine is regenerative braking and the ability to turn off the >engine for short periods of driving. > >Gary Derian > Electric motors can have efficiencies up into the high 90s. Even with a motor and a generater (each in the high 90s, with a combined efficiency in the lown 90s), you can do better than a typical automatic transmission. If you're thinking 4WD (as I do), you can easily better the transmission/transfer case combination. As an added bonus, you can have a motor at each wheel, and therefore have independant control of each wheel. One wheel losing traction will not cause the others to lose torque. You'll have the best of both worlds - the traction of a fully locked system with the advantages of a fully differentiated system. Hydraulics is a weak point for me. Just how efficient can you make a hydraulic pump or motor. One trick I would use to raise efficiency is to slow the motor down by using large (44 inch) tires (100 mph at 764 RPM). I did a bunch of calculations when I was in high school to figure out the specifics (displacement of motors, size of accumulater, etc). I would have to do them again, though. I have forgotten the results after all these years. 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] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:42:31 -0400 From: Raymond C Drouillard Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs On Fri, 30 Apr 1999 12:20:44 -0400 James Ballenger writes: > > >Raymond C Drouillard wrote: > >> Don't make the mistake of getting volumetric efficiency mixed up with >> engine efficiency. Engine efficiency is work in / work out. VE is air >> in / (.5 * displacement) (for a four-cycle engine). Torque is highest >> at the highest VE because you can get more fuel in for each revolution of >> the crank. Power is highest at the point where you can get the most fuel >> per unit time. > >At peak ve, you get the closest thing to perfect combustion. You get a good >full charge of, hopefully, stochiomteric mix and can burn it making maximum >force and maximum fuel economy. I don't argue with the above. What I am saying is that if you run it at max VE without throttling it, you will generate MUCH more power than you need. If you throttle it, you will not have a good VE. Throttling works by lowering VE. At max power, we are making less torque but >making it faster. The problem here is that there are inherent combustion and >frictional ineffeciencies. At max power (hp) we have to advance ignition and >now valve timing to try to catch up. You get an incomplete burn of the fuel >and have a very inefficient cycle, its just that you can do this enough per >unit time to get more power. The only reason we do this is because of >imperfect gearing. If we have a cvt, as discussed, the point becomes moot >because we can have insanely high (numerically) gearing and torque >multiplication. In this case we would not have a need for more power because >the transmission could be controlled as the throttle, while the engine >remains at its most efficient state. > >> If you are running at the highest torque point (max VE), you have to >> throttle it down to reduce power. This throttling, of course, reduces VE >> to the point where you get the desired power level. Of course, this >> increases pumping losses. > >There is not throttling with a cvt, the transmission is the >"throttle." Agreed. There is no throttling with a properly used CVT. You reduce power by LOWERING THE RPM of the entine to the point where it is producing the desired power. The engine is constantly at WOT, and the power output is controlled by controling the engine speed. > > >> A more efficient way to reduce the power level is to reduce the engine >> speed to below max torque. You will have about the same amount of air >> per unit time, but more air per revolution. Actually, you will have a >> little less air per unit time because it'll be running more efficiently. >> It won't have to do as much pumping. > >You won't be receiving more air, below max torque you will be getting less >air per revolution because it is not at peak ve. At peak torque, you get >peak ve. At peak ve, you get the fullest charge of air and fuel possible >from the engine and will be running more efficiently than at any other point >in the engines range. I am comparing a throttled engine at the speed of max VE with an unthrottled engine that has been slowed down enough to reduce the power to the desired level. Based on that, my statement is correct. IF YOU RUN AN ENGINE AT MAXIMUM VE WITHOUT THROTTLING IT, YOU WILL GET MORE POWER THAN YOU NEED, AND NOTHING YOU CAN DO WITH THE TRANSMISSION (besides wasting the power through friction) WILL REDUCE THE POWER LEVEL. > > >> Other benefits are less wear and tear, lower windage losses in the >> crankcase, lower losses at the oil pump, etc. > >If the engine is not throttled and remains where it will make peak power it >will have significantly less wear on the engine. If you are cruising at a speed that requires 25 HP to maintain, and your engine is capable of putting out 200 HP, you have to either throttle it or run it at a speed where it only generates 25 HP. You CAN NOT run it at its peak VE point or its peak power point and only generate 25 HP unless you throttle it. > >James Ballenger > > There, I said the same thing in several different ways. Hopefully, the concepts won't be misunderstood. Please read it carefully before writing a rebuttal. Ray Drouillard, BSEE ___________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:21:36 -0400 (EDT) From: William T Wilson Subject: Re: Flame - Not On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, H Villemure wrote: > I am more of an ignoramus than most on this list- just a fresh > mechanical engineering graduate. Could you detail what a *flathead* > motor design consists of? Yeah.. the heads are flat. ;) Nothing in them but the plugs. During the early part of the century up through the 50's, Ford made flathead V8s which were extremely good engines and used in a wide variety of their cars and a number of early street rods. Not only Ford used flathead engines though; I've got one in a '55 Jeep, which is an inline 6-cylinder. There are some nice advantages to the flathead, not the least of which is simplicity. There are no timing belts, chains, or any of that muck; it's all gear driven. It is somewhat hard to get at the cams, though. Valves are in the block right by the manifolds, so even a valve job is easy. It is a very simple design. However, the performance is lacking compared to OHV or OHC type engines. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 21:32:24 -0500 From: Steve Ravet Subject: Re: Need Fuel Injector Data "swagaero". Why do I remember stuff like that? - --steve Shannen Durphey wrote: > > There was a website which mentioned using Saturn parts for aircraft > EFI conversions. Can't quite remember the name, but I will post it > when I do. If you can't wait, the person who owned the site was a > member of this list at one time. His posts should be in the archives. > Shannen > > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > > Couple things come to mind. > > GM 1987 Sunbird 2.0L 4 cylinder Turbo might be close, they are P+H. > > www.lindertech.com that's off the top of my head but they are in gasoline > > Alley > > Indianapolis, IN. Then RC Eng in SoCal.. > > How much info do you have about that ecms prom calibrations?. > > If your point man is gone, you might need to reevaluate your posistion. > > Bruce > > > > > A friend of mine and I are working on an unusual project. We are adapting > > a > > > '93 Saturn ECM and two DIS modules to run a Continental O-200 aircraft > > > engine. The engine is 200 C.I. (3.3 L) 4 cylinder dual plug and should > > make > > > about 120 HP at about 2800 RPM. > > > > > > Can anyone supply us with the information or give us an idea of where we > > can > > > find a chart with the injector data? - -- Steve Ravet sravet@xxx.com Advanced Risc Machines, INC www.arm.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 04:30:29 GMT From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Subject: Transplant Nah - some insane whacko is building a unique engine from various scrap parts and ancient hot rod ideas. When it get's finished, it will be vaguely fordish and definitely unusual and maybe not too expensive. Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 14:24:55 -0400 From: H Villemure Subject: Re: Flame - Not Robert, deleted stuff And about your Mach 1- what transplant? The Cobra 427? Talk about torque monster... 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: Sat, 01 May 1999 00:57:34 -0400 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: atomization enhancement At 12:07 PM 5/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >I'd like to propose a simple atomization enhancement strategy. It is >well known that higher pressure results in better atomization in a >fuel injection system.... Caterpillar has carried this to extremes and >has some diesel engines running ungodly high pressures....I don't know >the exact figures. > I propose changing out the injectors on my vehicle with injectors >rated for lower flow, and raising the pressure to compensate. >Pressure would be adjusted in "open loop" mode using an exhaust >analyzer. It has been said that most injectors are rated at pressures >far above what they are operated at. > I'm sure this is far from an original idea, and that some of you >have done it..... How much difference does it make, and what about >pump load at the higher pressures..... how much increase in pressure >is required. > I'd like to hear about peoples experiences and mishaps doing this Most injectors will go to 80 maybe 100 PSI differential tops across them before they will either stick fully open or stick fully closed. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 Sponges grow in the ocean... Wonder how deep it would be if they didn't?! =========================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 22:38:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: Transplant On Sat, 1 May 1999, Robert Harris wrote: > Nah - some insane whacko is building a unique engine from various scrap parts > and ancient hot rod ideas. When it get's finished, it will be vaguely fordish > and definitely unusual and maybe not too expensive. > Floating rod bearings too? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:58:42 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs Gary: The Sandia type engine (variable displacement) I mentioned would eliminate the need for extreme gearing to accomplish this...too bad they don't build them. H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: Gary Derian To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 5:30 PM Subject: High economy, was Fuel injection plugs >With a CVT, you need a map of power and BSFC vs rpm and throttle. Then you >operate the engine only at the highest BSFC values for a given power >requirement. It is not so simple as WOT all the time but pretty close. >When power requirements are low, the engine would operate at very low rpm >but nearly WOT. > >Years ago (20) I achieved 61 mpg on a Vega at a fuel economy rally using >economy techniques. I set the carb for lean WOT and lugged the engine in >high gear only from 20 mph to 40 mph. At that speed I turned off the engine >and coasted. At 20 mph, I engaged the engine again and lugged up to 40 mph. >It really surprised all the guys in VW Rabbit Diesels. I had the car >ballasted to 3800 lb to maximize the ton-miles per gallon and still got 61 >mpg. This was on a 100 mile loop. > >Van Dorne has built a CVT for the Williams F1 car that could handle 700 hp. > >Electric or hydraulic drive allows the engine to operate more efficiently >but the drive train loses efficiency compared to a direct mechanical drive. >Mechanical to electric to mechanical is at best 75%. Hydraulic has high >losses at high speeds. The one advantage for electric with a small battery >and small engine is regenerative braking and the ability to turn off the >engine for short periods of driving. > >Gary Derian > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:17:14 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs James: BMEP is an acronym for Brake Mean Effective Pressure...... It may be considered to mean the pressure developed in the cylinder by the combusion process. At low throttle settings BMEP is low, at WOT in the max torque range BMEP is max....... Actual BMEP values vary between engines as a result of compression ratio, boosting, camming, etc. The max torque developed by an engine per cubic inch displacement is a direct relation to max BMEP. Thus at high RPM BMEP values are lower than at low RPM due to lower induction efficiency, although the power output BHP is greater. In general engines live longer operating at lower BMEP..... H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: James Ballenger To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 7:40 PM Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs > > >Howard Wilkinson wrote: > >> James: >> I must take issue with this statement.... my experience with >> engines suggests that this is far from the truth: >> >> >If the engine is not throttled and remains where it will make peak >> power it >> >will have significantly less wear on the engine. >> >> My experience with numerous gas engines over the years would suggest >> that there is a far stronger correlation between % Max BMEP operation >> and engine wear. At WOT (Max BMEP) combustion temps are greater, the >> lubrication is less effective, and bottom end stresses and bearing >> wear are higher. Greatest engine life, and minimum wear appear to be >> at lower throttle settings, and constant load. This may not be >> correct according to the experts, but this is what I've observed to be >> true. H.W. > >I am not familiar with the max bmep term, could you explain? One this to >consider is the changes that could be made if this were the case though. >At max ve, we could optimize the ignition timing/cam duration/timing to >make max power at this specific point. By doing so we could significantly >reduce advance and therefore negative torque on the engine btdc. We would >also have less wear because the engine rpm would be constant and would not >experience varying loads on the bearings and such. Though temps would be >greater as you mentioned. Load would not be an issue because the >transmission would compensate, always giving the engine some load. The >magnitude of the load would be in the engineers hands. At this point it >seems as though we would be dealing more with transmission reliability >than engine reliability. > >James Ballenger > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:00:59 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Aaron: Unfortunately I have yet to see a water injection system that I like..... also up here there are not enough months when water injection is practical. H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Willis To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 5:37 PM Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs >At 09:20 AM 5/2/99 -0700, you wrote: >>Pat: >> It has been said that the greatest efficiency is achieved > >>which we cruise most cars. Variable displacement would be another, >>but so far has not been introduced. Another is turbocharging a small >>engine on the theory that it will develop greater efficiency at lower >>power settings, and the boost will help it develop enough power when >>needed. This has several downsides.... Compression must be lowered, >>or high octane fuel must be used or timing must be retarded, or all >>three to prevent detonation... > > Yes, BUT...what about that old water injection thread we had going a while >ago? Wouldn't efective intercooling and/or water injection let a >"standard" (normal compression, timing, etc) engine live under boost? > Specifically, I'm thinking of a Ford Festiva (Mazda 121) or Geo Metro >(Suzuki Swift) or .. dare I say ... Subaru Justy ECVT ... with a small >turbo/intercooler combo. Nice economy most of the time, but with a bit of >power to get you around trucks and up hills, etc. Am I fooling myself? > Nice thing about the Festiva is that rumor has it you can slam-dunk an >Escort GT, Mazda Miata or similar Mazda engine in it, which would be a nice >backup plan if the forced-inductionj baby didn't perform to your (my) >expectations. > OK, guys, where am, I going wrong on this one? > Aaron Willis > ICQ #27386985 > AOL IM: hemiyota > http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 22:55:24 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs Pat: You wrote: >I'm with you up to here. why a stepped automatic? < The reason for the stepped transmission is to increase gear range beyond what the belt drive can provide.... you'd probably have to use an axle ratio of 1x (not available as far as I know) to get high enough gearing to load an engine down under virtually any conditions You also wrote: >aren't bobcats hydrostatic< The early ones many of which are still in existance were not hydrostatic and used a clutch and brake system like a Caterpillar with a hydraulicly operated variable belt setup for speed range control. The numbers such as 500, 510, 600, 610, and a number of others used this system. I converted one of these from a 2 cylinder Kohler engine (16 hp) to a Subaru EA71 a number of years ago...... what a powerhouse! You also commented about noise in the FE engine with .035 lash..... it wasn't any louder than most solid lifter engines, and was in a 2 ton cab over truck so lifter noise wasn't noticed...... supprisingly some of the Ford factory specs for lifter adjustment on some of the stock FE engines with solid lifters which were high performance engines in the early & mid 60's were at or very close to this gap. You will find this on some of the 390, 406, and 427 engines I believe..... Three duces, solid lifter cam, and 400+ hp. Those were real engines!! H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: Pat Ford To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 5:13 PM Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs >Previously, you (Howard Wilkinson) wrote: >> Pat: >> It has been said that the greatest efficiency is achieved in terms >> of fuel burned per hour as related to horsepower output at WOT. >> Engine power output is more or less proportional to CFM airflow in a >> spark ignition engine. Thus power must be controlled by regulating >> airflow as mixture is fairly critical. Airflow may be controlled in >> one of several ways. The common way is to apply a vacuum and resist >> induction....throttling..... this has the side effect of reducing >> effective compression ratios at the typical 20% or so throttle at >> which we cruise most cars. Variable displacement would be another, >> but so far has not been introduced. Another is turbocharging a small >> engine on the theory that it will develop greater efficiency at lower >> power settings, and the boost will help it develop enough power when >> needed. This has several downsides.... Compression must be lowered, >> or high octane fuel must be used or timing must be retarded, or all >> three to prevent detonation... Lower compression drops efficiency when >> the turbo isn't boosting... retarding the timing doesn't help output >> or efficiency, and high octane fuel is expensive. Turbocharging or >> Supercharging are not the answer to our prayers unless an engine is >> developed which has variable chamber size. Even then there is the >> downside that the smaller pistons and or shorter stroke will reduce >> the ability to convert the cylinder pressure into torque. We all know >> Pi*Rsquared....... figure the piston surface area and multiply it by >> the combustion pressure to get the push on the rod..... The longer the >> stroke, the greater the leverage available to turn the push into >> torque....... I like cubes....they make power. >> The other way to reduce engine output is to load it down to an RPM >> where the induction air flow is just enough to develop the power >> needed to sustain the load. The belt drive transmission you describe >> is probably the simplest sytem available to do this, and in >> conjunction with a stepped transmission (automatic) one should be able >> to accomplish this. > >I'm with you up to here. why a stepped automatic? the justy used a clutch, >an electronically controlled set of pulleys and the reverse idler, and dif. > >there was no other transmissions. the tach when you jumped on the fun pedal >went to around 3500 rpm ( it was around 10 yrs ago, I don't remember the >exact #) and then the pulleys did all the work. when you eased up on the >pedal the ratios changed gradualy from torque peak down to whatever was >needed to keep the engine load signal ( I believe it was duty cycle from >the injector) in a given range. It worked, and felt like driving a diesel > >>In this scenerio the throttle (the one you step >> on) would be directly in control of the transmission.... as you press >> the throttle the transmission gears down to allow the engine to rev up >> and develop power as needed. The engine is always at full throttle >> except at idle when it is throttled due to lack of any sort of load. >> Such a system should work within reason....it may require conventional >> throttling at very low power settings (dual mode operation). It would > >I should have mentioned the economy mode but as I said that was a while >ago 8-) > >> be more ideal with some sort of variable camming so that the engine >> would develop efficient power throughout it's RPM range. None of >> these things is new or untried technology. The belt drive is not a >> very efficient system, but has a great virtue in simplicity. It has >> been used for many years in such diverse applications as combines, > >I knew some combines had then ( I worked on 2 or 3 over the years) > >> skid steer loaders, > >aren't bobcats hydrostatic > >> variable speed machine drives, and >> automobiles...... The Dutch built DAF used such as system. Camming of >> an engine so that it will breath well at low RPM and also at high RPM >> can be handled in several ways. The issue is overlap. The greater >> the overlap the less efficient at low RPM, but the better at high RPM. >> The simplest approach is the Rhodes type lifter which contains an oil >> chamber and bleed hole.... at low RPM the oil bleeds out more than at >> high RPM simply as a function of time. I have greatly changed the >> running characteristics of several engines which were over cammed by >> simply changing over to mechanical rather than hydraulic lifters, and >> adjusting lash until I was satisfied with the result...... One such >> engine has run over 50K so far with .035 lash on mechanical lifters > >that must make a racket, but sounds fun > >> running on a hydraulic lifter high performance cam (FE series Ford >> engine). The other option would be a dual cam system of some sort set >> up with centrifugal advance/retard. This would allow one cam to >> advance the opening times, and one to retard the closing times of two >> sets of valves. This would not be difficult to accomplish with some >> engines. Caterpillar uses such a system on injector pumps on some >> engines for timing advance... it is located right on the drive gear. > >honda vtech does this doesn't it?? > >> >> Just some ideas....... H.W. > >cool one thing I really like about this group is all the different ideas >that come up > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pat Ford >> To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >> >> Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 7:40 AM >> Subject: Re: Fuel injection plugs >> >> >> >Previously, you (James Ballenger) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Howard Wilkinson wrote: >> >> >> >> > The most reasonable way to control engine power output is by >> >> > gearing so that RPM is controlled by load. A continuously variable >> >> > transmission system could allow an engine to operate at full throttle >> >> > all the time except at idle when it would need to be throttled. >> >> > Allowing the engine to always operate at WOT would greatly increase >> >> > efficiency. H.W. >> >> >> >> Ok, I know this isnt right. If we had continously variable transmissions, >> >> we would be running them at peak torque not at wot. VE is greatest at peak >> >> torque, the reason we rev engines higher to acheive high horsepower is to combat >> >> inefficient gearing. At wot, there is significantly reduced ve and not enough >> >> time to get good mixture and combustion, therefore lower torque. The reason >> >> this is an asset is because it produces more torque per unit time, ie power. >> >> With a continuously variable transmission we could run the engine all day long >> >> at peak torque and get double or triple the gas mileage, more power, and reduced >> >> wear. Again, im just a student so tell me where i goofed but I have discussed >> >> this with others before and feel somehat confident that this is right. >> >> >> >> James Ballenger >> >> >> > >> >years ago when the Subaru Justy came out and had the ECVT ( I worked at a subaru >> >dealer at the time) the engine would if you tromped on the gas would go up to >> >the peak of the torque curve and stay there. It was amazing, the damn things were >> >only a bit slowwer then a bmw M3 ( the dealer was also bmw and saab dealer). We >> >actualy had drags with the bimmer and saabs and the 3 cyl justy was at the top >> >of the cars we sold. The fuel economy was great just the lifetime of the tranny >> >wasn't so good. The ECVT was like a snowmobile pulley system but the belt worked >> >under compression, and there was a magnetic clutch that used iron filings to transfer >> >power. The othe funny thing was reverse was just an idler after everything else, >> >the early justy would go as fast in reverse as forward. > > >-- >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: Sun, 2 May 1999 23:03:07 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: Flame - Not Flatheads....... Well don't let's forget Briggs & Stratton, Tecumsa, Kohler........ H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: CLsnyder To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Friday, April 30, 1999 6:39 PM Subject: Re: Flame - Not >A "flathead" motor is also called a side-valve engine. The valves are in the >block, beside the piston. They tend to be low compression engines. Common >examples are the old Chrysler six (up to 1959), the early Ford V8 up to >about 1953) and the old Hudson and Rambler American (up to about 1962) >----- Original Message ----- >From: H Villemure >To: >Sent: Friday, April 30, 1999 2:24 PM >Subject: Re: Flame - Not > > >> Robert, >> >> I am more of an ignoramus than most on this list- just a fresh >> mechanical engineering graduate. Could you detail what a *flathead* >> motor design consists of? >> >> Thanks! >> >> And about your Mach 1- what transplant? The Cobra 427? Talk about torque >monster... >> >> Robert Harris wrote: >> > >> > It wasn't supposed to be a flame - just exasperation at the inability of >> > people to understand that what's new and hot - generally is not. >> > >> > Example - name the most modern valve configuration Overhead Valve, Dual >> > Overhead Cam, Valve in block ( flathead ) >> > >> > Correct answer FLATHEAD. It was evolved to reduce the production costs >> > associated with OHV or OHC. >> > >> > Every time you see a "new" engine idea, check with the guy at the patent >> > office. Most likely it was invented during the pre-WW II "racing" era >where >> > each major power sponsored outrageous prizes to develop the military >> > technology needed for the coming war. And when national survival is at >risk, >> > it inspires a fantastic spurt of development. >> > >> > And please don't draw inferences from the "current" implementation of a >> > specific technology as to what that technology is capable of. I know I >come >> > across as cranky and an old pharte at times, but when you small box >categorize >> > things, you lose the beauty of using something in ways that expand the >mind >> > and solve the problem eloquently. >> > >> > 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 >> >> -- >> Helene V. >> ___________________ >> welcome to mk2@xxx.com >> visit us at http://come.to/helene-and-matti >> > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 02:12:36 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Need Fuel Injector Data There needs to be something to offset the forgotten birthdays, meetings, bill payments, appointments, etc. Thanks. Shannen Steve Ravet wrote: > > "swagaero". Why do I remember stuff like that? > > --steve > > Shannen Durphey wrote: > > > > There was a website which mentioned using Saturn parts for aircraft > > EFI conversions. Can't quite remember the name, but I will post it > > when I do. If you can't wait, the person who owned the site was a > > member of this list at one time. His posts should be in the archives. > > Shannen > > > > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > > > > Couple things come to mind. > > > GM 1987 Sunbird 2.0L 4 cylinder Turbo might be close, they are P+H. > > > www.lindertech.com that's off the top of my head but they are in gasoline > > > Alley > > > Indianapolis, IN. Then RC Eng in SoCal.. > > > How much info do you have about that ecms prom calibrations?. > > > If your point man is gone, you might need to reevaluate your posistion. > > > Bruce > > > > > > > A friend of mine and I are working on an unusual project. We are adapting > > > a > > > > '93 Saturn ECM and two DIS modules to run a Continental O-200 aircraft > > > > engine. The engine is 200 C.I. (3.3 L) 4 cylinder dual plug and should > > > make > > > > about 120 HP at about 2800 RPM. > > > > > > > > Can anyone supply us with the information or give us an idea of where we > > > can > > > > find a chart with the injector data? > > -- > Steve Ravet > sravet@xxx.com > Advanced Risc Machines, INC > www.arm.com ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #254 ***************************** 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".