DIY_EFI Digest Tuesday, May 4 1999 Volume 04 : Number 263 In this issue: Re: Flame - Not (Tornado engine?) RE: Reverse Cooling? Re: Transplant Re: alternative engines Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: alternative engines RE: fuel line check valve reality check Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: Transplant Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: Transplant Re: CFM Questions Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: Direct Injection - Stratified Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: alternative engines Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: Transplant Re: atomization enhancement Re: atomization enhancement Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: alternative engines Re: Fish Carbs Re: Injectors & harness Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: valve job question Re: alternative engines Re: ECU7 EFI project plans Jeep 4.0 Liter MPI (circa 1987-1991) See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 08:51:41 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Flame - Not (Tornado engine?) >----- Original Message ----- >From: Gary Derian >To: >Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 8:09 AM >Subject: Re: Flame - Not (Tornado engine?) > > >> Wasn't one of these engines also used in the Checker Marathon before they >> switched to Chevy? >> >No, Checker used Continental flat heads, and an overhead valve version of >the same engine before switching to Chevy (1964). A few Chrysler engines >were also used. >> Gary Derian >> I think that's exactly what he was saying--but that the Continental they used was a LOT stronger than the 6-226 that Jeep used. 7 mains, forged crank, etc. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:54:59 -0500 From: Don.F.Broadus@xxx.com Subject: RE: Reverse Cooling? Another benefit of the reverse cooling was the dual thermostat setup that reduced the thermal shock to the engine during warm up. As far as I can tell the late LT1 is the only reverse cooled SBC. The reverse cooled engines had different block castings and water pumps and intake manifolds. > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt S Bower [SMTP:m.s.bower@xxx.com] > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 7:24 AM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? > > GM went to it earlier than the LT1. If you look at late 80's IROC's > TA's and vettes they should all be reverse flowed. The reason as I can > recall was something to do with trying to control the head temps for > emmisions. They were able to get around the need with the LS1 engine > and went back to the standard flow which I believe keeps the whole > system at a more uniform temp. Bottom line still is that the gains > weren't high enough for anyone else to fool with it. > > Thomas Martin wrote: > > > > Has anyone retorfitted an older V8 (non LT1) with reverse cooling? > > > > Is there any drawbacks to reverse cooling vs conventional? It is worth > the > > mechanical rework to do? > > > > I am curious to see why GM did it on the LT1, and from what I have > gathered, dropped > > it on the LS1. Knowing GM, there MUST have been a good reason. > > > > Thanks! > > Thomas Martin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 08:58:30 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Transplant >----- Original Message ----- >From: Shannen Durphey >To: >Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 9:13 PM >Subject: Re: Transplant > > >> CLsnyder wrote: >> >> > > >> > Some engines were MADE with spinning inserts - bearing material on both >> > sides. Others use a loose cage rollers, with the rod being the outer >race, >> > and the crank the inner. Obviously the latter are NOT pressure lubed. >> What engines used roller bearings? What applications? >> Shannen >> >MOST 2 strokers use roller bearings, and some obscure 4 strokes - Porsche 2 liter carrera 4. I believe >a few high speed Euro motorcycle engines. A few OLD splash lubed engines >also used them. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:01:43 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: alternative engines - ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: alternative engines Ex-Wife had anti-gravity Broom 10+ years ago. Grumpy (Pardon, lack of efi content) > >Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. > >Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > > > That's what they have been saying about fusion power for the last 30 > years or so.... > > Soren > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:46:59 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress Prob with putting high load on engine with low rpm is that the oil pressure is usually lower at lower rpm's thus smaller film of oil between crank and main journal bearings and rod and rod bearings and cam and cam bearings and rockers and rocker pedestals, etc... More chance for metal to metal contact....thus more chance for scuffing/scarring of metal and more chance for spinning bearings.... Heating the fuel DOES atomize the fuel better, however the hotter the mixture the less dense the mixture as well, it's a trade off and there's definitely a point at whcih heating the micture for atomization is detrimental to combustion. Also predetonation is more achievable at higher inlet temps, as I'm sure you already know... Later! Todd....!! - ----------- Aaron Willis wrote: > > I have been trying the "floor-it-in-high" driving technique for a tank or > two, and results appear promising, so far. > My question for y'all is whether I ought to be concerned with what I have > always been told is very hard on an engine - asking it to do a lot of work > at very low RPM. My car doesn't really "like" to be lugged below about > 2000 RPM, depending on load. It shakes and shudders if I load it down to > heavily, although it does continue to pull. > Am I beating the bottom end out of the engine? > > Also curious about heating the fuel to improve economy. Worth half a > damn? Any words of encouragement or caution? > > Aaron Willis > ICQ #27386985 > AOL IM: hemiyota > http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 09:49:16 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines Couldn't one definition of an anti-gravity car be an 'Airplane'? Later! Todd....!! - ------------ xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > > Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. > Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > Will not need fuel injection or conventional fuel as we know it. > There is a photo of a car airborne, but did not say if prototype. > article in this issue of Discover Magazine. > alex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 08:01:59 -0700 From: "Stowe, Ted-SEA" Subject: RE: fuel line check valve reality check really ? I had no idea. thanks Ted I will check into this. - -----Original Message----- From: Tedscj@xxx.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 7:17 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: fuel line check valve reality check In a message dated 5/4/99, 2:13:32 AM, diy_efi@xxx.edu writes: <> The SII and SIII XJ6 uses valves that are both one-way and electric shut-off. I think they are $30 - $40 a piece new, and of course if you can find one in a junk yard that would be even better. They are located in the rear wheel well, next to the gas tank, and behind a shield. I think they are probably exactly what you need since you will still be able to maintain the ability to switch between tanks. I have tried to simplify the system in my SII but have found there is no way around using the electric valves. Otherwise you have problems with one tank emptying before the other and introducing air into the gas line. Ted ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 10:03:07 -0500 From: Stephen Cranford Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? Matt S Bower wrote: > > GM went to it earlier than the LT1. If you look at late 80's IROC's > TA's and vettes they should all be reverse flowed. The reason as I can > recall was something to do with trying to control the head temps for > emmisions. They were able to get around the need with the LS1 engine > and went back to the standard flow which I believe keeps the whole > system at a more uniform temp. Bottom line still is that the gains > weren't high enough for anyone else to fool with it. > Try again...The L98's in the C4's and 3rd gen F-Body's weren't reverse flow at all. The LT1 is GM's one and only reverse flow V8. Reverse flow cooling led to cylinder temp problems that GM thought wouldn't be a problem and that's why the LS1 isn't reverse flow. - -- Stephen Cranford 92 RS Sapphire Blue w/Purple Pearl & White Stripes 86 IROC-Z28 Red w/black hood and NO interior..new toy! 89 GMC 4WD 1/2 ton Suburban http://austin.f-body.org/ http://cranford.home.texas.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:15:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Roger Heflin Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? On Tue, 4 May 1999, Stephen Cranford wrote: > Matt S Bower wrote: > > > > GM went to it earlier than the LT1. If you look at late 80's IROC's > > TA's and vettes they should all be reverse flowed. The reason as I can > > recall was something to do with trying to control the head temps for > > emmisions. They were able to get around the need with the LS1 engine > > and went back to the standard flow which I believe keeps the whole > > system at a more uniform temp. Bottom line still is that the gains > > weren't high enough for anyone else to fool with it. > > > > Try again...The L98's in the C4's and 3rd gen F-Body's weren't reverse > flow at all. The LT1 is GM's one and only reverse flow V8. Reverse > flow cooling led to cylinder temp problems that GM thought wouldn't be a > problem and that's why the LS1 isn't reverse flow. What did the cylinder temp problems cause to happen? Roger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:38:20 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress - ----- Original Message ----- From: William T Wilson To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:38 AM Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress "Lugging" an engine till it shutters, ain't good. The shutter is usually do to the tune-up being off. Many tuners don't allow for vey high load/low rpm, goes back to carb days. As a test of a calibration I sonsider it right if at 1,200 rpm or less I can hammer it and it pulls cleanly. The above is for a streetable engine, meaning say less than .5" 300d 0 lash. Some big cams, in heavy cars can't be grief. The "bad" thing about shutttering is the engine stops, and then resumes for a moment with no oil presssure. Bruce > > My question for y'all is whether I ought to be concerned with > > what I have always been told is very hard on an engine - asking it to > > do a lot of work at very low RPM. My car doesn't really "like" to be > > lugged below about 2000 RPM, depending on load. It shakes and > > shudders if I load it down to heavily, although it does continue to > > pull. > > If your engine is shuddering, you should downshift. > > Some engines (most diesels, GM Lx1 series V8) will pull like mad more or > less from idle. It really takes an effort to lug these engines. > Fortunately, the Trans Am and, I think, Camaro of recent years have an > "engine lugging solenoid" which forces you to shift into fourth gear at > about 20-25 mph. :} > > The 3-cylinder engine in my Geo Metro has the world's strangest torque > curve, and doesn't mind being lugged at all. For a small engine, this is > highly unusual, IMO. Nevertheless, it's ready to go at 1500 RPM. This > is, I'm sure, part of why it gets 45-50 MPG. :} > > > Am I beating the bottom end out of the engine? > > Well, you aren't doing it any good. Just don't lug the engine. It serves > no purpose and, although most modern engines will put up with it (and a > variety of other abuses) without too much complaint, you accomplish > nothing by doing it, so don't. > > > Also curious about heating the fuel to improve economy. Worth > > half a damn? Any words of encouragement or caution? > > Useless on fuel injected engine, IMO. May obtain some benefit on setup > where fuel is vaporized. Fuel injection system atomizes fuel and hot fuel > will do nothing except (marginally) increase risk of detonation. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 11:42:55 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Transplant - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter D. Hipson To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 7:25 AM Subject: Re: Transplant Used to be available for SBC Cam bearings Grumpy > There were (aftermarket) roller bearings available for VW air cooled > engines (probably still are). > > At 09:13 PM 5/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > >CLsnyder wrote: > > > >> > > >> Some engines were MADE with spinning inserts - bearing material on both > >> sides. Others use a loose cage rollers, with the rod being the outer race, > >> and the crank the inner. Obviously the latter are NOT pressure lubed. > >What engines used roller bearings? What applications? > >Shannen > > > > > > > Thanks, > Peter Hipson (founder, NEHOG) > 1995 White NA Hummer Wagon > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 11:51:05 -0400 From: Glen Beard Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? Thomas Martin wrote: > I am curious to see why GM did it on the LT1, and from what I have gathered, dropped > it on the LS1. Knowing GM, there MUST have been a good reason. They reverse cooled the LT1 to keep the intake charge cooler in an attempt to control detonation with 10.5:1 compression. With the LS1 (even though they run 10.8:1) being an all aluminum block and heads, GM decided not to reverse cool. That may have also been decided by the space available for the water pump. - -- Glen Beard 95 T/A conv M6 Vortech open y-pipe ;) http://home.nycap.rr.com/gbeard1/TransAm.html ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:37:01 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Transplant That was the Hirth roller cranks for the Porsche 356. If there are too many rod journals between the mains, it difficult to oil them. Ferrari F1 flat 12 engines from the mid 70's had only 5 main bearings and used rollers for the rods. Gary Derian Subject: Re: Transplant > There were (aftermarket) roller bearings available for VW air cooled > engines (probably still are). > > At 09:13 PM 5/3/99 -0400, you wrote: > >CLsnyder wrote: > > > >> > > >> Some engines were MADE with spinning inserts - bearing material on both > >> sides. Others use a loose cage rollers, with the rod being the outer race, > >> and the crank the inner. Obviously the latter are NOT pressure lubed. > >What engines used roller bearings? What applications? > >Shannen > > > > > > > Thanks, > Peter Hipson (founder, NEHOG) > 1995 White NA Hummer Wagon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:14:46 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: CFM Questions Talk of CFM is very confusing. When someone has a 600 CFM Holley, it means if flows 600 CFM at 1.5 in. Hg pressure drop. That same carb will flow 840 CFM at 3" and 350 CFM at 0.5". There is no absolute flow limit until the air reaches the speed of sound. So how much can a TPI runner flow? Those are known to be small and limit power above 4000 rpm. Sure you can boost the daylights out of it but that creates excess heat and backpressure. I think if you had 15 psi blowing through a TPI runner to atmosphere you would have really high flow but that is meaningless. You need flow in pulses and you need to have very low pressure drop. Most guys that build engines don't really know what goes on. Gary Derian > Anyone know how to calculate CFM rates? I was talking to the shop that's > building the turbo set up for my chevy engine. He said that at 15 lbs of > boost each runner on a stock TPI will flow 600 cfm. I think the stock > runners are 1.25" But 600 cfm sounds really high for such a small tube, > even at 15 lbs of boost. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:46:02 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? The LT1 was the first production reverse cooling from GM. The problem was getting the air out. Evans ran a Trans-Am car with reverse cooling for a few years. I think that work led GM to reverse cool the LT1. The conventional cooling system on GM engines leaves a lot to be desired. There have been several threads on this list devoted to it. The worst feature is poor circulation when the thermostat is closed which creates uneven temperatures when driving fast in very cold weather. Gary Derian > GM went to it earlier than the LT1. If you look at late 80's IROC's > TA's and vettes they should all be reverse flowed. The reason as I can > recall was something to do with trying to control the head temps for > emmisions. They were able to get around the need with the LS1 engine > and went back to the standard flow which I believe keeps the whole > system at a more uniform temp. Bottom line still is that the gains > weren't high enough for anyone else to fool with it. > > Thomas Martin wrote: > > > > Has anyone retorfitted an older V8 (non LT1) with reverse cooling? > > > > Is there any drawbacks to reverse cooling vs conventional? It is worth the > > mechanical rework to do? > > > > I am curious to see why GM did it on the LT1, and from what I have gathered, dropped > > it on the LS1. Knowing GM, there MUST have been a good reason. > > > > Thanks! > > Thomas Martin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:22:48 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Direct Injection - Stratified Bingo! Cost is fundamental to the efficient allocation of resources. Sure a highly efficient engine can be built but if the overall cost of doing so is too high, the overall efficiency of that system will also be low. I am a great believer in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand". Market systems do not always allocate resources in the most efficient manner but overall its better than any other alternative. That and the NOx problem. The really large engines that Jim Zurlo mentioned would have a really bad detonation problem without stratified charge. Detonation is a fundamental limit to the efficiency of a spark ignition engine. Diesels rule in large engines. If there is a lot of natural gas around, large engines can be built to use it if they have diesel like characteristics. Ergo the prechamber and stratified charge. Gary Derian > > > Gee Robert, if all these engines are so good, why aren't they used by > > anyone? Maybe they are in the same vault with the Fish carburetor. > Can anybody spell COST? As long as the bean-counters and stock prices have > more to say about automotive design than the engineers they will not see the > light of day. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 09:54:01 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress Nearly WOT at low rpm is the key to good economy. It also helps if your fuel system stays lean and the cam timing is not too aggressive. This does load the rods and pistons though because their inertia cannot offset the gas pressure loads at low rpm. Be careful to avoid much boost at low rpm for the same reason. When I had an Eagle Talon, it vibrated when driven below 2000 rpm but that was because of the balance shaft tuning. Above 2000 it felt like a V-8. Gary Derian > > I have been trying the "floor-it-in-high" driving technique for a tank or > two, and results appear promising, so far. > My question for y'all is whether I ought to be concerned with what I have > always been told is very hard on an engine - asking it to do a lot of work > at very low RPM. My car doesn't really "like" to be lugged below about > 2000 RPM, depending on load. It shakes and shudders if I load it down to > heavily, although it does continue to pull. > Am I beating the bottom end out of the engine? > > Also curious about heating the fuel to improve economy. Worth half a > damn? Any words of encouragement or caution? > > > Aaron Willis > ICQ #27386985 > AOL IM: hemiyota > http://surf.to/garage-te51 Garage TE51 International ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 10:25:20 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: alternative engines It probably uses cold fusion as its power source. Gary Derian > Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. > Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > Will not need fuel injection or conventional fuel as we know it. > There is a photo of a car airborne, but did not say if prototype. > article in this issue of Discover Magazine. > alex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:40:08 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress Oil pressure is only needed to get oil TO the bearing. Typically 10 psi per 1000 rpm is necessary. Engines with large diameter mains need more pressure to fight the centrifugal force. Once the oil is in the bearing, the load is WAY more than oil pressure. Properly designed crankshafts introduce oil to the part of the bearing with the lowest loads. If the crank is through drilled and oil fed from the end, 5 to 10 psi is enough for any rpm. Gary Derian > Prob with putting high load on engine with low rpm is that the oil > pressure is usually lower at lower rpm's thus smaller film of oil > between crank and main journal bearings and rod and rod bearings and cam > and cam bearings and rockers and rocker pedestals, etc... > > More chance for metal to metal contact....thus more chance for > scuffing/scarring of metal and more chance for spinning bearings.... > > Heating the fuel DOES atomize the fuel better, however the hotter the > mixture the less dense the mixture as well, it's a trade off and there's > definitely a point at whcih heating the micture for atomization is > detrimental to combustion. Also predetonation is more achievable at > higher inlet temps, as I'm sure you already know... > > Later! > > Todd....!! > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:42:15 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: Transplant Roller bearings are good where it is difficult to oil but they do not have less friction, once they are moving, than plain journal bearings. In fact, many times plowing a roller through oil has more friction than a plain journal. Gary Derian > COOL DEAL! > > Thanks for sharing that info, haven't ever heard/read about stock roller > bearing apps! > > Only Hig Dollar Race setups!! > > Good to know! > > LATER! > > Todd....!! > > ---------- > > James Montebello wrote: > > > > > What engines used roller bearings? What applications? > > > Shannen > > > > A great many engines use roller bearings. The bottom ends > > of most two-stroke engines are all roller bearings. > > > > A good many four-stroke motorcycle engines have also been made > > using rolling-element bottom ends. Harleys use them, most > > four-stroke singles, and quite a few large displacement fours > > made by Suzuki and Kawasaki used rollers. Even on engines > > with plain main and big end bearings, rollers are typically > > used at the ends of the crankshaft, and in the gearboxes. > > > > Porsche made a few racing engines that used roller bearing > > bottom ends in the '50s, and '60s. > > > > In all cases, the crankshafts are multiple pieces pressed > > together around the bearings and one-piece rods. For very > > high-stress operation, these bits would be welded together. > > If the crank needed to be rebuilt, the weld was ground off, > > and the parts pressed apart. > > > > Most of these engines are not low power applications, either. > > The two-stroke GP machines made today produce in excess of > > 400hp/liter unsupercharged. The big roller bearing Suzuki > > and Kawasaki engines are very popular in drag-bike applications. > > > > james montebello ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 12:34:42 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Single rail is like EFI car engines have used for years. 1800 bar? That's 26,100 psi. Now that would be an injector that could withstand any rising rate regulator. Gary Derian > Scuse me-- > > Perhaps I misunderstood what was meant by a single rail system--the > Jimmy's--a mid 1930's design-- hardly had an ecu! > > Greg > > > >> Hi all > > > > The Bosch single rail system being introduced on > >diesels uses a mechanical pump to generate a fuel > >rail pressure of around 1800 bar. The injectors are > >triggered like petrol injection injectors by a > >signal from the ECU. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:17:13 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Roy: I find that number hard to believe if my conversion figure is correct 1 bar = 14.5 PSI (rounded). 26100 PSI........ You won't catch me working around one of those systems... a leak could easily be fatal! It that the system on Caterpillar I've heard about where a cracked line can cut put out a fuel stream that will cut steel. The Ford "Powerstroke" I've been told is a single rail system which has an oil pressure driven injector which is computer triggered. An extra oil pump supplies pressure to the injectors which use the oil pressure to create high injection pressures. I've never worked on the power stroke..... only the old 6.9 & 7.2 engines which used an ordinary rotary pump. New injectors for the Powerstroke are $500.00 each according to the local Ford people.... I suppose $4k for a set of injectors isn't so bad if you can afford a $40K pickup. H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: Roy To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 7:56 AM Subject: Re: atomization enhancement >> Hi all > > The Bosch single rail system being introduced on >diesels uses a mechanical pump to generate a fuel >rail pressure of around 1800 bar. The injectors are >triggered like petrol injection injectors by a >signal from the ECU. > >--- Greg Hermann wrote: >> >A "puddle" of fuel in this context can mean a cloud >> of droplets in the port. >> >The shock wave that hits this breaks up the drops >> into smaller ones. Sure >> >it gets diluted, etc. but its the best we have for >> now and it does work >> >pretty well. The only way to inject atomized fuel >> in a short period of time >> >is with a mechanical injection pump except maybe >> the stuff used in single >> >rail diesels. >> >> Or with an air boost. >> >> Does anyone know what the single rail diesels use >> for >> >pressure and injectors? >> >> The injectors are directly above the chambers, and >> are actuated by an extra >> cam lobe/rocker arm. No idea what the pressure in >> the injector itself goes >> up to when it gets actuated--but HIGH--Probably >> hydraulic tappet style >> pressures. On a Cummins PT system (Pressure/Time) >> the fuel rail pressure >> varies with engine speed/ load, as this pressure is >> what determines how >> full the injectors get before getting activated by >> the cam. Up to maybe 300 >> psi in the rail. Changing the "button" in the >> Cummins fuel pump changes the >> pressure /speed output curve of the pump, and thus >> changes the amount of >> fuel injected at full load on a Cummins. (Not all >> Cummins B series >> (pick-up) engines have PT injection. This is 855, >> KT, and triple nickel >> stuff.) >> >> On Jimmys, there is a rack the length of the head >> which varies injector >> stroke, (adjusting the lash on the injector rockers >> and adjusting to >> equalize the strokes of the injectors is the source >> of the term "running >> the rack" or "running the overhead") and the fuel >> rail in the head is at >> relatively constant pressure, maybe 150 psi?? >> But--again, the actual >> injection pressure is on up there. >> >> Regards, Greg >> >> >> >> >> > >_________________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get your free @xxx.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:36:30 -0500 From: Matt S Bower Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? Shannen Durphey wrote: > > Matt S Bower wrote: > > > > GM went to it earlier than the LT1. If you look at late 80's IROC's > > TA's and vettes they should all be reverse flowed. > Nope. Not reverse flow. Only rev. flow V8s were LT1 and LT4 > engines. Waterpump rotation was reverse of Vee belt models, but > coolant flow was in block, out manifold like previous years. > Yep, Screwed up there. I'll wake sometime today. Just hope that's the worst one I make today. Thanks. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:44:54 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: alternative engines > Couldn't one definition of an anti-gravity car be an 'Airplane'? Not really airplanes need atmosphere to generate lift Bashful > > Later! > > Todd....!! > > ------------ > > xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > > > > Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. > > Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > > Will not need fuel injection or conventional fuel as we know it. > > There is a photo of a car airborne, but did not say if prototype. > > article in this issue of Discover Magazine. > > alex > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 12:30:03 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: Fish Carbs This is so UNBELIEVABLY SIMPLE it's SCARY!! Thanx for the reference and charts! This amount of enlightment in ONE DAY just MAY be a bit much for my pinto bean brain to handle! NOW I must go to Jack-n the Box and get some taco's to feed the Pinto Bean for a brain.... LATER! Todd....!! Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020 wrote: > > > > > > GOOD > > > ^ > > > / \ > > > / \ > > > / \ > > > ------- > > > CHEAP EASY > > > > Good one Jason... good one. I wonder how my twin-turbo 431 efi > > stroker fits into this... > > > > unreliable > > ^ > > / \ > > / \ > > ----- > > expensive complex > > > > I think this is developing into a graphical representation of the > Fangle Quotient. See the 2 dimensional representation of the 4 dimensional > FQ quantification below. > w > Fangle-O-Meter Graphic Representation > > easy cheap | practical > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > \ | / > unreliable--------------|--------------------good > / | \ > / | \ > / | \ > / | \ > / | \ > / | \ > useless | difficult > expensive | > > You will notice that we have 4 axis, which represent the major properties of > good Fanglage. As we move in the positive direction on each axis we have the > desirable properties of good Fanglage, and as we move in the other direction > we have the undesirable properties, many government projects seem to end up in > this region, "The Black Hole of Resources", whether intentionally or otherwise. > > The scales are limitless and measured in the following units: > The u-g scale in Yugo-Rollses with 0 being approximately 1 Chevy. > The e-c scale in money with 0 being a budget the average Fangler could afford, > ie. cheaper than a mobile home in Ohio. > The d-e scale in SHM-CDB (shade tree howls-can do blindfolded) with 0 requiring > a moderate amount of attention, but no use of "magic words" or tools of > destruction, ie. replacing a bolt on carburator setup, or adjusting valve lash. > The u-p scale in GE-ME (government employees-mechanical engineers) with 0 > being 1 7-11 night clerk. > > Can now give meaningful fanglage co-ordinates to all ouf our projects. > As an example, Fred's EFI-383 project would come in about at > Toyota, VCR, 4 SHMs, Marine Mechanic. Totally understandable units, that explain > the workings of the projects in Fangler's terms. > > Clive > > Clive ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:36:23 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Injectors & harness - ----- Original Message ----- From: Shannen Durphey To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 12:48 AM Subject: Re: Injectors & harness Right, sy's use 6 Grumpy > Ok. Then the 4.3W and the Syclone don't share injectors. The W > engine has one injector connected to 6 poppet nozzles, each through a > hose. Looks a little like a deformed spider. > Shannen > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Shannen Durphey > > To: > > Sent: Monday, May 03, 1999 10:02 PM > > Subject: Re: Injectors & harness > > > > The injectors I just bought out of a sy really look like the ones I put in > > the Buick GN fuel rails. > > Bruce > > > > > Wait, there's a catch. If this has the same injector as used in the > > > later 4.3l Vortech engine, it's got a different connector. > > > Barry, if the injector looks like a bug and is buried in the center of > > > a large, 2 piece manifold you can find similar parts in Astrovans and > > > S-10s with the VIN W engine. > > > Shannen > > > > > > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > > > > > > All GM TPI injectors use the same connector, as well as most ford. > > > > Pep boys might even have them. > > > > True Value does, but I don't have the number > > > > Bruce > > > > > > > > > I'm looking for a couple of injectors & connectors from a Syclone ('91 > > GMC > > > > port injected 4.3) for setting up a test rig. Does any other vehicle > > use > > > > these port injectors & matching connectors? I'm not likely to find a > > > > Syclone or Typhoon @xxx. > > > > > Thanks - Barry > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:33:50 -0500 (CDT) From: eclark@xxx.com Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? On Tue, 4 May 1999, Roger Heflin wrote: > > > On Tue, 4 May 1999, Stephen Cranford wrote: > > > > > Try again...The L98's in the C4's and 3rd gen F-Body's weren't reverse > > flow at all. The LT1 is GM's one and only reverse flow V8. Reverse > > flow cooling led to cylinder temp problems that GM thought wouldn't be a > > problem and that's why the LS1 isn't reverse flow. > > What did the cylinder temp problems cause to happen? > Detonation. Something about the design of the LS1 allows it to still run a high compression without the cylinder temps causing detonation. - -Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:52:04 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: valve job question >Sure the carbon comes back when you run the engine. But what you see >during a tear down is an accumulation over a large period of time and >after a >fair amount of wear. Putting an engine back together like that is >asking for trouble, and I would consider it a sign of laziness knowing >how easily carbon buildup can be removed. > >Shannen AMEN, Shannen Greg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:59:09 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: alternative engines >>Univ. of Alabamba is working on a anti-gravity car. >>Says could be ready within 10 yrs. > > > That's what they have been saying about fusion power for the last 30 >years or so.... And hey--don't forget the "Emulator"! Greg >Soren ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 13:37:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Orin Eman Subject: Re: ECU7 EFI project plans > If your design calls for a single sided or double sided PC board, there is a > product I saw at a tradeshow a year or two ago that you can plot your board using > a special tonor to contact paper, then rub the pcboard onto the copper clad > board, then etch. > I'll see if I can find the brochure and get more information... I had saved it > because it would facilitate my being able to make one-offs. Since you posted the > pcboard routes on the ftp site... it might be a cheesy way of one making their > own boards. I assume the board is double sided with 8/10 mil traces Not something I would like to do with such a system. I can easily make single sided boards with 10 mil traces at home using the MG Chemicals UV-sensitive boards - the hardest part is drilling them! (I laser print to overhead projector slides, touch up by hand on a light box, expose the board using the cheapest flourescent fixture I could find with the 'correct' tube (a black light is supposed to work), develop in a weak sodium hydroxide solution and etch in ferric chloride.) Orin. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 14:46:44 -0600 From: "Simpson, James H" Subject: Jeep 4.0 Liter MPI (circa 1987-1991) Hi, I have a 1987 Jeep Cherokee 4.0 Liter MPI engine installed in a 1982 Jeep CJ7. I have discovered that AMC used a Renault (Renix?) computer system in the 1987-1991 Cherokees, and that information on this computer system is, so far, impossible to obtain. I'm having some troubles starting the engine; it cranks for several seconds (15-30) before it starts, if it starts at all. I've been through all of the static tests (sensor resistance/function, fuel pressure, etc.) and everything looks OK. I've been looking for information on computer codes and commands with no success. Q. Does anyone have information on the Renix computer system? Q. Is it possible to retrofit a different computer system to this engine? Has anyone done this? I guess GM would be my first choice. Thanks for any help you might be able to give! Jim Simpson ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #263 ***************************** 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".