DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, May 5 1999 Volume 04 : Number 265 In this issue: RE: 305 TPI and 808 ECM Fish Carbs Re: Injectors & harness Re: Briggs&Stratton 5.5 HP Re: atomization enhancement Re: atomization enhancement Re: Transplant Re: Reverse Cooling? RE: Jeep 4.0 Liter MPI (circa 1987-1991) Re: alternative engines Re: Inside the 99 Chrysler 300M ECM/TCM Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: alternative engines Re: OT max economy, engine stress Re: atomization enhancement Re: Injectors & harness Re: alternative engines Re: atomization enhancement Re: Reverse Cooling? Re: Direct Injection - Stratified Re: Renix RE: atomization enhancement Re: Injectors & harness Re: atomization enhancement RE: atomization enhancement Re: ECU7 EFI project plans Re: Inside the 99 Chrysler 300M ECM/TCM Trigger wheel positioning RE: Renix Re: alternative engines Re: alternative engines See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 18:34:32 +0930 From: "Jackson, Trevor" Subject: RE: 305 TPI and 808 ECM Matt When I get time in the next few days I'll make up a circuit to disable the VATS. What I need to know is what PROM code is the correct one to use - I've been unable to find any reference to the AGYM3493 EPROM that we currently have. If I can get hold of the right data then I should be able to burn a new EPROM to use. Do you know what the correct EPROM version is? Trevor > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Tomlins [SMTP:Mattpw@xxx.au] > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 12:00 PM > To: Jackson, Trevor; diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: 305 TPI and 808 ECM > > Trevor, > The 165 is the same as an 808 apart from having 1 extra chip to perform > high > speed serial communications. > The Camaro application is a Mass Air Flow system, whereas the Commodore is > MAP based. If you try to run the Camaro on the ASBX calibration, it will > run, but in limp home mode. You need to use a MAP sensor for it to run > properly. If you want to run the Camaro calibration, you will need to > disable the VATS. This can be done via an external circuit, or disabled in > the calibration (Much tidier solution). All of this informaion is in the > DIY_EFI archeives. Having said all that, I have run a mates Camaro on an > ASBX memcal. It ran quite well, but needed some modifications to the idle > control area. > > If you need any more help, let me know > Cheers > Matt Tomlins > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jackson, Trevor > To: > Sent: Tuesday, 4 May 1999 5:05 > Subject: 305 TPI and 808 ECM > > > > I'm currently trying to help a friend get a 305 TPI engine running, but > > without much success so far. I believe that the engine is from an 87 or > 88 > > Camero auto (bought from a wrecked car), the wiring loom is from a > manual > > Camero, and the ECM we have is from the Australian Holden Commodore > (which > > from what I've read from the archives is the 1227808). > > > > I understand that the '808 ecm is more or less equivalent to the '165 > ecm, > > and so we should be able to use it OK. The problem we have is with the > > Memcals. We have the Memcal that came with the ecm, which is a ASBX 9285 > > from the 307 engine that is used in the Commodores, and a Memcal from > (we > > think) a 89 Camero with a 305 TPI (EPROM AGYM 3493). > > > > As yet we have been able to get the engine running using the 89 Camero > > Memcal, but it does run (not very well though) using the Memcal from the > > Commodore. > > > > We think that the Memcal from the 89 Camero is not working because we do > not > > have a VATS signal to send to the ecm - I plan to build the circuit to > > emulate that so that we can see if that is the problem. If this is the > > problem, is the program/data from the AGYM 3493 EPROM suitable for this > > engine, or do I need to get hold of a different EPROM image and program > up > > another EPROM? > > > > BTW, can anyone tell me what is the correct EPROM image for an 87/88 305 > TPI > > engine? > > > > I've only just discovered these mailing lists and am slowly making my > way > > through the archives. There is a mountain of info there - I just need to > > find the relevant pieces. > > > > regards > > > > Trevor Jackson > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:25:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Fish Carbs - -> Same reason as the valve in block L head "Flat Head" reigned supreme - -> for 40 odd years. Just because it is very good doesn't make it cheap I doubt any of the OEMs saved much, if any, money with flathead motors vs. OHV. The required machining is about the same, except doing it all in the block instead of splitting it between the block and head(s) causes handling problems, and those flathead blocks were highly complex castings since the inlet and exhaust ports had to be accomodated in the block. Back in the 1930s and 1940s it was common for "pump" gas to be as low as 60 octane. The flatheads had a naturally low compression ratio, and the large squish area and high turbulence let them make more power on the gas *of the day* than most OHV designs. It wasn't until leaded gas became widely available in the late '40s that manufacturers started to abandon the flathead. The engineers of the old days weren't total morons. The stumbling block was the poor quality of available fuel. With crap gas, most of the advantages of overhead valves are negated. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 15:16:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: Injectors & harness - -> 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. "Poppet nozzles"? Is there some sort of breakover valve involved? If so, how do they keep all the gas from going through the first poppet to unseat? That's why the Bosch K-Jet has a separate fuel pressure regulator for each injector. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:43:18 +0200 From: f.melber@xxx.de (Florian Melber) Subject: Re: Briggs&Stratton 5.5 HP Dear Chris, I live in germany and work since about 2 years on small single cylinder port injected natural gas engines (Briggs&Stratton 7.5 HP and Honda 6.5 HP). We have all necessary components like throttle bodies, lambda sensors, catalysts, temperature sensors, hall sensors, throttle position sensors etc. It works perfect. Our applications are indoor karts and generator sets. Our system would work as well with gasoline injection. However you'll need gasoline supply (pump, pressure regulator and injector). We developped our own injection management system. It runs perfectly, but unfortionately our software engineer was very unreliable, so that I decided to look for another reasonable injection system. The Haltech F9A system showed to work good for this application, allthough I'd wish it would be smaller. A problem we had, was to trigger the ECU. My plan was to use the signal from the prime side of the ignition coil, but it showed to be not that easy. If you do an osziloscope pattern from the signal, you'll se why. We got it done with the Honda engine, but had some problems with the Briggs&Stratton engines. Now I produce cheap and small hall sensors for this application as well as small temperature sensors. An other problem was to find suitable high pressure natural gas components (small cylinders, a precise pressure regulator, and a natural gas injector) Florian ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 13:27:24 +0200 (MDT) From: Fredrik Skog Subject: Re: atomization enhancement On Thu, 6 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use common-rail (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all these manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. Examples: BMW 530d : inline 6, 3 liters, 184HP/4000rpm, 390Nm/1750rpm Audi Tdi: V6, 2.5 liters, 150HP/4000rpm, 310 Nm/1500rpm VW 1.9 tdi: inline 4, 1.9 liters, 115HP, 285Nm/1900rpm All of these new diesels are wonderful to drive, you cant tell they are not gas engines except from the low rpm torque. Especialy the BMW diesel is awsome wich easily outperforms most gas cars. Bye! > Fredrik: > Please tell me which common rail diesels use this kind of pressure > so I can be sure to avoid them ;-)......... The only common rail > diesels I am familiar with are the Cummins PT and the Detroit > engines.... They use nowhere near this kind of pressure. I strongly > doubt that the Ford Powerstroke uses much rail pressure either. > H.W. > > >> Actually the numbers I have heard are used in the common-rail diesels >> are >> 800-1400 bars depending on make.... >> A lot of pressure that is for sure. >> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 08:07:25 -0500 From: Matt S Bower Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > Fredrik: > Please tell me which common rail diesels use this kind of pressure > so I can be sure to avoid them ;-)......... The only common rail > diesels I am familiar with are the Cummins PT and the Detroit > engines.... They use nowhere near this kind of pressure. I strongly > doubt that the Ford Powerstroke uses much rail pressure either. > H.W. I don't know about the PT, before I came to the motor works but most all of Cummins lines today don't whether rail or distribution pump won't open an injector until between 300 and 350 bar and the pressure still goes up from there. On the current dodge truck cummins deisel the injectors are pressure opened at that 300 or 350 bar and those fuel lines are about 1/4" od with a max id of 1.8mm. Have never heard of lines breaking but have heard we one early batch that had bad crimps on the flange that craked the flange. The ones like this that I saw were not putting out unruly sprays, just trickled out a nice sized puddle. I don't have the numbers about getting up the 1400 bar but I would say especially with the caps pump on the isc engine that that kind of pressure is probably right in line. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 06:03:56 -0700 From: goflo@xxx.net Subject: Re: Transplant Okrasa and SPG made roller cranks for VW and Porsche. Jack Todd wrote: > Thanks for sharing that info, haven't ever heard/read about stock roller > bearing apps! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 07:13:20 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? >----- Original Message ----- >From: Greg Hermann >To: >Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 10:45 PM >Subject: Re: Reverse Cooling? > >Ya but Smoke didn't patent it, as far as I've heard. >There was a Circle track mag explaining it years ago..... >Grumpy Which would mean that Smokey and Circle Track put the idea into the public domain--so how in#@$$% come the patent office gave Evans a patent?? Greg > > >> >> 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. >> >> >> >Yes, and I was a data engineer on a TranaAm car that was used for a >> >number of tests. It works well BUT you need a higher flow pump, radiator >> >capable of handling the higher flows etc. >> > >> >The REAL reason GM quit using reverse cooling is the lawsuit that Evans >> >started against GM for using reverse cooling and not honoring his >> >patents. GM lawers looked at it and said: lets limit our liability in >> >case we lose and not make any more cars with reverse cooling. Last time >> >I talked to Evans, suit still was pending. >> >> Didn't Smokey do some work with reverse cooling before Evans did?? >> >> And how did the patent office ever give a patent on it if they looked at >> the coolant flow path on, say, an Alfa four?? >> >> Regards, Greg >> > >> >regards, >> > >> >frank parker >> >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 07:41:40 -0600 From: "Simpson, James H" Subject: RE: Jeep 4.0 Liter MPI (circa 1987-1991) Peter, Thanks for the reply. I have searched the SAE web site for "Renix" with zero finds. I'll check my local library system. Jim - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Fenske [mailto:pfenske@xxx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 10:03 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: Jeep 4.0 Liter MPI (circa 1987-1991) Hi Jim I seem to remember a SAE article on the RENIX ecm.. Try a library that carries SAE archives gl:peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:36:59 +0000 From: xxalexx@xxx.com Subject: Re: alternative engines There have been recent reports being investigated of large fly wheels and levitating superconductors loosing mass. alex > 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: Wed, 5 May 1999 09:49:02 +0000 From: xxalexx@xxx.com Subject: Re: Inside the 99 Chrysler 300M ECM/TCM > For a upcoming project, I've purchased a 99 Chrysler 300M V6 3.5L > engine/trans/computer. At some point in the future I would like to alter the > speed limiter/rev limiter and possibly some other items. > I will donate a ISO-9141-2 scan tool. You might need a CAN controller thou, or some other Chrysler protocol if these can be altered by bus messages. You will also need the message code. The software currently supports J1979 diagnostic messages. alex http://www.obd-2.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:05:25 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress Just FYI, I drove my uncles Viper Roadster a couple a years back. I drove it for about 30 mins to an hour, with my Dad in the car with me with a vid cam pointed at me most of the time... Anywho, I actualy shifted the car into 6th gear at under 30 MPH and floored it! It didn't diesel or shutter or anything bad, it was just a SUPER major D-O-G, I don't remember what rpm it was but you can guess that it was a TAD under 1,000!! Just FYI! NOT DIY_FI but plain old FYI (For Your Info) Sincerely!, Todd....!! - -------- Bruce Plecan wrote: > > ----- 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: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:18:47 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines Your statment is only true if you accept that an atmosphere exists DUE TO GRAVITY, right? However the Airplane DOES produce antigravity symptoms, i.e. can move in the opposite direction of gravity.... Later! Todd....!! - ----------------- Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > 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: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:09:44 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: OT max economy, engine stress In regards to the Statement about "Nearly WOT at low rpm is the key to good economy.....load the rods and pistons though because their inertia cannot offset the gas" If what you say is true, then wouldn't lightweight aluminum or alloy connecting rods as well as lightweight alloy pistons and pins help to offset the inertia prob you are referring to? Todd....!! - -------- Gary Derian wrote: > > 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: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:45:41 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Interestin Info Fraser!, Saw a Deisel Extended cab Dually run 16's at teh 1/4 track a couple a months ago, blew a LOT of black smoke, but really hauled patooty!! Made a ruckus off the line as well!! LATER! Todd....!! Jennifer and Brock Fraser wrote: > > > 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. > > Ahhh... It's a special day when the efi hot-rod discussion group starts > talking about Diesel combustion and fuel systems. > > You CAN believe your ears here, folks. Common rail (this is what it's > usually called, rather than "single rail") fuel systems can go as high as > 1800 BAR (yes, that's around 26,500 psi!). An analogy was drawn by somebody > else to the typical gasoline fuel injection system on most automobiles, and > yes, it's the same idea. > > The extremely high pressures are commonly generated by a piston pump running > at engine speed. And, as you guessed, the lines and rail have to be very > beefy material. These injectors aren't cheap. Imagine an injector > (typically 4-8 holes) that can withstand that pressure, and still react > quicker than an automotive fuel injector. > > I've often wondered what would happen if you tried to squirt gasoline at > these pressures. I'm not enough of a chemistry type to know how gasoline > reacts at extremely high pressures. > > Even the lowest pressure Diesel systems used today have roughly 600 BAR > operating pressures. > > Other designs you may have seen are "unit injectors" or "unit pumps". Unit > injectors are either hydraulically assisted and electronically actuated > (HEUI) or they are cam assisted and electronically actuated (EUI). Either > way, the fuel is pressurized right at the injector as opposed to the common > rail that has a supply pump that is commonly gear driven off the gear drive. > Unit pumps are individual pumps, one for each cylinder, that are cam driven. > It's much like EUI, but the pump is seperate from the injector and connected > by a line. > > I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know about modern Diesel fuel > systems. Now somebody try to postulate what would happen if you used one of > these with gasoline... > > I'm a high-speed gas engine fan (at heart), but some days I can't help but > smile when I see 850 lb-ft of torque at 1300 RPM out of 6.4L on 30 pounds of > boost. Heck, 280HP at 2300RPM is no slouch, either. > > -Brock ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:46:48 -0400 From: "CLsnyder" Subject: Re: Injectors & harness - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Williams To: Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:16 PM Subject: Re: Injectors & harness > > -> 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. > > "Poppet nozzles"? Is there some sort of breakover valve involved? If > so, how do they keep all the gas from going through the first poppet to > unseat? > > That's why the Bosch K-Jet has a separate fuel pressure regulator for > each injector. > > There is an "injector" for each cyl according to the information I had on the subject. They are all in one housing, with K-Jet style nozzles on the ends of the "spider-legs" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:52:55 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: alternative engines Airplanes by definition, generate lift to fly. To generate lift takes atmosphere. The shuttle uses thrusters in space to fly since none of the moveable surfaces work without atmosphere. Gravity would in theory be immaterial. But, I've never heard of an atmosphere existing without gravity. Bashful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Your statment is only true if you accept that an atmosphere exists DUE > TO GRAVITY, right? > However the Airplane DOES produce antigravity symptoms, i.e. can move in > the opposite direction of gravity.... > Later! > Todd....!! > ----------------- > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > 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: Wed, 05 May 1999 10:18:51 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: atomization enhancement Hey Fred, Ya mentioned that: "According to all these manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion." I'd like to add an additional note to what you mentioned, and that is that the higher pressures create better ATOMIZATION of the fuel, and thus create a finer/better air/fuel mixture, thus creating more power thru a more thorough combustion cycle.... LATER! Todd....!! Fredrik Skog wrote: > > On Thu, 6 May 1999, Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use common-rail > (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. > VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel > pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all these > manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. > > Examples: > > BMW 530d : inline 6, 3 liters, 184HP/4000rpm, 390Nm/1750rpm > Audi Tdi: V6, 2.5 liters, 150HP/4000rpm, 310 Nm/1500rpm > VW 1.9 tdi: inline 4, 1.9 liters, 115HP, 285Nm/1900rpm > > All of these new diesels are wonderful to drive, you cant tell they are > not gas engines except from the low rpm torque. Especialy the BMW diesel > is awsome wich easily outperforms most gas cars. > > Bye! > > > Fredrik: > > Please tell me which common rail diesels use this kind of pressure > > so I can be sure to avoid them ;-)......... The only common rail > > diesels I am familiar with are the Cummins PT and the Detroit > > engines.... They use nowhere near this kind of pressure. I strongly > > doubt that the Ford Powerstroke uses much rail pressure either. > > H.W. > > > > > >> Actually the numbers I have heard are used in the common-rail diesels > >> are > >> 800-1400 bars depending on make.... > >> A lot of pressure that is for sure. > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University > > Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se > Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog > 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 > Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 07:57:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) 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. '55-'58 Pontiac V8s were reverse flow. Chevrolet only did the LT1 and its variants. The motors you're talking about were L98 type and had conventional cooling no different from the '55 265 Chevy. ==dave.williams@xxx.us====================================== I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you? my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who? =================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 08:09:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: Direct Injection - Stratified - -> 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. Cost is barely relevant in these days of $30,000+ cars. As long as they can keep their payments under $300, most Americans will pay on something all their life. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:22:51 -0700 From: "Peter Fenske" Subject: Re: Renix Hi All I did manage to find quite the article on the Fenix system developed by Renix Electronics It is SAE 840543 tnx all:peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 10:53:49 -0700 From: "James Montebello" Subject: RE: atomization enhancement > I just looked this up. All the new german diesel engines use > common-rail > (BMW, Audi, Mercedes) and uses a pressures of approx 1350 bar. > VW has a new diesel at 1.9 liter that uses one separate diesel > pump/cyilinder and uses a pressure of 2050 bar. According to all these > manufacturers the higher the pressure the better the combustion. 1350 BAR!?! 2050 BAR?!? 20,000psi and 30,000 psi? Tell me there's a missing decimal point, or a units mistake here. 13.5 and 20.5 bar sound more believable. james montebello ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:09:17 -0700 (PDT) From: thergen@xxx.net Subject: Re: Injectors & harness On Wed, 5 May 1999, CLsnyder wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dave Williams > To: > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:16 PM > Subject: Re: Injectors & harness > > > > > > -> 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. > > > > "Poppet nozzles"? Is there some sort of breakover valve involved? If > > so, how do they keep all the gas from going through the first poppet to > > unseat? > > > > That's why the Bosch K-Jet has a separate fuel pressure regulator for > > each injector. > > > > > There is an "injector" for each cyl according to the information I had on > the subject. They are all in one housing, with K-Jet style nozzles on the > ends of the "spider-legs" > Do you have any info on whether a single coil is used for all the "injectors" within the CPI (central port injector)? Thanks, Tom ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 12:27:19 -0600 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: atomization enhancement >Hey Fred, > >Ya mentioned that: >"According to all these manufacturers the higher the pressure the better >the combustion." > >I'd like to add an additional note to what you mentioned, and that is >that the higher pressures create better ATOMIZATION of the fuel, and >thus create a finer/better air/fuel mixture, thus creating more power >thru a more thorough combustion cycle.... > >LATER! > >Todd....!! > Gee--an echo!! Not to mention that the higher pressure makes for FASTER injection of the needed fuel, creating a cycle which approaches the burn characteristics of an Otto cycle (constant volume addition of heat, rather than constant pressure), thus improving efficiency. Greg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 20:39:21 +0200 (MDT) From: Fredrik Skog Subject: RE: atomization enhancement On Wed, 5 May 1999, James Montebello wrote: > 1350 BAR!?! 2050 BAR?!? > > 20,000psi and 30,000 psi? Tell me there's a missing decimal > point, or a units mistake here. 13.5 and 20.5 bar sound more > believable. > > james montebello > No there is nothing wrong with these figures. That is exactly the pressures the manufacturers have presented. They can differ a 100 bar up or down but they are in the ballpark. VW has said they use 2050 bar for their new diesel. Even old diesels use alot more than 20 bar...a few hundreds I think...and even the old Kugelfisher mechanical fuel injection used on the BMW 2002 in the 70's used approx 50 bar pressure to open the injectors...and that is a gasoline car. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 11:55:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Orin Eman Subject: Re: ECU7 EFI project plans > You need a spray can of positive photoresist. Radio shack > probably has it. You spray it on the clean board (two light coats). Anyone seen it recently? The precoated boards are expensive. though not so bad at: http://www.web-tronics.com/webtronics/printed-circuit-board-supplies-positive-photo-resist-pre-sensitized-pcbs.html > Cure it for 20 mins at about 140F (oven set as low as possible is > good). Align your laser printed transparency on the board. Make > sure the toner side is down or you loose the details. Sheet of > picture frame glass over the top to press it down flat. Expose 4 > inches under a flourescent tube for 30-60mins per side. UV lights Anyone tried a black light UV tube? I'd guess the exposure time will be a few minutes only. Orin. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 14:51:31 From: Bob Tom Subject: Re: Inside the 99 Chrysler 300M ECM/TCM At 09:49 AM 5/5/99 +0000, you wrote: >> For a upcoming project, I've purchased a 99 Chrysler 300M V6 3.5L >> engine/trans/computer. >> >I will donate a ISO-9141-2 scan tool. You might need a CAN >controller thou, or some other Chrysler protocol if these can be >altered by bus messages. You will also need the message code. The >software currently supports J1979 diagnostic messages. >alex >http://www.obd-2.com For my personal use only. Which ISO-9141-2 scan tool do you have? Are there other makes available? What is a CAN controller? TIA Bob Burlington, Ontario '97 CC Sport, 5.2L, 3.55, auto., 4x2 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 21:10:20 +0200 (MDT) From: Fredrik Skog Subject: Trigger wheel positioning If I want the trigger wheels first pulse to occur at 60 degrees BTDC on my 60-2 toothed crank trigger wheel, how am I supposed to line it up? Is it the center of the tooth that the sensor detects or is it the edge of it? Rising or falling? Each tooth on my wheel is approx 4 degrees wide so I want do this right or I will have the ignition offset by a few degrees :( If it matters I will probably use a design like the one Tim Drury used for his DDIS signal condition the sensor. And the microcontroller will sense a falling edge. Any inputs would be appreciated. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Student at the Department of Computing Science Umeå University Fredrik Skog E-mail: c95fsg@xxx.se Taffelstråket 51 WWW: http://www.acc.umu.se/~skog 903 53 Umeå Phone: +46-(0)90-136365 Mobile: +46-(0)70-3041729 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 20:13:32 +0100 From: Martin Easterbrook Subject: RE: Renix Thanks Peter, but how do I access SAE papers (I'm not a member)? Martin mailto:martin.easterbrook@xxx.net - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Fenske [SMTP:pfenske@xxx.ca] Sent: 05 May 1999 18:23 To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Subject: Re: Renix Hi All I did manage to find quite the article on the Fenix system developed by Renix Electronics It is SAE 840543 tnx all:peter ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 14:01:12 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines That idea is intriguing to say the least! How may I ask, can ANY object which exists LOSE mass? How did they measrue this, where did you hear/read about this, I'd like to read the article/book/newsflash? PLEASE let me know? Thanks! Todd....!! xxalexx@xxx.com wrote: > > There have been recent reports being investigated of large fly wheels > and levitating superconductors loosing mass. > alex > > 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: Wed, 05 May 1999 14:22:13 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines How about if ya had a HUGE donut shaped container, in space, and spun i REALLY fast so as to force the air to the outside of the donut, THEN fly an airplane within that 'SIMULATED' atmosphere? It would work... Now you've heard of an atmoshpere existing without gravity... But then you could also discuss what CAUSES/creates gravity, and that is mass.... Therefore, if there is mass then there is gravity.... One of the GOAL's of the airplane is to seperate itself from the ground... The other is to move from point to point while maintaining the first goal until point B is attained, right? In space, wings are basically useless, thus enters the rocket engine! The point i'm trying to make is basically mute at this point, I think I'm just blowing hot air on the net now, so I'll jsut be quiet now... Beam me up Scotty... What channel is Star trek on this time of day....... Lemme see... LATER! Todd....!! Bruce Plecan wrote: > > Airplanes by definition, generate lift to fly. To generate lift takes > atmosphere. > The shuttle uses thrusters in space to fly since none of the moveable > surfaces work without atmosphere. Gravity would in theory be immaterial. > But, I've never heard of an atmosphere existing without gravity. > Bashful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > Your statment is only true if you accept that an atmosphere exists DUE > > TO GRAVITY, right? > > However the Airplane DOES produce antigravity symptoms, i.e. can move in > > the opposite direction of gravity.... > > Later! > > Todd....!! > > ----------------- > > Bruce Plecan wrote: > > > > 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 ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #265 ***************************** 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".