DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, May 12 1999 Volume 04 : Number 277 In this issue: Re: Eprom Programer Re: CFM Continued... Re: Rpm Independence. Re: testing injectors Re: testing injectors Re: testing injectors Re: RPM independence Re: ECU7 EFI project plans New EFI plans (ECU7) are online! Re: Honda Vtec ECU Table Driven Injectors. Re: alternative engines, WARPED Fw: L-jetronic mods re: testing injectors Re: Honda Vtec ECU See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:50:41 EDT From: AL8001@xxx.com Subject: Re: Eprom Programer In a message dated 99-05-11 20:42:01 EDT, wilman@xxx.net writes: >It might be a good idea to include 28F010 and 27C1024. > > I'd like to see the 28F102 ( 1 Meg) and 28F220 ( 4 Meg) as well. The 28F102 is programable by a Needhams EMP-10 or better, the 28F220 isn't programable by any Needhams product :+( These are the chips in the 99 Chrysler 300M 3.5 L V6 ECM and TCM that I'm using in a Porsche 914 engine swap. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:54:01 -0500 From: Tom Sharpe Subject: Re: CFM Continued... Did anyone bother to tune the Holley??? Sharpe.. Has anyone seen a comparison with the Barry Grant VFI??? I think that one would be easy to dial in and still a winner... Squash wrote: > The article is in the may 1999 issue of "Car Craft" > magazine. You should buy it! > > 502EFI ended up with 591HP and 532lb/ft > 502 with 850 holley on the same intake got 542HP and > 524 lb/ft > > And that is across the RPM range, not just at the > peak! Even with mismatched intake ports (peanut, > rectangle, oval) the EFI made more HP and torque. > > But compared to the holley 850 and a dual-plane > intake, they only managed to get less than 10 hp and > 10 lb/ft of torque. > > So don't think that any EFI will blow away a carb > under all circumstances! > > Andy > > --- Walter Sherwin wrote: > > >I just read an article where a 502GM engine had a > > >single-plane intake with a 4bbl 1000cfm TB on it > > and > > >injectors mounted in the ports. They installed and > > >tweaked a 750cfm (or was it 850cfm?) holley carb on > > >that intake and compared it to the EFI. The EFI > > won > > >in HP and torque, not to mention starting and all > > the > > >other givens. > > > > > > > > > > Neat! Where was this published? > > > > Walt. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:19:51 -0500 From: Tom Sharpe Subject: Re: Rpm Independence. Let's see... If we add a flapper to the inlet stream to measure airflow and a needle in the jet(s) hooked to the flapper to control mixture and raised the fuel pressure/volume with rpm, we could adjust everything with a screwdriver....i think cheby didit in '63... Sharpe PS Good ideas, I'm building a prototype PIC fuel pump controller... What would you like the fuel pressure to be????? How would you like to control it?? Robert Harris wrote: > Once upon a time there was something known as a binary scale. Lets see 1 bit > = 0 or 1, two bits 0, 1,2,3 and so on until we have 8,9, or 10 or whatever > bits. > > Now if I were doing this, the input would come from MAF and whatever and a > binary number would be generated. This would then be the index into a table > where the output would be the pulse width. > > BUT, not being enamored with the swiss army knife approach where one tool fits > all, I would not use a single injector per cylinder or whatever. > > If the upper bit was connected to a solenoid valve that simple opened a > calibrated jet that was 50% of the flow, I have just doubled the dynamic range > of the "injector" without getting crazy. > > Now if you were binary enlightened, you might use a number of these jets, > driven off output bits of your table such that except for a very small amount > of variable fuel to do final trimming, everything is on fixed jets. > > Of course there would be no advantage to run these fixed jets say at 100 psi > off a bosch pump would there? And no advantage to staging them so that the > higher the flow, the further up the manifold runner they are as to allow > maximum cooling of the charge. And no advantage to these jets being smaller > than your little finger. > > And if this was a throttle body, totally eliminating the pulse width modulated > injector itself by using a lambda valve as a high speed solenoid to turn on or > off the finest jets. > > Calculating the flow is simple math since the orifice is fixed and the > pressure is fixed. Also can vary the number of jets in each step. 8 "jets" > generate 256 steps - probably far finer than a real engine needs, but not near > enough to satisfy the anally retentive who believe that precision to 10 > decimal points is required to run an engine. > > But silly me remembers that the basic advantage of pulsed injectors is to > improve the idle to ~2500 rpm emissions. And CIS type thinking on the Bosch > System used in some models by Jaguar, BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc was really > crappy at idle, had no power, was balky and all screwed up, couldn't > accelerate or run smooth - *** NOT***. > > And since the whole damn thing is fixed jets driven off a table - either on or > off, someone who is not chemically challenged might just arrange for some of > these jets to be connected to fuels other than gasoline - say methanal with a > taste of nitromethane - or staged with supplementary gaseous induction like > NOS. > > But that's not going to happen to anyone who loves the swiss army knife > approach. Twist your sister and think about it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:32:21 -0500 From: Tom Sharpe Subject: Re: testing injectors Pick up the EFI driver board and hook it up. Just use any kind of switch to turn it on/off.. Sharpe James Weiler wrote: > Gang, I was flipping through my copy of 'Maximum Boost' and noticed he > had a simple injector tester. He had the injector opened by a simple > switch hooked up to a 9V battery and he said to measure flow for 1 minute. > This would hold the injector open at 100% duty cycle. I know this is a > bad situation but for purposes of testing is this going to damage the > injector (I don't need to measure for the whole minute, I could use 15-30 > seconds if that makes a difference). > > Will this work for peak and hold injectors? If these injectors need 4 > amps to open then I'm going to need something like a car battery to open > the injector. Is using a car battery a bad idea here? i.e 12V vs. 9V > > I have some professionally cleaned and flow tested injectors that I can > use as a refrence and I'll use methanol or paint thinner as the solvent > or hexane (I'm a biochemist so I can get anything) ya hexane sounds good > as it's not too volatile, methanol would be cheaper and easier however. > Need some thought here. > > I know someone posted a simple circuit to based on a 555 timer but I'd > like to do this quick. However if this is the only non destructive > method then I will build that guizmo. > > Any and all ideas welcome as usual. > jw ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 23:40:58 -0400 From: "EK" Subject: Re: testing injectors I personally have not tried to test injectors or know what the requirements are for your specific injectors, but a injector needing 4 amps to drive it would be a very low impedance injector 12/4=3A, and sustaining that much power (3A * 12V=36W) in an injector without sufficient cooling may cook it in a minute. One trick I have used in pneumatic valves ( which may be what peak and hold injectors use - I am new to the details of injector driving) is to use a large capacitor charged above the normal operating voltage to deliver a burst of power to pull the value off the seat initially, and then reducing the steady state voltage / current so heat and power are minimized. The steady state current thru the injector required to keep it open may vary with pressure and temperature, so you may have to play with that if you are running high or normal operating pressures. You may be able to use a 9V battery or other small battery in some type of setup like this. If you can find the simple circuit that does something similar, I would sure use that instead on the car battery option. Eric - -----Original Message----- From: James Weiler To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 9:52 PM Subject: testing injectors >Gang, I was flipping through my copy of 'Maximum Boost' and noticed he >had a simple injector tester. He had the injector opened by a simple >switch hooked up to a 9V battery and he said to measure flow for 1 minute. >This would hold the injector open at 100% duty cycle. I know this is a >bad situation but for purposes of testing is this going to damage the >injector (I don't need to measure for the whole minute, I could use 15-30 >seconds if that makes a difference). > >Will this work for peak and hold injectors? If these injectors need 4 >amps to open then I'm going to need something like a car battery to open >the injector. Is using a car battery a bad idea here? i.e 12V vs. 9V > >I have some professionally cleaned and flow tested injectors that I can >use as a refrence and I'll use methanol or paint thinner as the solvent >or hexane (I'm a biochemist so I can get anything) ya hexane sounds good >as it's not too volatile, methanol would be cheaper and easier however. >Need some thought here. > >I know someone posted a simple circuit to based on a 555 timer but I'd >like to do this quick. However if this is the only non destructive >method then I will build that guizmo. > >Any and all ideas welcome as usual. > jw > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 22:49:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: testing injectors - -> Well, they say injectors will overheat and die from being on without - -> fuel running thru them. I've had some on for 45 mins straight, and - -> the seem to operate fine. Same here. They get toasty warm, but not too hot to hold - no more than 160F, likely. Consider underhood temp on hot shutdown can go as high as 250F, at least according to the mechanical temp guage in my truck. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 21:14:55 -0700 From: "Howard Wilkinson" Subject: Re: RPM independence Todd: I would be very interested in reading the article you mentioned. Please let me know if you find it. My basic thought here is to emulate the working of the Bosch mechanical CIS fuel injection system electronically which would allow it to be modulated by feedback, but still yield a system simple enough to be operated by a very low cost controller. Injector timing is irrelevant, therefore injector firing rate is also irrelevant within the range above engine RPM. Perhaps mathematical formulae are not adequate to control fuel delivery.... maybe lookup tables are necessary. The Bosch mechanical system used a shaped MAF to keep fuel flow which was mechanically controlled in line with the motion of the MAF actuator arm. This put the mathematical calculation into the profile of the MAF throat which was in effect a computer (a mechanical computer). It took far more intelligence in my opinion to design this one part than to program look up tables which can be done by trial and error, or by a simple feedback system. I believe I could sit here and flow chart out and write a program to generate the lookup tables based on feedback, and minimal programmer input. I'm just looking at different possible approaches to the problem of managing fuel delivery via computer. H.W. - -----Original Message----- From: Todd....!! To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 1:15 PM Subject: Re: RPM independence >Hello Howard, > >your theory is TOTALLY GREAT and acceptable, and a system has alread >ybeen created, produced, and marketed, and it's gone over wiht a pretty >good fine tooth comb within on eof the laterChecvy Hi po mags dealing >with all of the diff types, makes, and brands of FI for just about any >type engine! > >Will get the name of the mag, I know you already know about the mag, >just maybe not about the article(s) within this specific issue? > >But the basic function of the type system I believe you are referring to >is based upon the use of formulas instead of tables... I think you are >right in line witht the way this REALLY advanced system is designed to >function! > >Will post details later, (mag's at home)! > >LATER! > >Todd....!! > >Howard Wilkinson wrote: >> >> I have given more than a little thought to the possibility of an EFI >> system that operated completely independently of engine RPM. The idea >> being that as the injectors are batch fired anyway, the timing is >> irrelevant so long as the injectors fire at engine RPM or more. >> Such a system could be almost entirely MAF based. The injectors >> would begin at a very short pulse width, and simply increase pulse >> rate up to a set pulse rate where width would be increased thereafter. >> Such a system could be operated based on mathematical formulae rather >> than on look up tables. A simple equation based on ECT could modify >> the result for cold operation, and a TPS modifier would give >> accelerator pump effect. Map should not be necessary as air density >> should directly effect MAF output. An O2 loop would handle minor >> dicrepancies. >> A lot of the complexity of the common EFI systems comes from the >> desire to fire the injectors once per revolution. Because of RPM >> dependence, the MAP, MAF, & TPS outputs are meaningful only in the >> context of RPM. Total fuel delivery per unit time is only directly >> related to MAF.... It is not closely related to RPM, Throttle >> Position, or Vacuum individually as it is to MAF. The MAF tells us >> how much fuel we must deliver per unit time, but the system must then >> work out the pulse rate based on RPM, and pulse width for that rate to >> achieve the desired delivery per unit time. >> If we know that x amount of fuel is delivered at Y pulse width per >> pulse, then it becomes a simple matter to determine how many pulses >> per unit time are required to deliver that amount of fuel. At some >> point pulse rate reaches a max practical limit, and at that point >> pulse rate can become constant, and pulse width may be modified above >> that point to control fuel delivery. The fewer factors you are >> changing the simple the program becomes. >> Perhaps this is a simple minded vew of the process, but then I'm a >> simple minded sort of guy.... I am of the "KISS" school of thought. >> H.W. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:37:09 -0700 From: Al Lipper Subject: Re: ECU7 EFI project plans Marc, You are exactly right. The first step is to convert EFI02.ASM to work with the 80C552. If you have time to work on this, that would really be great. Thanks! Al At 03:29 PM 5/9/99 +0200, you wrote: >Hi Al, > >I looked through the schematics last week. They look quite the same as my >controller-board, except for a few things. Adress-decoding works with a gal >on my system. I do not have a i2c interface. All i/o pins of the >microcontroller are also on a large connector, so I can make daugtherboards >with injection drivers and signal conditioners. I also read parts of the >software and they are documented very well indeed. > >I also use the asm51 assembler, with the 80C552 predefined symbols >(extension file). Are there a lot of things changed to the latest >hardware-schematic, compared to the one on the web ?. I hope to be able to >give you some more information about the monitor program in a week, but I am >not sure I will have it in time. > >In the meantime, is there anything I can do, like porting software to the >80c552 ? > >One last question, will you be using the basic compiler for ECU7 also ? >Sorry for the bad english. > >Take care, > >Marc >marc@xxx.nl > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:32:23 -0700 From: Al Lipper Subject: New EFI plans (ECU7) are online! The latest version of the schematics and PC board loayout are online at http://members.aol.com/ALIPPER/ I'm intersted in hering what people think. Also, I'm hoping do get some of the blank PC boards made up - if anyone has a cheap source for a few of these, that would be great. Al efi@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 01:21:02 EDT From: EFISYSTEMS@xxx.com Subject: Re: Honda Vtec ECU Hi, I saw a spot on the board for a 27256 to be mounted and I heard from someone that there needs to be a jumper placed on the board so it doesn't look at the factory one but thats as far as I went.....hth's - -Carl Summers In a message dated 99-05-11 20:41:44 EDT, you write: << Subj: Honda Vtec ECU Date: 99-05-11 20:41:44 EDT From: wilman@xxx.net (WILMAN) Sender: owner-diy_efi@xxx.edu Reply-to: diy_efi@xxx.edu To: diy_efi@xxx.edu Hello, Is there anybody out there who can help me to reprogram the ECU's found on 1992 onwards Honda Civic EG6 1.6 Vtec. Codes are either P30-G00 or P30-000. Wilman ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-P >> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 05:39:26 GMT From: bob@xxx.com (Robert Harris) Subject: Table Driven Injectors. The use of separate injectors and tables to drive them can be extended to any situation. The scenario. You have 28 pound injectors that would nicely cover from idle to xxx. Going up in pressure, or poundage begins to reduce your controllability at the low end. Yet you need to wind up with 40 pounds of flow. Any number of solutions for single injectors - none of them really optimum. For a fixed jet injector at a fixed fuel pressure, it is possible to calculate the orifices to flow x amount of fuel. Say we pick it to be 15 pounds. 15 + 28 gives us 43. Now, this does not have to be a single nozzle. It could just as well be 8 nozzles sized appropriately to spray a mist of fuel way up the runner when turned on. Not going to happen at low throttle anyway so the air flow will be strong and CIS will work just fine. So what we have is a simple fixed jet(s) turned on at a certain point by a simple solenoid on/off. Now if we use conventional discrete logic or formulae, we can get snarly right fast. But, stealing freely from earlier days when computational time meant something, we can use a "decision table" or "look up". Not a schematic - just a verbalization of a concept. Implementation is left to the student as an exercise. Use a rom as a translator. Take a sixteen bit address rom, with 8 bits out. Seven of the eight bits are fed as an input to a D/A and the pulse width is the output. The eighth bit simply turns the fixed jet solenoid on or off. On the input side we calculate % power as a binary number based on MAF or whatever. That's n bits. The address. We can then calculate initially the contents of the table so that we can get the proper fuel flow using both the jet(s) and the injectors. With no computational overhead - simply read the address and apply the result. There is no reason to limit the conversion to a simple Maf to pulse width / jet on/off. Increasing the number of bits in the output allows us to control additional devices - such as fixed stream water/alcohol on/off or three step water or "fill in the blank" Increasing the number of bits in the address allows us to "OR" in address bits that represent additional considerations such as high gear, cold engine etc. The total of the discrete bits and converted analog input give you the total address or size of the table. The ROM can be replaced with a flash rom so that you could run - collect data and change the entire data table and algorithms on the fly. Several of us discussed this idea a couple of years ago. The use of table controlled small fixed jets allow you to place them where optimum for whatever you are trying to accomplish. For example you may want to place a couple in the plenum following the intercooler on a positive pressure engine. Then, with the discrete logic - turn them on at a certain boost pressure when flow exceeds xxx. The more fixed jets that the ROM controls, the smaller the effective range of the variable jets has to be. Unusual thinking might be having a somewhat larger output word and controlling two fuels - such as vapor propane and gasoline or for Dave, a third - cruise-o-crap. With a few fixed orifices on two of the three, the ROM could be set up to blend nicely the various fuels without complex logic and still be close to correct. A last example. The use of liquid propane is a nasty snarly problem. Not for me. Part of the input "address" is the tank pressure of the propane. Knowing the tank pressure, I "know" the flow thru a fixed orifice. If I place a fixed orifice nozzle in the intake port, I can turn on a fixed flow of liquid propane straight from the tank with just an on/off solenoid whenever the throttle demands it. Think NOS. Two nozzles at the port gives me four steps off/1/2/3. Part of the rom code. Self tuning - the hotter the day, the more I need the octane boost and charge cooling and oh lucky me, the higher the tank pressure. Just some silly thoughts to wake up to. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 03:01:48 -0400 (EDT) From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED > > > > > Startin with the 70 Superbee's 440... > > > > Future plans incluse twin turbo's so I need big nuff injectors to handle > > almost 1,000 hp, am currently at about 400-450 hp so need at LEAST big > > nuff injectors for 500 hp minimum, how many lb injectors do I ned if I > > go sequential port injection and where can I find these type of forumlae > > so I don't have to beg you's guys for answers to these type of simple > > answers to these formulae.... > > > 30 lb will be enough > you will need 65 to do 100 HP and should probably use 80lb to be safe in case > you calculated wrong and end up with more power than you thought that should have said 1000 Hp > > Clive ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 03:08:50 -0400 From: James Seabolt Subject: Fw: L-jetronic mods > Is the fuel pump up to the job? What is it's output vs. head presure > graph look like? As boost comes on and presure in the intake rises the > pump may not be able to supply enough fuel and you're running lean which > is causing your detonation problem. What are the reading from your O2 > sensor when under boost but not WOT? Use a digital multimeter for > this...you probably already know that however. When I tricked the coolant temperature sensor out, I was able to cause the engine to bog and belch plumes of black smoke out the exhaust at 7 pounds of boost. So I think I have plenty of potential for extra fuel. Unfortunatly this trick didn't work because it dumped too much fuel into the motor. Before my latest experiment (faking out the oxygen under boost), all lights lit up on my air/fuel meter however it only shows a 12:1 mixture (maxmimum). All light still glow under boost and I think now I am finally getting the 10:1 possibly 9:1 mixture I need. Also checked to make sure the throttle position switch was set correctly for WOT and it was. There is only three contacts in it. Idle, WOT and ground. It was near 90F today and still no pings. - ---------------------------------------------------------- James Seabolt -----> mailto:jseabolt@xxx.net Webpage: http://users.intermediatn.net/jseabolt/ ICQ # : 7344463 United States 1980 FIAT 2000 TURBO Spider injected (John Deere aspirated) 1981 FIAT 2000 Spider (Rest in Pieces) 1981 FIAT X 1/9 (Injected) 1994 JEEP Wrangler (2.5l ) 1976 Chevrolet Pickup (454 Big block/7.3 liter) - ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 03:24:45 -0400 From: James Seabolt Subject: re: testing injectors James Weiler wrote: >Gang, I was flipping through my copy of 'Maximum Boost' Don't get me started on Corky Bell. His book was helpful during my turbo project but he is wrong about how much fuel enrichment a turbocharged engine is supposed to have. >and noticed he >had a simple injector tester. He had the injector opened by a simple >switch hooked up to a 9V battery and he said to measure flow for 1 minute. >This would hold the injector open at 100% duty cycle. I know this is a >bad situation but for purposes of testing is this going to damage the >injector (I don't need to measure for the whole minute, I could use 15-30 >seconds if that makes a difference). >Will this work for peak and hold injectors? If these injectors need 4 >amps to open then I'm going to need something like a car battery to open >the injector. Is using a car battery a bad idea here? i.e 12V vs. 9V This may be comparing apples to oranges, but a book I have on Bosch fuel injection (not sure if your system is Bosch or not) but it says 4 volts is what's used to fire the injectors. This might be L-jetronic only. >I have some professionally cleaned and flow tested injectors that I can >use as a refrence and I'll use methanol or paint thinner as the solvent >or hexane (I'm a biochemist so I can get anything) ya hexane sounds good >as it's not too volatile, methanol would be cheaper and easier however. >Need some thought here. > >I know someone posted a simple circuit to based on a 555 timer but I'd >like to do this quick. However if this is the only non destructive >method then I will build that guizmo. >Any and all ideas welcome as usual. - ---------------------------------------------------------- James Seabolt -----> mailto:jseabolt@xxx.net Webpage: http://users.intermediatn.net/jseabolt/ ICQ # : 7344463 United States 1980 FIAT 2000 TURBO Spider injected (John Deere aspirated) 1981 FIAT 2000 Spider (Rest in Pieces) 1981 FIAT X 1/9 (Injected) 1994 JEEP Wrangler (2.5l ) 1976 Chevrolet Pickup (454 Big block/7.3 liter) - ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:21:17 +0200 From: wenning.motorsport@xxx.de (Alexander Wenning) Subject: Re: Honda Vtec ECU WILMAN schrieb: > Hello, > > Is there anybody out there who can help me to reprogram the ECU's > found on 1992 onwards Honda Civic EG6 1.6 Vtec. Codes are either P30-G00 > or P30-000. > > > > Wilman Thatīs really not easy. You have to switch the processor from internal rom to external rom. Read the internal Rom from the processor and then fit a 27c256 eprom into the blank space on the pcb. Now itīs very easy to modify the ecu using an emulator. I have the information how to switch the processor from internal rom to an external one but I donīt know which processor is inside. Having a look at the ecu it shouldnīt be a problem to find the processor type and read the rom. I guess Chris Smith from Racelogic is still on this list (Hi Chris!) and I think he should know about that. If youīre just looking for a cost effective performance increase Iīd suggest the Superchips conversion. They show an interesting 16 hp gain on the rolling road (using high octane fuel). Regards Alex Wenning ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #277 ***************************** 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".