DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, May 12 1999 Volume 04 : Number 278 In this issue: A very English EFI system Re: testing injectors Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: Misc Electronics Re: CFM Continued... Modifying OBD-II systems Diesel + Ion Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: RPM independence Re: Modifying OBD-II systems Re: RPM independence Re: alternative engines, WARPED RE: RPM independence Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED In cylinder pressure measurement Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Re: alternative engines, WARPED See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:48:30 +0100 From: "Robertson, Nigel" Subject: A very English EFI system HI, This is my first post to this mailing list, although I have been reading all your comments for some time now. They have been both interesting and in a lot of cases useful. This may be a long shot but have any of you guys had any dealings with the Rover MEMS engine management system designed by Motorola. I would like to look more deeply at this system because I have two cars which use them. However, the automotive industry in the UK is a very Secret society and getting any information is virtually impossible. Any information from dealers is usually wrong because they do not have the technical expertise to answer questions. So, I am trying this list as a last resort. If anybody has opened one up I would be interested in hearing from you, or , if anyone is interesting in trying the US route of gaining info for me (Freedom of Information is a wonderful thing) I would be most grateful. Thanks In Advance Nigel _________________________________________________________________________ Nigel Robertson, BEng. CEng. MIEE. Senior Engineer Roke Manor Research Ltd Old Salisbury Lane Romsey SO51 0ZN Tel 01794 833524 Fax 01794 526943 email nigel.robertson@xxx.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 21:47:34 -0400 From: Barry Tisdale Subject: Re: testing injectors Just did this w/ mine - used 12v, measured for roughly 10 secs @xxx. Nothing got hot or fried. Barry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:24:21 EDT From: AL8001@xxx.com Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED In a message dated 99-05-11 15:43:40 EDT, atc347@xxx.net writes: >I get 6.1-6.2 mpg on the highway currently and MUST correct this >situation ASAP or else get even poorer and maybe lose electriciy, water, >phone etc.. due to the fuel bill overpowering my other bills, I've GOT >to get to work SOME HOW ya know! > >I believe I CAN get over 20 mph with a mild 440 in a 3700 lb car! > >What do ya'll think? > >Thanks for any positive(real,useable) input! > >Sincerely!, > > First off, if you are still running a 8 3/4 rear end, get a high ratio center section ( 2.76 or so) and swap it for dailly driveing. The 8 3/4 is built like a 9" Ford, a center section swap can be done in ~ 1 hour or so. Next, find a 650 or smaller _vacuume_ secondary carb. Tune it with a two stage power valve and small jets. Use this for daliy street driveing. Third, run a distrubitor with vacuume advance on the street. Fourth, keep your foot out of it! You may not get 20 mpg, but you should at least double your current 6 mpg. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:48:57 -0400 From: WAYNE JOHNSON Subject: Re: Misc Electronics On Tue, 11 May 1999 10:38:31 -0400 "Bruce Plecan" writes: > On a side note, is there enough interest for me to put together >some >notes on an ecm bench?. I got some digitial photos, to go along with >it, >just don't want to clutter the DIY stuff if not many are interested. >Bruce By all means, please do. Wayne ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 06:19:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Squash Subject: Re: CFM Continued... Yes, the holley was an 850 and it was tuned. They squeezed a bit more out of it. I have never seen anything about the VFI. Andy - --- Tom Sharpe wrote: > 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 > > > > _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:55:12 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Subject: Modifying OBD-II systems Hi, As I understand it, OBD-II is more difficult to hack then the pre-OBD-II systems. Has anyone on the list worked around the security and successfully hacked their OBD-II system? What problems did you have in doing so? Did you need any special equipment? I'd love to hear any OBD-II success stories. Thanks, Bill - ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Shaw '78 124 Spider (Will soon be) Fuel injected and stepping out over the line http://www.connix.com/~bshaw/fiat.html - ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:54:02 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Diesel + Ion http://www.delphiauto.com/pdf/sae/1999-01-0549.PDF ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:34:53 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED I believe that 100 hp is a type-o and should've been 1000, right? do you mean 8 80 lb injectors for an 8 cyl sequential port injection system? That seems a tad bit big for 1000 hp... What's the formula ya used for this calc? Thanks, Todd....!! Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020 wrote: > > > > > I've never overhauled nor tuned any of my Holley's, that may be part of > > the prob... I just swap one to another til I get one that works the best > > at the time for the kinda driving/racing that I'm doin at the time! > > > > Holley's will always probably be in my life, jsut not as much in the > > future after I figure out and adapt an inexpensive FI system to my > > car(s)... > > > > 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 > > Clive ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 08:38:33 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED Wow Shannen, Thanks for the link, you've been more help than ya know! This opens a whole new world for me and my spreadsheets and projects! I think this link is the second step to building my FI setup for my twin turbo 440 in the Superbee! Thanks again! Sincerely!, Todd....!! http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm Shannen Durphey wrote: > > Todd....!! wrote: > > > > > 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.... > http://sura1.jlab.org/~grippo/auto_f.html > Shannen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:08:34 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED Thanks for that input Gary!, Good to know the potential/average gains BEFORE going into a mod project, ya know? I only have 4.10's with 295/50 15's on the back... I've gotten up to 16 mpg with a really leaned out 800 spreadbore double pumper on the highway at 50 mph the whole way from Bryan/College Station, tx to Houston and to Waco and places, these are about 100-120 mile trips... I've since found out that that 800 holley was way too lean and may cause damage to my new 440 short block and have since parked the carb in the garage while tryin out a bunch of other carbs, from a single 600 vac to a 750 dbl pmpr with the secondaries disconnected, to a vacuum 750 to a race 750 dbl pmpr with teh power valves blocked off!! Worse case and latest average was 'tween 6.1 and 6.5 mpg using 93 octane Super unleaded... whilst driving on Houston Freeways at tween 50 and 60 mph... As for tuning, I'm not one to gripe about gettin down and dirty when workin on a vehicle, matter a fact I was just diggin into my 83 5.0 t-bird just last night, it has a crank triggered ignition, but shouldn't according to all the books, and the TBI went baa by on me so I swapped IT out for (Ya'll may wanna smack me for this) an alum intake and Holley 600 vac!! However, NOW the timing is REALLY retarded due to the computer not knowin what to do with the timing and all I EVEN went to the juink yard this past Sunday and picked up a (Ya'll are probably gonna wanna smack me again for this) picked up a single point distributor so I could have some sorta sontrol over the timing! Well, did ya'll know that all s.b. 302 Fords are NOT created equally? The single point distributor out of an old EARLY 70's LTD behemoth didin't fit into the 83 t-birds 5.0 distibutor hole! The first large diamter area of the single point distributor with an o-ring on it is too big in diameter for the hole and will not fit unless I turn the diameter down a bit... Back to the crank trigger's real prob.. Ya see the crank triggered ignition systems pickup coil is stuck in a holder that is cast into the block and is NOT adjustable! I was going to rig my Mopar magnetic star and pickup into the original Ford gutless distributor, even got the spark to work using Fords computer with the Mopar electronic distributor wired to it... I've droped that idea and will take the points diestibutor back to the junk yard and try and swap it out for a newer electronic distributor, one that fits this 'newer' type of block this time!! OR, do ya'll know how to adjust the timing on a Ford's 5.0 TBI injection computer? There are probably NO good signals being fed to the Ford computer currently, and I wanna keep this simple.... This is all that's wrong with this t-bird and would like to get it runnin soon, I bought it REALLY cheap, it had collapsed lifters, I replaced em and it ran SUPER til the TBI went ba by on me... It has REALLY GREAT a/c, this is the reason I bought the thing! Thanks for any help! Sincerely! Todd....!! Gary Derian wrote: > > If this is a typical drag setup with 4.56 gears and a Torqueflite no way > you're gonna get 20 mpg. EFI will get you 10 to 15% economy compared to a > well tuned carb. If you can get a carb setup to 15 mpg, then you can get 17 > mpg with EFI. You will need overdrive and a cam that works at low rpm > (1500). If you can't or won't tune a carb, how are you going to tune EFI? > > Gary Derian > > > > > I get 6.1-6.2 mpg on the highway currently and MUST correct this > > situation ASAP or else get even poorer and maybe lose electriciy, water, > > phone etc.. due to the fuel bill overpowering my other bills, I've GOT > > to get to work SOME HOW ya know! > > > > I believe I CAN get over 20 mph with a mild 440 in a 3700 lb car! > > > > What do ya'll think? > > > > Thanks for any positive(real,useable) input! > > > > Sincerely!, ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:38:17 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED WOW Fred, Thanks for that! Would LUV to get rid of the ugly distributor in the front of the engine! The ignition wires protruding from the front tend to make the engine look messy... Where would ya'll recommend mounting the big cmoputer and coil packs on a big car like my 70 Coronet Superbee(Looks kinda like a Dukes a Hazard 69 Charger) Would it go in or around the glove box? Or under the hood somewhere cool? Just wonderin... Fred, your advice sounds like an affordable alternative to plain ol stocker injection... which would be tough to make handle my power demands...even without the twin turbo's! Hey, have you eve thought of creating a package deal for your Mopar? I bet you could sell it like hot cakes, I know I'd want one, depending on the price, which I KNOW copuld be VERY decent! LATER! Todd....!! http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm Frederic Breitwieser wrote: > > > you're gonna get 20 mpg. EFI will get you 10 to 15% economy compared to a > > well tuned carb. > > Or triple if your carb sucks :) With modern day pickups approaching 20 > MPG on the highway, my 5-6 MPG ratbag truck ain't cutting it, hence the > push for EFI as well. Turbos for towing power, crappy mileage under > load, and acceptable mileage for highway cruising. > > > (1500). If you can't or won't tune a carb, how are you going to tune EFI? > > Aaaah... that entirely depends on the system you choose. If you dump > some cash for something simpler like the Edelbrock or Holley TBI setup, > the bolt on, a few sensors are added, and both units come with fuel maps > that are "reasonable" for various engines. A little tuning and you can > get a vehicle on the road without being entirely tortured. > > For a more advanced TBI or even TPI, Haltach as well as Electromotive > come to the rescue with a more complex system, but you can get great > results with these. Both come with "configurations" for the Chevy BB > (454), which you can "slap" in for the 440 Dodge, it should work well, > its close enough. > > Its when you take a junkyard ECM (like the 7749) designed for a six > cylinder engine and tune things up for a big twin-turbo V8 that your > hair starts to flee your head. > > An electromotive Tec II system with junkyard sensors, throttlebody, > wires and a bag of crimp spades/bullet connectors, you can get the > vehicle up and running for approximately 1000-1200 if you buy just the > unit, if I remember the pricing correctly. Been a year or so since I > called them for pricing. The ignition is taken care of, since it has > coil packs, so you can subtract the cost of a new distributor, regulator > assembly (Its a Dodge thing), and all the crap associated with that. > With the Tec II I'd chop off the insides of the dizzy and leave it in > the block to spin the oil pump, rather than go dry sump and deal with > that complex mess of hoses. Also, the Tec II supports 60 tooth wheels > for the crank, and 120 tooth wheels for the cam, and there is nothing > stopping someone from slapping one of those wheels on your dizzy head, > and make the timing/engine position sensors more accessable. A friend > of mine did this with his Chevy 350. > > Hope that helps. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 09:53:16 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: RPM independence Howard the article is in the May 99 issue of GM High-Tech Performance And the brand that uses Volumetric and other formulae instead of look-up tables is known as Electromotive.... Probably heard of em? HAHA!?? Keep me informed of your progress in this matter! LATER! Todd....!! Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > 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: Wed, 12 May 1999 11:38:47 EDT From: A70Duster@xxx.com Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems So would big brother. I believe that OBD-II was created to keep us DIYers from "hacking" into the controller. Just watch your arse. See ya, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:13:00 -0500 From: dave.williams@xxx.us (Dave Williams) Subject: Re: RPM independence - -> 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 "Program" lookup tables? "Feedback" system? When Bosch designed the L-Jet, computers were capital investments that weren't particularly portable, and there were no O2 sensors, though there was some primitive exhaust gas analysis stuff - not particularly portable either. "Gee, why did Paul Revere run around on his horse flapping some lanterns? Couldn't he have just emailed everyone?" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:02:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED > > I believe that 100 hp is a type-o and should've been 1000, right? > > do you mean 8 80 lb injectors for an 8 cyl sequential port injection > system? That seems a tad bit big for 1000 hp... > > What's the formula ya used for this calc? avg .55lb fuel / hp under boost and .45 NA p the 80 is too large but leaves a little room for overboost etc. Clive ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:05:18 -0700 From: "Stowe, Ted-SEA" Subject: RE: RPM independence where do you get GM High-Tech Performance ? > -----Original Message----- > From: Todd....!! [SMTP:atc347@xxx.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 9:53 AM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: RPM independence > > Howard the article is in the May 99 issue of GM High-Tech Performance > > And the brand that uses Volumetric and other formulae instead of look-up > tables is known as Electromotive.... Probably heard of em? HAHA!?? > > Keep me informed of your progress in this matter! > > LATER! > > Todd....!! > > Howard Wilkinson wrote: > > > > 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: Wed, 12 May 1999 12:17:21 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED I hear ya Harold, makes sense to me... However I have a Dana 60 with the 4.10's and it takes a bit longer to swap out the gears in that baby, it'd probably be quicker to swap ou tthe entire rearend!? Good idea though. My friend with another 70 Bee which DOES have a Dana swapped his 4.10's out for some 3.23's and MAN does it HAUL on the highway! He'll be takin his to the strip in a couple a weeks! I'll be followin him with mine... I got down to a puny 13.4 at 102 this past Friday night at the track... He'll be lucky if he breaks into the low 15's... ALSO, instead of swappin out gears I COULD just put some really tall truck like tires on there, the 295/50's seem kinda short, they don't even go up into the fenderwell at all, except maybe when bouncin over a bump or somethin... Will try gettin the 600 vac to idle better, maybe even run the ol Rochester off the 70 Chev truck again.. I used to run this carb, had GREAT idle characteristics, but couldn't break any lower than a 13.6 in the quarter with it, it's only a 625 or so cfm Rochester... Will also hook up the vac advance, if I can find a vacuum tube to hook it up to, they're all blocked off internally on the 750 dbl pmpr I'm currently runnin, so I'm not runnin it currently... The 600 or Rochester have plenty of vacuum tubes I can use for the vac advance... The Manual calls for 38 degrees total mechanical advance and lik 56 degrees advance with the vacuum hooked up... Does this sound right to ya'll? Seems a tad bit much to me! Thanks again! Really appreciate the help! LATER! Todd....!! AL8001@xxx.com wrote: > > In a message dated 99-05-11 15:43:40 EDT, atc347@xxx.net writes: > > >I get 6.1-6.2 mpg on the highway currently and MUST correct this > >situation ASAP or else get even poorer and maybe lose electriciy, water, > >phone etc.. due to the fuel bill overpowering my other bills, I've GOT > >to get to work SOME HOW ya know! > > > >I believe I CAN get over 20 mph with a mild 440 in a 3700 lb car! > > > >What do ya'll think? > > > >Thanks for any positive(real,useable) input! > > > >Sincerely!, > > > > > > First off, if you are still running a 8 3/4 rear end, get a high ratio center > section ( 2.76 or so) and swap it for dailly driveing. The 8 3/4 is built > like a 9" Ford, a center section swap can be done in ~ 1 hour or so. > > Next, find a 650 or smaller _vacuume_ secondary carb. Tune it with a two > stage power valve and small jets. Use this for daliy street driveing. > > Third, run a distrubitor with vacuume advance on the street. > > Fourth, keep your foot out of it! > > You may not get 20 mpg, but you should at least double your current 6 mpg. > > Harold ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 13:41:22 -0400 From: Frederic Breitwieser Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED > The ignition wires protruding from the front tend to make the engine > look messy... The electromotive system has the same coil pack setup as the modern day GM TPI engines, including the Grand National, most FWD 3800cc engines, Camaros & Vettes. > Where would ya'll recommend mounting the big cmoputer and coil packs on > a big car like my 70 Coronet Superbee(Looks kinda like a Dukes a Hazard > 69 Charger) The whole EFI is one piece (Electromotive), so it goes on top of your intake, or on your firewall. If you have a dual-carb hi-rise plenum, it fits under certain ones, but it will get fairly hot and shorten its life. Firewall is the best place. > Would it go in or around the glove box? Or under the hood somewhere > cool? The you'd have to cut holes in your firewall for the plug wires and wiring harness. > Fred, your advice sounds like an affordable alternative to plain ol > stocker injection... which would be tough to make handle my power > demands...even without the twin turbo's! Well, I'm going with the GM OEM stuff simply because its a fun project, and I can invest time for nearly free rather than buying something for $1000. have to save some cash for the fabrication work to make this all fit. > Hey, have you eve thought of creating a package deal for your Mopar? Naaah, I'll post pictures on the 'net and let everyone check it out for free, not in the business of making money on these things... I do them because I enjoy "fangling" and I get to learn stuff, which is the whole point. Otherwise, I'd just plop a mopar crate motor in with a big carb and be done with it. Certainly less effort than all this welding of injector bungs and such. - -- Frederic Breitwieser Bridgeport CT 06606 1993 Supercharged Lincoln Continental 1989 HWMMV w/turbocharged 500cid Caddy 1975 Dodge D200 Club Cab soon to have 431 stroker + turbos 2000 (I hope) Buick GTP (Mid-Engined Sports Car) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 10:56:58 -0700 (PDT) From: pjb@xxx.com (Pete Boggini) Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED Todd....!! said: > >Well, did ya'll know that all s.b. 302 Fords are NOT created equally? > >The single point distributor out of an old EARLY 70's LTD behemoth >didin't fit into the 83 t-birds 5.0 distibutor hole! > >The first large diamter area of the single point distributor with an >o-ring on it is too big in diameter for the hole and will not fit unless >I turn the diameter down a bit... > Huh? Let's see, I've had a 289 that I stuck a later model duraspark in and it worked fine. More recently I had an '87 5.0 that I had the same duraspark distributor in and it worked fine. Its got the TFI distributor in it now since its EFI, but I don't remember there being differences like that. Was that possibly a 351W distributor? They are longer, or so I've been told, but they may be wider too. I will admit that I didn't try and stick the single point distributor in the 5.0, well, I tossed that distributor so I can't check now.:-). Of course, I was also told that since the TFI distributor, with its longer shaft, would require modifications to get it to fit with my Motorsport oil pump shaft, but it fit fine. I've since heard there are two shafts, and I must have the shorter one. But, it worked with the duraspark distributor. Boy do I feel lucky...:-). peterb - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Boggini Systems Administrator/Corporate Operations E-mail: pjb@xxx.com Phone: (650)933-6858 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:02:06 -0400 From: "C. Brooks" Subject: In cylinder pressure measurement Has anyone ever heard of anybody doing this? I was talking with someone about data acquisition systems and the subject came up while we were discussing methods of knock detection. I'm not to enthusiastic about being able to monitor A/F ratios accurately or in realtime, and our conversation kinda stuck with me. If anyone's ever seen or heard about somebody performing in cylinder pressure measurements I'd love to hear about it. I imagine the transducers would have to be pretty tough, how would they mount? What kind of sample rate do you think would be needed? Best of all, who would make a sensor that could take the abuse??? Charles Brooks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 16:53:23 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Old stuff, there are several firms that were doing conversions to spark plugs to include piezo electirc sensors in them. If ya hunt under Piezio, you should find em. Was (5-6 years ago) $400-500 per plug to do, and that was for the transducer, only. Circle Track, had an article about it several years ago.. Oh, I think one of the sensor sources from the Injector Flow bench, did the plug conversion. I "think" detonation could kill'em Grumpy > Has anyone ever heard of anybody doing this? I was talking with someone > about data acquisition systems and the subject came up while we were > discussing methods of knock detection. I'm not to enthusiastic about being > able to monitor A/F ratios accurately or in realtime, and our conversation > kinda stuck with me. > If anyone's ever seen or heard about somebody performing in cylinder > pressure measurements I'd love to hear about it. I imagine the transducers > would have to be pretty tough, how would they mount? What kind of sample > rate do you think would be needed? Best of all, who would make a sensor that > could take the abuse??? > Charles Brooks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 14:18:42 -0700 From: goflo@xxx.net Subject: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement SuperFlow sells/sold a setup for measuring cylinder pressure. Piezoelectric transducer, IIRC, involved drilling into the combustion chamber. Pricey stuff. Jack C. Brooks wrote: > > Has anyone ever heard of anybody doing this? I was talking with someone > about data acquisition systems and the subject came up while we were > discussing methods of knock detection. I'm not to enthusiastic about being > able to monitor A/F ratios accurately or in realtime, and our conversation > kinda stuck with me. > > If anyone's ever seen or heard about somebody performing in cylinder > pressure measurements I'd love to hear about it. I imagine the transducers > would have to be pretty tough, how would they mount? What kind of sample > rate do you think would be needed? Best of all, who would make a sensor that > could take the abuse??? > > Charles Brooks ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 17:04:06 -0400 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED Todd....!! wrote: > > I hear ya Harold, makes sense to me... > > Will try gettin the 600 vac to idle better, maybe even run the ol > Rochester off the 70 Chev truck again.. I used to run this carb, had > GREAT idle characteristics, but couldn't break any lower than a 13.6 in > the quarter with it, it's only a 625 or so cfm Rochester... Q-jets from Buick 455 engines, 68-73, have larger primaries, flow maybe 800cfm. Other Q jets have max flow of, like, 740 cfm. (I'll grab the books later, if you need the numbers). Push the air door open (top plate for secondaries) and look at what limits the maximum opening. If the door doesn't open to slightly off vertical, the stop can be filed. Shannen ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #278 ***************************** 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".