DIY_EFI Digest Thursday, May 13 1999 Volume 04 : Number 282 In this issue: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool. Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #280 Re: Modifying OBD-II systems Re: Modifying OBD-II systems Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust RE: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: Modifying OBD-II systems Re: Modifying OBD-II systems Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool./ Part2 Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool./ Part2 horse power/acceleration Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: alternative engines, WARPED Re: Modifying OBD-II systems RE: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Re: Honda Vtec ECU OBD_II You asked for experiences Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Re: horse power/acceleration See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:03:09 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement COOL! JUST DO IT!! Todd....!! Tom Sharpe wrote: > > Let's see... the piston measures combustion pressure... hooked to a rod... > hooked to a crankshaft....If we could measure crankshaft acceleration 60 times a > revolution, we could come up with some relative numbers... we need a toothed > wheel and sensor and ????... Sharpe > > 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: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:41:46 EDT From: A70Duster@xxx.com Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED << High strength axles can be had for a very reasonable price from Moser. Ratios are available from the 2's to 5's. If you are producing 450+ HP I recommend aftermarket axles for the 8-3/4 (I have broke them in a big block A body with that HP) >> Just for though, a lower numerical gearing would multiply torque to the axles less than a higher numerical gear. So the lower the gear (higher numerically) the stronger the axles need to be, or with higher gears (lower numerically) stock axles would be OK. Just a couple of cents. See ya, Mike ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:07:25 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool. Thanks for bringin us back to basics Robert! I have been enlightened! Where can ya pick up that coating stuff again? Thanks! Todd....!! - ---------- Robert Harris wrote: > > Not really. Lets look at what happens. > > Combustion - Third Edition. Irvin Glassman - page 96 > > (1) Following ignition, the primary fuel disappears with little or no energy > release and produces unsaturated hydrocarbons and hydrogen. A little of the > hydrogen is concurrently oxidized to water. > > (2) Subsequently, the unsaturated compounds are further oxidized to carbon > monoxide and water. Simultaneously, the hydrogen present and formed is > oxidized to water. > > (3) Finally, the large amounts of carbon monoxide formed are oxidized to > carbon dioxide and most of the heat released from the overall reaction is > obtained. Recall that the CO is not oxidized to CO2 until most of the fuel is > consumed owing to the rapidity which the OH reacts with the fuel compared to > its reaction with CO." > > Then one must note from the above or other references that the carbon monoxide > to carbon dioxide reaction where most of the heat of combustion occurs > essentially "freezes" around 700 c. The longer the combustion remains above > 700c, the more of the fuel that will be converted and the more heat that will > be released. Or another way to put it, when the temperature of the combustive > gas drops below 700c, we essentially stop generating more heat (pressure) and > live with what you have. > > Of course the reaction still goes on - but at up to orders of magnitude slower > rate. > > Coating's reduce the heat loss "cooling" at the critical time around TDC, thus > allowing more heat to be released in combustion and greater pressure to be > made. Note that the heat increase in not from the heat being returned to the > gas by reducing the loss - but from more CO completing to CO2 and thereby > releasing more total heat. > > The majority of "cooling" occurs as the gas expansion transfers energy from > the combustion gases to the piston. Since the face of the exhaust valve is > significantly cooler, LESS coolant is needed in the heads and more might be > required in the block - thus negating any advantage of reverse cooling. > > Previously he stated > "and the fuel is consumed, to a major extent, before significant energy > release occurs. The higher the initial temperature, the greater the energy > release, as the fuel is being converted" > > Ceramic coating everything nicely increases the initial temperatures also by > reducing heat rejection to the chamber. > > This increase in ability to convert fuel to energy is at the heart of the air > pollution war - as it after a certain temperature begins to dis-associate > nitrogen and form nitrous oxide products as well. > > Also to note - this book is primarily about combustion and it processes and > most decidedly is not concerned with the otto cycle and carnot worship. > > > > >Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 19:56:40 -0400 > >From: "Bruce Plecan" > >Subject: Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool. > > > >Just for grins, we barrier coat the piston domes > >the intake valve face, the exhaust valve face. > >In theory then we have captured more heat to be recovered by the movement of > >the piston, right??. > >Now that we have with held this higher heat, for a longer period of time, > >then more > >heat is put into the top of the cylinder bores, right..... > > The cooling system was designed so that the exhaust valve seat area is the > >"hot spot", so don't we now have to "reverse" cool the engine to get the > >max effectiveness out of this??.. > >grumpy > > > > 1963 Ford C-600 Prison Bus Conversion "Home" > 1971 Lincoln Continental 460 "Christine" > 1972 "Whale" Mustang awaiting transplant > 1978 Dodge Long Bed Peeek Up "Bundymobile" > > Habaneros - not just for breakfast anymore ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 12:15:02 -0700 From: "Todd....!!" Subject: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Charles, it sounds as though you need to get some sorta input as to how much torque is being produced by the engine.. One way could be to put two sensors somewhere along the drive shaft or an axle shaft or something that you could calulate the 'twist' of the shaft using the two sensors timing differencs due to the varying load on the shaft that they are located on... i.e. if you know that a 2 inch solid shaft twists .1 inch with 100 ft lbs of torque applied to it, then using the sensors' timing difference of whatever the difference of time at a given rpm that the sensors' measure a .1 difference in shaft twist would be calculating that the engien is producing 100 ft lb.s of torque at that time.... Don't know if I explained that too well, hope ya get the point? Good luck, sounds like your DEFINITELY on to something here! Just don't lose sight of the issue that you're dealing with and what you're trying to solve.... Sounds like you will, at least in part, produce a device that's at least one step better than a knock sensor?... LATER! Todd....!! http://www.c-com.net/~atc347/toddlnk.htm Charles Brooks wrote: > > Hhmm, OK. So I use a hall effect sensor on a toothed wheel and calculate acceration from the change in PRI as seen at the HE sensor. If I have a motor running at 5000RPM/60seconds=83.33RPS and a DAQ with a 10KS/s sample rate I get 120 samples per revolution. Now, how would I compensate for engine loading? Acceleration would be higher in 1st gear than in 4th, it would also be higher going downhill than it would be going up. There's also internal friction to consider. Could probaby get around the > > Charles Brooks > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Tom Sharpe > Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 23:33:49 -0500 > > >Let's see... the piston measures combustion pressure... hooked to a rod... > hooked to a crankshaft....If we could measure crankshaft acceleration 60 times a > revolution, we could come up with some relative numbers... we need a toothed > wheel and sensor and ????... Sharpe ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 13:36:08 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Subject: Re: DIY_EFI Digest V4 #280 Here's a good one for head porting... http://www.sa-motorsports.com/diyguide.htm bs >need urls for: > >any oil FAQ dino/synth/semi no veg/cooking >same for Gear lubes/ greases / ATFs etc. >same for power steering/ hyd oil > >EGR FAQ >head porting FAQ or other engine mod FAQs ( general best, specific OK) >suspension design FAQs >frame/chassis/rollcage design FAQs etc > >Thanks >Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:00:00 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems And are these 'specialists' able to do much with them? I know that GM won't give up the source (over 1000 pages I hear) even to the specialists. Faking out the sensors is MUCH more difficult with OBD-II, since each sensor reading is independantly verified by some other method. Are these 'specialists' bypassing the OBD-II requirements making the vehicles non-compliant? Or have they made the huge investment in reverse engineering the code? Any ideas here would be appreciated. bs >> What do the guys with new cars do when >> they hot-rod them? Stop participating in the program? > >Most so far have had to send them to folks that specialize in them. >Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:28:42 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems I'd imagine that there are some aftermarket folks that can change any parameter they want. All, it takes is time, and money. I've even heard rumors, of a gm document being leaked out.. So far thou, little has been public domained, since it is so new, and not many people are working on it yet. As time passes, I'm sure more will come to light. How they are handling DTCs so far is anyone's quess Bruce > And are these 'specialists' able to do much with them? I know that GM > won't give up the source (over 1000 pages I hear) even to the specialists. > Faking out the sensors is MUCH more difficult with OBD-II, since each > sensor reading is independantly verified by some other method. Are these > 'specialists' bypassing the OBD-II requirements making the vehicles > non-compliant? Or have they made the huge investment in reverse > engineering the code? Any ideas here would be appreciated. > bs >> What do the guys with new cars do when > >> they hot-rod them? Stop participating in the program? > > > >Most so far have had to send them to folks that specialize in them. > >Bruce > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:40:33 -0400 (EDT) From: William T Wilson Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods that just might work. :} Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel smokestack. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:14 -0400 From: "David A. Cooley" Subject: Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust How about a test pipe for the cat... when you need to get it smogged, bolt the cat back in. - ----- Original Message ----- From: William T Wilson To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 2:40 PM Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust > Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods > that just might work. :} > > Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to > gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would > allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at > more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, > or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel > smokestack. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:00:38 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust - ----- Original Message ----- From: William T Wilson To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 2:40 PM Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust Usually illegal. Used to call em cutouts. Within the last couple years still available from JC Whitney Grumpy > Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods > that just might work. :} > > Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to > gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would > allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at > more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, > or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel > smokestack. > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:10:26 -0300 From: "BUTLER, Tom" Subject: RE: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust I saw an exhaust diverter valve in the J C Whitney catalog which will allow you to do just what you are suggesting. The device is controlled by a mechanical cable. Tom Butler > -----Original Message----- > From: William T Wilson [SMTP:fluffy@xxx.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 3:41 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust > > Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods > that just might work. :} > > Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to > gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would > allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at > more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, > or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel > smokestack. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 15:11:40 -0400 From: Ken Kelly Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems I put a 95 PCM with my 96 LT1 to avoid the problem. I have been building an Editor for the 95 PCM, and as I go I have been comparing the two Chips. The 95 & 96 PCM have two Flash memories. They are usually labeled as the T side and the E side. Most of my work so far is on the E side. The E side is 512K in both years. The T side grew from 512K to 1Meg from 95 to 96. The following is what I have found abvout the E side. I have found that the data tables in the two E side chips are very similar, but offset a little from the 95 Chip. They apparently have added a few 20 or 30 byte data sets in the data area. SInce all of my investigation starts with the 95, then looks for the same info in the 96, I don't know what the new data they added is for. If you can break the download barrier or socket your Flash chips, I have found some of the tables. I know nothing about the OBD-II adders like the After-Cat O2 sensors. Ken Bill Shaw wrote: > > And are these 'specialists' able to do much with them? I know that GM > won't give up the source (over 1000 pages I hear) even to the specialists. > Faking out the sensors is MUCH more difficult with OBD-II, since each > sensor reading is independantly verified by some other method. Are these > 'specialists' bypassing the OBD-II requirements making the vehicles > non-compliant? Or have they made the huge investment in reverse > engineering the code? Any ideas here would be appreciated. > > bs > > >> What do the guys with new cars do when > >> they hot-rod them? Stop participating in the program? > > > >Most so far have had to send them to folks that specialize in them. > >Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:31:30 -0500 From: Donald Whisnant Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems >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, No, OBD-II systems in many ways are actually easier than their OBD-I counter-parts... The goal of OBD-II isn't to make it more difficult to tune, modify, or monitor, instead, the goal is to actually (in many ways) make it easier -- making it more standard across different manufacturers... There is an increase in device [sensor] performance and functionality monitoring within the OBD-II PCM's and this is where the common misconception comes about... This enhanced monitoring of sensors has caused problems for people who do aftermarket changes, since it may set trouble codes... What this means is that for even simple changes and modifications, it may be necessary to do either tuning changes in the PCM or change the "error detection" ranges within the PCM... However, it is good to do this tighter, more strengent testing, because you can detect problems quicker and track them easier to their source... Unfortunately, I can't give any details about how to hack, modify, or otherwise change OBD-II computers, because of my job... But I can rank the difficulty level... On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being stupidy simple and 10 being practically impossible, I'd give it about a 3... Good luck with it... Donald ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:07:24 -0400 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool./ Part2 OK, now, what really needs/can be done right. Since mileage is an issue, it's batch fire, vaporization ain't a bad thing for that, I'd be willing to leave the intake runner, and back side of the valve undone Do the combustion chamber (cylinder head, and piston top). Exhaust valve, face, and backside. Then the exhaust runner Then the exhaust manifold inside and out. Barrier coat the bottom of the intake manifold to keep the oil heat off of it. What's wrong/right with this picture Block too large for oven so is a no doer Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 13:27:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Jim Davies Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED On Thu, 13 May 1999, Bill Edgeworth wrote: > I have not been following this thread but I believe the mopar 8-3/4 axle is > common for that car and compared to a stock 9" casing is about the same strength > ( I am not comparing it to the nodular 9" stuff) High strength axles can be had Considering that most 8 3/4 centers were steel, they were considerably stronger [and lighter] than a 9 inch, nodular or otherwise. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 16:35:49 -0400 (EDT) From: "Clive Apps Techno-Logicals 416 510 0020" Subject: Re: Misc Electronics / barrier coat / reverse cool./ Part2 > > I'd be willing to leave the intake runner, and back side of the valve undone I would be more incliined to do the trunner and leave just the valve back > Do the combustion chamber (cylinder head, and piston top). > Exhaust valve, face, and backside. be careful around the valve seats you want heat to conduct there > Then the exhaust runner > Then the exhaust manifold inside and out. > Barrier coat the bottom of the intake manifold to keep the oil heat off of > it. > What's wrong/right with this picture > Block too large for oven so is a no doer get a larger oven maybe a powder coating place would help you out on this if you could do the block the only areas that would be an improvement would be the cam/lifter valley, inside the timing cover, and the back inside the B/H mount this will force heat in the water jackets to radiate to the outside of the engine ubut may make the oil run hotter (can usa an oil cooler for this) Clive ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 14:19:07 -0700 From: "Jeff W" Subject: horse power/acceleration dear sir I am writing to you because I am looking for the correct calculation/formula for finding the approximate horse power conversion from vehicle weight and acceleration curve. I am presently in Vancouver community college, in Vancouver B.C and my instructor (Dave William's) gave me your e-mail address feeling that you may be of some help to me. vehicle weight + acceleration curve + some other things I don't know= approximate HP@xxx. thank you! Jeff Weinberger sierraj@xxx.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:31:23 EDT From: Cameano@xxx.com Subject: Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust The only problem with these cutouts is, there's really no good way to install them, especially in newer cars, with stainless steel exhaust systems. I came across a pair in the box, that a friend was tossing out. Reason being, they are made of cast iron, and are only 2" inside diameter. Something they don't mention in the catalog. I didn't pick them up, don't need more junk. Darren In a message dated 5/13/99 10:50:15 AM Hawaiian Standard Time, TEBUTLER@xxx.ca writes: << I saw an exhaust diverter valve in the J C Whitney catalog which will allow you to do just what you are suggesting. The device is controlled by a mechanical cable. Tom Butler > -----Original Message----- > From: William T Wilson [SMTP:fluffy@xxx.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 3:41 PM > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust > > Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods > that just might work. :} > > Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to > gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would > allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at > more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, > or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel > smokestack. >> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:50:58 -0300 From: "Ord Millar" Subject: Re: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust I use high flow cats. For the 1 or 2 HP difference, I really don't think it's worth the risk of legal problems or injuring my environmental consience. ;) On the other hand, I am wondering if I could improve low rpm torque if I could add a variable restrictor?? - -----Original Message----- From: William T Wilson To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 4:35 PM Subject: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust >Okay, this seems to be the best place to talk about random, goofy car mods >that just might work. :} > >Suppose I have a car that I want to pass emissions, but I also want it to >gogood. Why couldn't I make some sort of cat-bypass system which would >allow the exhaust to flow openly at high revs, but flow through the cat at >more "normal" RPM? Maybe a solenoid-activated valve attached to the tach, >or perhaps just a flap on a spring like at the top of a big-diesel >smokestack. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:42:04 -0400 From: "CLsnyder" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED - ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd....!! To: Sent: Thursday, May 13, 1999 1:54 PM Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED > CL, > > It takes a LOT of gear to get a behemoth like our b-body Mopars outa the > hole, 2.xx gears just doesn't cut it, as compared to 4.xx gears, no > comparison... What is your low gear ratio? With a close ratio box you need 4+ gearing - with the wide ratio box and the long gears you get the same overall ratio (within a few points) - you just need a bit wider power band because you have to wind it a bit tighter before shifting or you can bog it out. > > The torque of the Big Blocks still may feel strong even with the highway > gears but it's not as effective as when ya use quicker gears such as the > 4.10's.... Again, it is overall ratio that counts - don't matter a hill of beans where the gearing is done, and a big block has a nice fat power curve so it pulls strong in second without floating the valves in low. > > I drove my 70 Bee with the ol 383 and 4.10's with an automatic 727 from > Cheyenne, Wy to Houston, Texas back in June of 1989, got 15 mpg goin 50 > mph most of the way... with 100+ mph jaunts about every 10 to 30 minutes > to clean er out... Windows were down the whole way, except for when it > rained in the hill country of Texas... That trip was with an 800 spread > bore single feed dbl pmpr jetted pretty rich for Cheyenne's > altitude(Over 5,200 ft).... > > And NO I didn't use ear plugs as I should've.... I was runnin dual > cherry bombs only, straight off the headers, and couldn't go to sleep > the night I arrived in Houston due to my ears ringing.... > > Have since acquired a LOt of single packs of those sponge roll up ear > plugs for passengers and myself on those long trip days... > > Am about to install a set of 3 inch pipes with 3 inch 2 chambered flows, > they're in the trunk, I need to have the muffs welded back onto the > pipes, wonder how it'll sound, as compared to the current 2.5 inch pipes > with el cheapo turbo's... > > Thanks fo rthe stories mang... > > LATER! > > Todd....!! > If you want sweet ya gotta drive a 264 flatty with a short Thrush from Waterloo Ontario to Tulsa Oklahoma in August. The big six barks real nice - about 28MPG in an air conditioned '57 half ton. Pulling away from a stop in second was no problem either. The trip from Waterloo to Murray Harbour PEI in the 53 Hemi Coronet Sierra (373 gears and overdrive) made 18 hours of fantastic music as well at about the same mileage. Both were quiet enough to get by the coppers without any trouble, yet healthy sounding enough to be "cool". The 264 P'up was a bear in the rain or hot weather, pulling away without squeaking the tires took some practice, or second gear. The guy who has it now has a 340 AAR in it and about 48" of rubber under the bed. > > > CLsnyder wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Todd....!! > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 3:17 PM > > 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! > > > > A friend has a '69 'Runner with the 383 Magnum, 2.7? gears and wide ratio > > box. Good out of the hole with the steep low gears, and excellent mileage > > driving half sensibly in 4th. Pretty well bury the needle in third at > > redline. > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 17:27:34 -0700 From: "Fran and Bud" Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED Also the 8 3/4 is a lot more efficient than a 9". meaning that a 9" eats up a lot more of the HP that gets to it. Bud - ---------- >From: Jim Davies >To: diy_efi@xxx.edu >Subject: Re: alternative engines, WARPED >Date: Thu, May 13, 1999, 1:27 PM > > > >On Thu, 13 May 1999, Bill Edgeworth wrote: > >> I have not been following this thread but I believe the mopar 8-3/4 axle is >> common for that car and compared to a stock 9" casing is about the same strength >> ( I am not comparing it to the nodular 9" stuff) High strength axles can be had > >Considering that most 8 3/4 centers were steel, they were considerably >stronger [and lighter] than a 9 inch, nodular or otherwise. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 20:36:14 -0400 From: Todd Israels Subject: Re: Modifying OBD-II systems At 02:31 PM 5/13/99 -0500, you wrote: >>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, > >No, OBD-II systems in many ways are actually easier than their OBD-I >counter-parts... The goal of OBD-II isn't to make it more difficult to >tune, modify, or monitor, instead, the goal is to actually (in many >ways) make it easier -- making it more standard across different >manufacturers... There is an increase in device [sensor] performance and >functionality monitoring within the OBD-II PCM's and this is where the >common misconception comes about... This enhanced monitoring of >sensors has caused problems for people who do aftermarket changes, >since it may set trouble codes... > >What this means is that for even simple changes and modifications, it >may be necessary to do either tuning changes in the PCM or change the >"error detection" ranges within the PCM... However, it is good to >do this tighter, more strengent testing, because you can detect problems >quicker and track them easier to their source... > >Unfortunately, I can't give any details about how to hack, modify, >or otherwise change OBD-II computers, because of my job... But I can >rank the difficulty level... On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being stupidy >simple and 10 being practically impossible, I'd give it about a 3... > >Good luck with it... >Donald > > Without causing any trouble is it possible to read the current VE table and replace values in the table through the ADL interface? From what I have heard from dealer tecs a new VE table or even operational program for the PCM but they are unaware of being able to read this info, but then they dont need to? thanks for any info you can give Todd Israels ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 20:42:16 -0400 From: Todd Israels Subject: RE: Variable Restrictiveness Exhaust At 04:10 PM 5/13/99 -0300, you wrote: >I saw an exhaust diverter valve in the J C Whitney catalog which will allow >you to do just what you are suggesting. The device is controlled by a >mechanical cable. >Tom Butler > > The racing version of the 3rd generation Fbody had a Y that went to the side of the car and had a bolt on cap with a gasket for street use. Could be rare to find but simmilar setup may be available for the current cars. Could be built also and dont know what smog cops will think. Todd Israels ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 08:37:26 +0800 From: "WILMAN" Subject: Re: Honda Vtec ECU - ---------- > From: Wen Yen Chan > To: diy_efi@xxx.edu > Subject: Re: Honda Vtec ECU > Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:29 PM > > Hello, > > I think they guys on the Honda Hybrid page have reverse engineered the 1.6 > vtec's ECU. Would you happen to know how I could get on this page? > > Wen > > On Wed, 12 May 1999, WILMAN wrote: > > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 10:55:59 +1000 From: Wayne.MacDonald@xxx.au Subject: OBD_II You asked for experiences I have three of the new Triumph fuel injected motorcycles and got pissed off that they would not sell me the diagnostic tool for the bike, This tool allows you to set things like the off-idle mixture and reset TPS shutoff position etc. The cool thing it allowed was a download of a new "program" into the computer, I suspect that this program download is in fact just new fuel and spark maps. Last month I was doing a little fiddle with the TPS signal and kept causing the ECU to go into limp home mode, each time I had to go to the dealer to get the ECU reset, after doing this a number of times I decided to try and reverse engineer the diag tool, With some research I found it used the OBD_II interface so I built an adapter to connect a laptop inline before the SAE-J1962 plug, I wrote a program to trace all the traffic then got the dealer to use the diagnostic tool to reset/read some of the sensors (He didn't know I had a PC connected), I then spent the next couple of days at the standards office going through the data I had gathered, I found that the first thing the diag tool did was request that the ECU unlock, to this the ECU responds with a two byte seed value, the diag tool then responds with the correct key for this seed value and the ECU is unlocked. The standards states that the ECU should apply a delay of 10 seconds between subsequent requests if an incorrect key is entered twice in a row. This means it would take more than 1300 years if you tried to use a brute force attack on the codes. When I discovered this I thought I had been whipped. I went to the dealer again to try and get a sample base of the codes so I could try and crack the algorithm used, I managed to get them to let me use the tool by myself and proceeded to plug it in and out 347 times (until arthritis set in). Once I had these codes I wrote some programs to arrange the data in different orders, once I did this I noticed that the second byte of the seed translated into the second byte of the key I then wrote a prog to create a translation table using the sample data, I found that when I printed the translation table that the data was ordered within the rows, This allowed me to fill in the blanks into the table, Knowing how to resolve the second byte means the brute force time had dropped to a bit more than 5.3 years (better but still a long time). I decided to write the brute force program and give it a go, The first thing I did was wire up one of my ECU's on a board powered by a battery charger. When I started to test the program I noticed that Triumph had not implemented the 10 second rule instead they allow three attempts then you need to reset the connection and try again, this means that I can try three codes every 5 seconds instead of one every ten seconds, this had sliced the time to not much more that ten months. I decided I don't need all he codes, if I have a large enough sample so that the unlock process does not take more than a minute that is good enough, to this end I have currently got my brute force program running, It displays the number of times it has unlocked along with the average time and max time to unlock, Currently it has 800 codes and the average time to unlock is 2:42 and the max unlock time is 15 minutes. It finds a new code every 10 minutes. I have recorded two downloads of different tunes and once I have enough codes I will try and work out what values effect what, To do this I will use my bench ECU, this ECU doesn't use an EGO sensor it uses MAP,TPS,RPM,Coolant temp and air temp. I have replaced all the sensors except the crank sensor with resistors (to give repeatable values) I have the crank wheel driven off a hobby motor and am using a 68HC11 to time the injector pulse width. I intend to drive the motor from the PC and have a program that can run through the rev and tps range and build a map, then I will change one value and repeat, using this process I will be able to isolate the range that the new value effects. By using a PC prog to build the maps I should be able to get repeatable values. If anyone can help with some ideas I am all ears. I hope I have not been a bore. Wayne Macdonald. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 18:13:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Grandi Subject: Re: In cylinder pressure measurement Very possible and sooner than you think! I've seen some protoype spark plugs w/fiber optics on them at the SAE Motorsport conference last year in DEEETOIT...check this out http://www.optrand.com/intro.htm Andre - --- Greg Hermann 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??? > > I have heard rumors that fiber optic technology based pressure transducers > capable of doing real time, in chamber pressure measurement, and for a > reasonable (production plausible) cost, are in the very near future. I have > not got any vendor info on them, yet. > > Regards, Greg> > > > > > >Charles Brooks > > > === Andre _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:09:39 -0300 From: "Ord Millar" Subject: Re: horse power/acceleration Take the acceleration at some point in your curve, call it A, and multiply by vehicle mass. This gives the linear force exerted by the rear wheels. (front wheels?). F=MA (it is convinient to measure acceleration here in G, and mass in lbs). Torque at the rear wheel is F / (D*2*PI), where D is wheel diameter. Engine torque is rear torque / axle ration / transmission ratio + driveline loss. (keep D in ft for simplicity, loss in ft-lbs) Engine HP is engine TQ * engine RPM / 5251. (when TQ is in lbs-ft) So: HP = (MA/(D*2*PI)/ratio+loss) * RPM / 5251. Add in air & rolling resistance, and you're almost there! - -----Original Message----- From: Jeff W To: diy_efi@xxx.edu> Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 7:35 PM Subject: horse power/acceleration >dear sir >I am writing to you because I am looking for the correct calculation/formula >for finding the approximate horse power conversion from vehicle weight and >acceleration curve. > I am presently in Vancouver community college, in Vancouver B.C and my >instructor (Dave William's) gave me your e-mail address feeling that you may >be of some help to me. > >vehicle weight + acceleration curve + some other things I don't know= >approximate HP@xxx. >thank you! >Jeff Weinberger >sierraj@xxx.com > > > ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V4 #282 ***************************** 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".