DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, January 30 2000 Volume 05 : Number 045 In this issue: Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: Non-Cam Valves RE: boost controller project/Introduction Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: boost controller project/Introduction Camless Cylinder Head Alternative to O2 injection, EGR? (Re: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #34) Re: Alternative to O2 injection, EGR? (Re: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #34) Re: Non-Cam Valves camless engine Re: Electro valves Re: camless engine Valves / Variable Timing Re: Non-Cam Valves efi for triumph motor cycle(1969,750cc based special) Re: Non-Cam Valves Re: efi for triumph motor cycle(1969,750cc based special) Re: camless engine 2 bar map sensor Re: 2 bar map sensor Re: 2 bar map sensor Re: 2 bar map sensor See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:53:37 +0000 From: Ade + Lamb Chop Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves At 06:58 29/01/00 -0500, Frederic Breitwieser wrote: >Hey Carl, > >> Has anybody ever had an idea to manufacture a cam less machine. Well I've >> got that dream, maybe somebody has tried it already. > >Its been tried, somewhat unsuccessfully. The problem is as with all >magnetics devices, is speed. Injectors don't do so well at 10K RPM, so >a coil that moves a valve at the same engine speed would choke, unless >the coils are huge. > >The problem is the mass of the valve - takes tremendous force to make it >move and change direction abruptly. Pneumatics on the other hand, can >be used, but its very complex to setup. I believe, maybe incorrectly, >several F1 cars tried this over the years. So what do F1 use at the moment then? Ade - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:57:53 +0000 From: Ade + Lamb Chop Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves At 10:00 29/01/00 -0600, Robert W. Hughes wrote: >The exhaust valve is also a special problem. The pressure in the >cylinder when the exhaust valve needs to open is in the area of >300-1500psi. A dinky 1.5in exhaust valve has a surface area of 1.75 sq >in so even at 300 psi you need a minimum of 523 pounds force to open the >valve. Bigger valves and earlier opening just make it worse. 1.5inch, dinky??? I have 1.4" inlets and 1.22" exhaust valves!!! These are considered big for a mini!! BTW It is a 1330 Normally aspirated A series engine putting out about 105bhp at 7krpm.. Gives me about 165bhp/tonne (the metric one) and gets me to 60mph in about 7 or 8secs Who needs a V8 :-) Ade - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 21:57:53 +0000 From: Ade + Lamb Chop Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves At 10:00 29/01/00 -0600, Robert W. Hughes wrote: >The exhaust valve is also a special problem. The pressure in the >cylinder when the exhaust valve needs to open is in the area of >300-1500psi. A dinky 1.5in exhaust valve has a surface area of 1.75 sq >in so even at 300 psi you need a minimum of 523 pounds force to open the >valve. Bigger valves and earlier opening just make it worse. 1.5inch, dinky??? I have 1.4" inlets and 1.22" exhaust valves!!! These are considered big for a mini!! BTW It is a 1330 Normally aspirated A series engine putting out about 105bhp at 7krpm.. Gives me about 165bhp/tonne (the metric one) and gets me to 60mph in about 7 or 8secs Who needs a V8 :-) Ade - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:57:29 -0500 From: "Bruce Plecan" Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves 7 or 8 secs., am or pm. Each cylinder in our tractor equals your total displacement, yep, dinky. Grumpy | 1.5inch, dinky??? I have 1.4" inlets and 1.22" exhaust valves!!! These are | considered big for a mini!! | BTW It is a 1330 Normally aspirated A series engine putting out about | 105bhp at 7krpm.. Gives me about 165bhp/tonne (the metric one) and gets me | to 60mph in about 7 or 8secs | Who needs a V8 :-) | Ade - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:53:36 +0800 From: Adrian Broughton Subject: RE: boost controller project/Introduction > I Have had a look around, and have seen a lot of stuff about boost > controllers but have not been able to find a kit (diy) out there..:< > > Does anyone have or know of a project kit or circuit diagram of a boost > controller??? Hi Paul & Everyone Firstly, let me introduce myself. I've been subscribed to this list for a couple of months but have mainly just lurked. I'm no EFI guru, I'm not even a mechanical guru... but I do write software for a living and am interested in developing stuff like data-loggers and so on for my 1990 Toyota Celica GT-Four (called Alltrac in the US - 2.0l Turbo 4WD). Now, getting onto the boost controller instructions... Here are a few links to sites with boost controller instructions on them, my own site included. I have recently redesigned my own controller using a variable relief valve rather than a needle valve, with very good results. Instructions for this revised design will be on my site soon-ish.. Anyway, here are some addresses: http://web.one.net.au/~gtfour/ - This is my own site - go to the "Modifications" section, then scroll down to "Boost Controller" and click on "Instructions". This site currently has instructions for a bleeder-type controller, and is kind of specific to the GT-Four, but also applies to any Turbo car that has a factory VSV-controller air-bleed. http://users.wantree.com.au:8080/~isracing/ - This is the site of a friend of mine, Ivan. He also has instructions for a slightly different bleeder-type solution. http://pages.cthome.net/gus/mike.html - This is a site that has diagrams for a number of different controllers, all based on using relief-valves instead of needle valves (they restrict air from going to the wastegate instead of bleeding it away). He kind of makes things a little more complicated than they actually are, but this type of valve is much better than the needle-valve/bleeder setup. Oh, another place to try is http://www.hallmanboostcontroller.com/ for info on how a relief-valve setup works. This guy is trying to sell these controllers for US$100, but don't be sucked in because you can get the same valve (minus the hoses) from McMaster-Carr for US$5.86. I ordered mine over the net and they arrived at my door in Australia in less than a week! That should be enough to get you started... good luck! - -Adrian ___________________________________ Adrian Broughton 1990 GT-Four Celica ST185 (15psi), 1974 VW Kombi, 1967 Holden HR Fremantle, Western Australia gtfour@xxx.au/~gtfour/ ___________________________________ - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 09:56:09 EST From: ECMnut@xxx.com Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves In a message dated 1/30/00 9:53:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, nacelp@xxx.net writes: > 7 or 8 secs., am or pm. Is this one of those "depends on how close the sun youe are" formulas? Let's turbo the mini ! MV - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:11:11 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves I heard a rumor about a GM project (Aurora?) using hydraulic valves (maybe on GMECM?) . Rumor was they could start it without a starter; open all the valves, squirt into one cyl near the top, close it's valves, and pop it over! Anyone know any more about it? Bill - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:40:08 -0500 From: "Charles A. Fair" Subject: Re: boost controller project/Introduction Hello to all DIYers out there. This might be a good time for me to introduce myself also. I am also new to this list. My interest is in modifying and developing items for my 90 Eagle Talon TSi AWD, which has the 2.0 4g63 turbo engine and my 88 Conquest TSi, G54B turbo 2.6. I also am not an EFI guru or mechanical guru, just love working with my cars and learning more about them. I came to this list because I am working on an idea for a variable relief valve boost controller. I own a Hallman controller, which I bought back in 96. Yes it is expensive, slap me dammit, I didn't know any better! Anyway, this style of boost controller seems to be able to mechanically overcome some of the problems of the common bleeder valve style boost controllers. Boost pressure is blocked from the wastegate controller's diaphragm until pressure overcomes a spring loaded ball bearing. The result is very fast spool time and a rock solid pressure level at WOT. David Buschur's RWD Talon did something like a 9.4 second 1/4th mile pass using a Hallman valve, which he sells. My problem with this valve is actually not really a problem with its performance, but with adjusting it. To make fast spool time the vacume lines must be short. This means engine bay mounting. If you run the lines to the cockpit to be able to adjust it while driving you cause boost spike and lag, defeating the advantages of a variable relief valve over a simple needle bleeder. My solution is to use a motor to control the Bolt which is placing pressure on the ball bearing. This is very simple in operation. In my Eagle Talon, you actually could take a motor out of the remote controlled mirrors and mount it with some sort of simple bracket to the valve. It takes app. 45 degrees to adjust the valve 1 psi. It is not linear though. This remote controlled mirror motor could be adjusted with the control for the mirror, without any further modification, very simple. This wouldn't cost you a dime if you already had the valve. Oh, the Hallman is different from the variable relief valve sold McMaster-Carr or Grangers. If you buy the Grangers/Mcmaster valve the only similarity is its a variable relief valve. The Hallman uses a different way to adjust pressure on the spring and uses a bleed hole to limit boost spike, but the principles are the same, nothing magic. The part numbers are on Dempsey's page also: http://www.xmission.com/~dempsey/perform/grainger.htm There are also some other boost controller projects there. This guy has a pretty good variable relief valve boost controller setup if you would like to buy one, very good workmanship. It uses solenoid to give some interesting settings for his 2 to 3 valve controller as an option. http://users.erinet.com/40666/DSM-MBC.htm I am working on a stand-alone controller for the valve. This should be interesting to see what comes of this. There is not a commercially available boost controller that uses a relief valve. Ill offer my controller for the valve to anybody who wants to buy it if it actually works... I can't wait to finally get my parts. Chuck Fair - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:18:33 -0500 From: "crash70" Subject: Camless Cylinder Head >At 16:51 28/01/00 +0200, Carlo Putter wrote: >>Has anybody ever had an idea to manufacture a cam less machine. Well I've >>got that dream, maybe somebody has tried it already. >> >>Here is my idea: >>Used normal valves with light springs. The valves can be closed and opened >>by electro-magnetic coils on it. This would then give the option to the >>engine tuner to design a infinitely variable camshaft! But this would only >>be day-dreaming until any-body tries it. I haven't got any metal work tools, >>but have some power-electronics experience. I know that BMW has built such a machine. I can't remember where I saw it, but it had a MASSIVE alternator integrated into the flywheel to power the coils. From what I remember, it DID work, but it was astronomically expensive, and heavy. The pressure on the valves from combustion chamber pressure can be (somewhat) alleviated by using multivalve technology. Audi's 5 valve head is a perfect candidate. You could even have the intake valves open in patterns to promote swirl, or have only one or two open at cruising speeds. Sounds cool to me! crash - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:25:32 -0500 From: "Charles A. Fair" Subject: Alternative to O2 injection, EGR? (Re: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #34) Hunt David wrote: > > Since the spend gas is added after the throttle plate the total gas in the > combustion chamber is increased as compared to no recirculation. Thus the > "dynamic" pressure (effective compression ratio) is increased. At part > throttle the chamber certainly doesn't fill due to the restriction of the > throttle and the dynamic compression ratio is quite small, so even a small > amount of recirculated gas increases the dynamic compression ratio. It also > increases the preignition temperature (promoting better vaporization > (mixing)), and provides a (relatively) cooling effect for pockets of > "leanness" reducing the possiblity of detonation. REDUCING. > > That "leanness" might be caused by fuel dropout which means that the oxygen > rich, low fuel (lean) areas will also have a lot of recirculation gasses. > Win - Win - Win - Win situation, quite ingenous actually. > My question is, can EGR be used as a substitute to O2 injection for knock suppression? My mechanic friend warned me about O2 injection, that it will tend to remove the oil from the cylinder walls and on the valve stems. Supposedly it will cause rapid engine wear, i.e. cylinder taper and stem wear. My application for the use of EGR for knock suppression is with my turbo engine. The 4G63 turbo can put out over 450 hp without opening up the engine, only bolt on parts. 3200lb cars have gone 11.4 sec 1/4th mile runs with 40,000 miles on them and over 400 1/4th mile passes, without ever having had the head removed. This is attainable in a STREETABLE car, capable of 28 mpg on the highway. Oh, you'll break stuff, like driveline parts, other than the engine when dragging:) The engine is a 2 liter 4 cylinder dohc 4 valve per cylinder utilizing additional oil jets under the pistons in turbo form. In stock form they put out 97.6 hp per liter or 1.63 hp per cubic inch. In modified form that's 225 hp per liter or 3.78 hp per cu.in. from my earlier example... If built up, one on a chassie dyno put out 600 hp, 300 / liter, 5 per cu. in. The reason I have illustrated this is in an engine with high volumetric efficiency and working on the fringe of performance, I believe might benefit from using EGR when under boost or/detonation might allow higher boost pressures to be obtained without race gas. For instance the limit with a stock turbo is 18 on a 1st gen. DSM with an upgraded fuel pump running 93 octane pump gas. Yes, I am aware boost pressure does not equal lb. per hour of air flow, but in my example it generally works out that way, over 18 psi = melt piston/valve. I want a Win - Win situation with detonation suppression. Water injection does cause suppression, but kills hp. Can EGR help under high boost conditions to prevent detonation, and not cause a loss of HP, or would it just cause higher EGT, reducing thermal efficiency, in the process killing HP. The proverbial throwing the baby out with the bath water. Chuck Fair. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 11:32:12 -0700 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: Alternative to O2 injection, EGR? (Re: DIY_EFI Digest V5 #34) >Hunt David wrote: > >> >> Since the spend gas is added after the throttle plate the total gas in the >> combustion chamber is increased as compared to no recirculation. Thus the >> "dynamic" pressure (effective compression ratio) is increased. At part >> throttle the chamber certainly doesn't fill due to the restriction of the >> throttle and the dynamic compression ratio is quite small, so even a small >> amount of recirculated gas increases the dynamic compression ratio. It also >> increases the preignition temperature (promoting better vaporization >> (mixing)), and provides a (relatively) cooling effect for pockets of >> "leanness" reducing the possiblity of detonation. REDUCING. First of all, EGR does _NOT_ affect either static or effective compression ratio OR expansion ratio. It provides a diluent to the combustion gasses--which effective lowers peak combustion temperatures, thus lowering NOX formation during combustion. Also--lowering theoretical cycle efficiency to some extent. (Mr. Carnot strikes again!) EGR, at part throttle, because it is a diluent, reduces intake vacuum downstream of the throttle without any increase in power output, and thus reduces part throttle pumping losses. This can constitute a net gain in efficiency _ONLY_ at part throttle, despite the loss in cycle efficiency--BUT--usually can only do so _IF _the timing is compensated (advance further, back to optimum when the EGR is on) for the fact that the EGR diluent slows down the rate of flame travel. Net effect of EGR at part throttle is probably to reduce detonation at part throttle--with slower burn, higher chamber pressure and temp and more advance being bad factors, charge dilution, more chamber turbulence (due to the denser charge) and a chemical effect on the combustion process being good factors. Use of an EGR cooler would be a plus all around, in any case. > >My question is, can EGR be used as a substitute to O2 injection for knock >suppression? My mechanic friend warned me about O2 injection, that it >will tend >to remove the oil from the cylinder walls and on the valve stems. >Supposedly it >will cause rapid engine wear, i.e. cylinder taper and stem wear. > >I want a Win - Win situation with detonation suppression. You will not be able get a win-win situation with EGR at WOT. Diluting the charge _WILL_ effectively reduce booth VE and cycle efficiency. Particularly without an EGR cooler, I doubt that you could ever see a net gain--I doubt that the detonation suppression effect of the EGR gas could ever be enough to offset the loss in VE, even if you compensate for the loss in VE artificially by increasing boost. Water injection does >cause suppression, but kills hp. > >Can EGR help under high boost conditions to prevent detonation, and not cause a >loss of HP, or would it just cause higher EGT, reducing thermal efficiency, in >the process killing HP. The proverbial throwing the baby out with the bath >water. > My opinion is that you mechanic has it about half right. Poorly atomized injected water can scour oil off of parts--the cavitation that happens when a droplet of water lands on a part, and then boils off of it can easily do this. With well atomized water injection, this problem is substantially cured. (Poorly atomized fuel will wash oil off of parts even worse than water, as the oil is SOLUBLE in the fuel droplets!) In this regard, one might observe that a steam cleaner works most effectively when it is set to spray a MIXTURE of water droplets and steam, not pure steam, out of its nozzle! Water that is atomized, but NOT vaporized, before the intake valve closed does NOT have any significant effect on VE, the volume of the water is simply too small to have much effect in terms of diluting the intake charge. On the other hand--crudely injected water--say sprayed on the hot spot in an intake manifold will have a HUGE effect on VE, Because of the low molecular weight of water compared to the (average) MW of air, any water vapor (steam, if you will) formed in the inlet tract before the intake valve closes will displace a substantial amount of air, thus reducing power. On a chemical basis in the chamber, water vapor is a _VERY_ powerful (perhaps the most powerful one known) detonation supressant, for a number of reasons. One of the prime ones is that water is a highly polar molecule, and as such tends to ties up the free radicals which are the immediate precursors to a detonation event. In a nutshell--my opinion is that WELL EXECUTED water injection will get you what you want with no bad mechanical side effects, and that EGR will not. Not to mention that properly done water injection can significantly improve durability by reducing temperatures throughout most of the cycle. There is a loss in Carnot cycle efficiency due to this effect, but, and again my opinion, this loss is more than compensated for by a reduction in negative work during the compression stroke _AND_ a very significant reduction in heat rejected to the water jackets (due to the lower temps). Regards, Greg - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:49:27 -0800 From: Rich Schimmelbusch Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves Frederic Breitwieser wrote: > Pneumatics on the other hand, can > be used, but its very complex to setup. I believe, maybe incorrectly, > several F1 cars tried this over the years. My boss owns Michael Schumacher's 1997 Ferrari F1 car. It is *way* cool and among numerous other goodies, has nitrogen-pressurized valve "springs." I don't know specifics other than they must be pressurized at all times or the valves will fall into the cylinder and the head must be removed to untangle the ensuing mess! The rev limiter has been set back to 15k from 16.5. I think this lengthens the tune-up interval . It has to go back to the "old country" for any and all work. - -- Rich mailto:rschimmelbusch@xxx.net coming soon http://www.RainierAviation.com - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 12:08:38 -0800 From: Laura & Neil Subject: camless engine > | The F1 teams are/were reportedly using very high > | pressure nitrogen gas (from an on-board storage tank) > | to actuate the valves. This eliminates springs, > | keepers, followers, etc. > > I've heard they still use valve springs, but only to hold things together > when the engine isn't running. The oil splash is enough to "seal" the cam > follower buckets. > There is a fixed volume of gas (assuming no leakage) but the follow of gas > has to be almost instantaneous, from area to area (way hydralics won't work > on even low rpm engines). > | > | A servo-valve system could be implemented that uses > | solenoids to control the high pressure nitrogen gas. > > If you mean to totally eliminate the cam?. Would take a Cray to do that, > and solenoids from the dilithuim chamber. > > | Cannot visualize this system for street use. But > | perhaps high pressure hydraulic technology could > | replace the nitrogen gas for < 8,000 RPM use. You can > | get 2,000 PSI hardware anywhere. I tried some trial > | calculations to confirm that it was not flatly > | impossible, but do not know enough hydraulic theory or > | practice to get meaningful results of max > | acceleration, rate, sizing, etc. > | Just another job for our trusty ECU's to handle. But > | how would you implement a 'limp-home' strategy? Lot's > | of eggs in one very complicated basket. > | Thoughts anyone? > > I remember when baskets, just one day a year, had eggs in them. Those were > the days > Grumpy > | Please take it easy on me Grumpy. But how about adapting the Ford powerstroke diesel idea. A high pressure engine driven hydraulic pump, from what I remember, running at about 2000psi, being fed through computer controlled solenoids to operate the injectors. Shouldn't take too much imagination to substitute the injectors for valves. O.K, I'm well braced. Fire away Grumpy. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:10:57 -0600 From: mark koenig Subject: Re: Electro valves Carlo Putter wrote: > > Has anybody ever had an idea to manufacture a cam less machine. Well I've > got that dream, maybe somebody has tried it already. > My two cents worth: Aren't we missing something? If we do away with the camshaft, why not do away with the valves as we know them? How about an Iris? Or maybe some sort of sliding/rotating window? Would seem to do away with the problems of valve inertia when changing direction 180 degrees (up/down). And would reduce the problems with overcoming cylinder pressures? And then we could change port shape to something more useful. Like maybe a crescent moon shape instead of round? Or many little triangles over the whole cylinder diameter, with alternate triangles being intake and exhaust? Or maybe just one huge port in the head used by both intake and exhaust, with redirection of intake and exhaust being done OUTSIDE of the combustion chamber? Just a few off-the-wall thoughts. If we're going to re-think things, and using the old valve configuration doesn't seem to work, then let's throw out the valves, too! BitWrangler mrkkatexecpcNOHAMdotcom - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 15:07:31 -0700 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Re: camless engine >> | The F1 teams are/were reportedly using very high >> I remember when baskets, just one day a year, had eggs in them. Those were >> the days >> Grumpy >> | > >Please take it easy on me Grumpy. >But how about adapting the Ford powerstroke diesel idea. >A high pressure engine driven hydraulic pump, from what I remember, running at >about 2000psi, being fed through computer controlled solenoids to operate the >injectors. Shouldn't take too much imagination to substitute the injectors for >valves. > > >O.K, I'm well braced. Fire away Grumpy. > Just lettin' Grumpy relax-- You have pretty well defined the hydraulic system necessary to squirt about 0.06 grams of diesel fuel into a chamber in each cylinder of the Navistar V-8 26 times a second. And--remember, it only has to squirt the diesel in one direction. Now--double the frequency (suspecting that you want to do this on an engine that turns more than 3200 rpm). Then, increase the mass that you have to move by a factor of at least three thousand (for a 180 gram valve?), and last of all, actuate it in both directions. For a little extra fun, realize that no impact at the end of the stroke is acceptable. Last of all, consider the amount of work Navistar did to develop the injection system! Be kind of a fun problem, I would think! Greg - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:08:28 -0600 From: "Ken Kelly" Subject: Valves / Variable Timing Has anyone thought of just using a really beefy cam, with a controlled-bleed-rate lifter set? Pump up the pressure to run the full profile of the cam, and lower the pressure to keep the duration and lift low (for cruise?) I realize they make "fast-bleed" lifters, but I'm talking about one where you actually control the pressure in the lifter instead. Ken Kelly (#2) - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1988 11:52:10 +0100 From: "Espen Hilde" Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves Hi all! > My boss owns Michael Schumacher's 1997 Ferrari F1 car He hasnt any F1 cars without engine laying around??? I would love to have one for the street. Frederic how is your prodject going? Espen. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:25:39 EST From: Johncarrick954@xxx.com Subject: efi for triumph motor cycle(1969,750cc based special) I am a first year student at Uni of North London & am planning to design & build an efi system for my 1969 based 750 cc triumph M/C. the project is due at the end of my 4th year so I've got plenty of time BUT I'd like to build something 'different'. I've got a basic grasp of the systems currently being used on production motorcycles (I was a M.C. mechanic) but know nothing about cars. I'm looking for 3 main things; a) someone with a similar machine interested in pooling resources (e.g.XS650,comando,harley , etc.). b) any info on sensors other than ; barometric, heat, lambda, throttle posn.&air flow. c) if anyone has used direct head injection on a machine with an 8,000 (or vaguely similar) redline does the fuel mix properly? Many thanks(I hope) johntr7@xxx.uk - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1988 12:44:58 +0100 From: "Espen Hilde" Subject: Re: Non-Cam Valves Hi ! Think what we all on this list is capable of...... If we had joined our forces into one prodject we could create a very special engine. A engine for a racing class? With efi 332 offcourse. I would pick offshore 1 boats.The reacent changes in rules have made it possible for pushrod v8 s to participate without the air restrictors that the Lamborginis uses. The v8 s are not aloud to use gearboxes. There fore we need a strong engine with a large powerband to beat the Lambos.Sterling has done this before. A joined e-mail list beating the guts out of Italian v12 mulivalve beast? Showing the power of internet? My Idee how to do it is to make the engine with the camshaft that makes most top end power and not beeing conserned with a large powerband. The large powerband comes from reed valves placed in the inlet as close to the valves as possible,If it gives to much resistance we have to use other valves controlling the low pressures ,the combustion pressures is taken care of by the regular valve system. What to do on the exhaust side I dont know.....maybe a variable resistance is enough? If this is not enough we could make an extra valve in the middle of the inlet valve running its valvestem inside the valvestem of the main valve controlled by a rocker at a higher rate. Just to fill the low pressure area behind the big inlet valve at high rpm. Start brain storming guys! Espen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:22:02 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: efi for triumph motor cycle(1969,750cc based special) Most of what you need to know is in the archives, also, in a related site is efi 332, and that covers building your own ecm Grumpy Subject: efi for triumph motor cycle(1969,750cc based special) > I am a first year student at Uni of North London & am planning to design & > build an efi system for my 1969 based 750 cc triumph M/C. > the project is due at the end of my 4th year so I've got plenty of time BUT > I'd like to build something 'different'. > I've got a basic grasp of the systems currently being used on production > motorcycles (I was a M.C. mechanic) but know nothing about cars. > I'm looking for 3 main things; > a) someone with a similar machine > interested in pooling resources (e.g.XS650,comando,harley , etc.). > b) any info on sensors other than > ; barometric, heat, lambda, throttle posn.&air flow. > c) if anyone has used direct > head injection on a machine with an 8,000 (or vaguely similar) redline does > the fuel mix properly? > Many thanks(I hope) - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:34:43 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: camless engine Geez, you outta see me when I get onna roll, that was humor.. You mentioned using a solenoid for valve action, that means a very specific volume of hydralic fluid in a very precise moment, Maybe Livermore or Scandia have something like that, but nothing even close for general use. Vast difference, IMHO between fuel and valve actuation. With fuel (speaking of diesels), the opening timing is the critical number, and then guantity (yes both closely related, and critical). But the mechanical pumps you mention have been refined for decades. 2000 PSI is also on the lower side, the Bosch run at 25-28K.. Grumpy Hope that was easy enough > Please take it easy on me Grumpy. > But how about adapting the Ford powerstroke diesel idea. > A high pressure engine driven hydraulic pump, from what I remember, running at > about 2000psi, being fed through computer controlled solenoids to operate the > injectors. Shouldn't take too much imagination to substitute the injectors for > valves. > > O.K, I'm well braced. Fire away Grumpy. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) > in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 21:40:28 -0600 From: Clint Svensrud Subject: 2 bar map sensor I am trying to get a 2 bar map sensor for my accel dfi anyone know which car came with a 2 bar map sensor . I got one for a GN but when I plugged it in it read an incorrect 2bar at atmoshperic pressure . - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:08:37 EST From: ECMnut@xxx.com Subject: Re: 2 bar map sensor GM 2 bar sensors came in: 91-93 GMC Syclone & Typhoon 4.3 turbo 87-90 Pontiac Sunbird Turbo 2.0 HTH Mike V > I am trying to get a 2 bar map sensor for my accel dfi anyone know which car > came > with a 2 bar map sensor . I got one for a GN but when I plugged it in it > read an > incorrect 2bar at atmoshperic pressure . > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 23:50:43 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: 2 bar map sensor You ordered the right part, got the wrong one. At standard baro should be at 2.5ish volts Grumpy BTW, 90-91 syclones, and typhoons had em > I am trying to get a 2 bar map sensor for my accel dfi anyone know which car came > with a 2 bar map sensor . I got one for a GN but when I plugged it in it read an > incorrect 2bar at atmoshperic pressure . > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) > in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:33:55 -0800 From: Ludis Langens Subject: Re: 2 bar map sensor ECMnut@xxx.com wrote: > > GM 2 bar sensors came in: > 87-90 Pontiac Sunbird Turbo 2.0 Plus 84-86 Sunbird (actually any J-car) turbo 1.8. - -- Ludis Langens ludis (at) cruzers (dot) com Mac, Fiero, & engine controller goodies: http://www.cruzers.com/~ludis/ - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes) in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@xxx.org ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V5 #45 **************************** 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".