DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, February 20 2000 Volume 05 : Number 069 In this issue: Re: Mass airflow sensors. Re: Mass airflow sensors. Re: Mass airflow sensors. Motec ??s has anyone worked on the ford eec-iv? Re: has anyone worked on the ford eec-iv? 4-cyl DIS pin-ins Re: 4-cyl DIS pin-ins Re: 4-cyl DIS pin-ins 2.0/2.2/2.5 DIS pinouts Re: Mass airflow sensors. Re: Mass airflow sensors. Re: Mass airflow sensors. Whipple contact info?? Re: Whipple contact info?? RE: Whipple contact info?? RE: Whipple contact info?? RE: Whipple contact info?? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:02:43 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. How about adding a MAP sensor, and looking for a sudden change in that?. Grumpy > Hi, > I'm also working on converting my AFM to MAF but I've ran into a > couple problems that I don't see mentioned here. The response > time of the AFM to changes in air flow is almost instantaneous. > However, the MAF (GM hot film sensor) requires about 200ms to > fully react to a change in flow. If I map the MAF signal to an > equivalent AFM voltage, the car runs great, as long as I don't stab > the gas. If I do, I basically go very lean for 200ms resulting in a > very nasty head jerking event. My thought was to use the > derivative of the TPS signal to compensate during the 200ms. > Unfortunately, my car doesn't have a TPS. If there any way to > accomplish what I want or do I have to add a TPS? > > Any thoughts? BTW the car is an 88 BMW 535i if that helps. > > Thanks. > > Brian Franchuk > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 08:46:11 -0800 From: "Andrew Brownsword" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. Hmmm... this is a strong argument for converting to speed/density. The pressure change should be instantaneous -- or at least as fast as the VAF signal change. Another issue that has been brought up is that a MAF might not work well in a boosted situation like mine... it might not be pressure tight and will get dirty quickly if downstream from the turbo. I don't have room to put it upstream. These factors make the LinkAFM look more appealing again. My theory on the Link is that they built it to replace MAFs or flapper-door style VAFs, so they will have attempted to generate a signal that is reasonably compatible with a MAFs output. This gives me a baseline to start with, and tune on the dyno from there. I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask: does anyone have the output plots from a conventional flapper door style VAF? Somebody else pointed me to the HKS Vein Pressure Converter, which acts in a similar manner to the LinkAFM. It is considerably more expensive, and LESS easily programmable, however. Anyone know of any other options? Thanks for bringing up this issue, I had been concerned about response times but had heard/seen no mention of it anywhere. Cheers, Andrew - ---------- >From: "nacelp" >To: >Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. >Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2000, 5:02 AM > > How about adding a MAP sensor, and looking for a sudden change in that?. > Grumpy > > >> Hi, >> I'm also working on converting my AFM to MAF but I've ran into a >> couple problems that I don't see mentioned here. The response >> time of the AFM to changes in air flow is almost instantaneous. >> However, the MAF (GM hot film sensor) requires about 200ms to >> fully react to a change in flow. If I map the MAF signal to an >> equivalent AFM voltage, the car runs great, as long as I don't stab >> the gas. If I do, I basically go very lean for 200ms resulting in a >> very nasty head jerking event. My thought was to use the >> derivative of the TPS signal to compensate during the 200ms. >> Unfortunately, my car doesn't have a TPS. If there any way to >> accomplish what I want or do I have to add a TPS? >> >> Any thoughts? BTW the car is an 88 BMW 535i if that helps. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Brian Franchuk >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >> 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 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 14:13:57 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. Just some numbers to mull over while your thinking this thru. Joe Average driver thinks .1sec is an instanteous response. The best of F1, can detect .01 (I think it was Senna, that set this "record"). This is just in reference to engine response. The 200 msec., might be to fully stabilize, on the hot style sensors but a good part of that is smoothing to a level you'll never notice/see. The transistional delay to airflow is several msec., as I've heard reported. There is no AE (or little, to none), on the gm MAFs, yet on the MAPs there is MAP AE, Coolant temp AE and TPS AE. (AE=Accleration Enrichment). If your system is looking for a V difference, how does the Ford MAFs line up?. Can you get a Ford sensor and put it in parrarell with your door sytle sensor and compare them, and then use your existing code (with changes) to "read" the other sensor? > Hmmm... this is a strong argument for converting to speed/density. The > pressure change should be instantaneous -- or at least as fast as the VAF > signal change. Another issue that has been brought up is that a MAF might > not work well in a boosted situation like mine... it might not be pressure > tight and will get dirty quickly if downstream from the turbo. I don't have > room to put it upstream. > > These factors make the LinkAFM look more appealing again. My theory on the > Link is that they built it to replace MAFs or flapper-door style VAFs, so > they will have attempted to generate a signal that is reasonably compatible > with a MAFs output. This gives me a baseline to start with, and tune on the > dyno from there. I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask: does anyone have the > output plots from a conventional flapper door style VAF? > > Somebody else pointed me to the HKS Vein Pressure Converter, which acts in a > similar manner to the LinkAFM. It is considerably more expensive, and LESS > easily programmable, however. Anyone know of any other options? > > Thanks for bringing up this issue, I had been concerned about response times > but had heard/seen no mention of it anywhere. > > Cheers, > Andrew > > > ---------- > >From: "nacelp" > >To: > >Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. > >Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2000, 5:02 AM > > > > > How about adding a MAP sensor, and looking for a sudden change in that?. > > Grumpy > > > > > >> Hi, > >> I'm also working on converting my AFM to MAF but I've ran into a > >> couple problems that I don't see mentioned here. The response > >> time of the AFM to changes in air flow is almost instantaneous. > >> However, the MAF (GM hot film sensor) requires about 200ms to > >> fully react to a change in flow. If I map the MAF signal to an > >> equivalent AFM voltage, the car runs great, as long as I don't stab > >> the gas. If I do, I basically go very lean for 200ms resulting in a > >> very nasty head jerking event. My thought was to use the > >> derivative of the TPS signal to compensate during the 200ms. > >> Unfortunately, my car doesn't have a TPS. If there any way to > >> accomplish what I want or do I have to add a TPS? > >> > >> Any thoughts? BTW the car is an 88 BMW 535i if that helps. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Brian Franchuk > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - > > -- > >> 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 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:17:57 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Motec ??s Any one here worked with a MOTEC?. A friend bought a ex-race car (Nissan 300 ZX) with a MOTEC, but didn't get any cables, software. Is this work pursuing, or just switch over to a GM ECM?. Is there anyone around here that has used both, and knows the strong points of both?. Any one on the list cracked a Nissan ECM?. Thanks for any help 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:36:19 -0500 From: Mike Ostrander Subject: has anyone worked on the ford eec-iv? Specifically, what do the sensor outputs look like? I've been wondering if it would be possible to keep all the stock sensors, and just replace the eec-iv with something of a custom design. Mike - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 15:57:54 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: has anyone worked on the ford eec-iv? If you hunt around some there is a list specicially for the Ford ecus. Just might be easier to start there. Just a FWIW Grumpy > Specifically, what do the sensor outputs look like? I've been wondering if > it would be possible to keep all the stock sensors, and just replace the > eec-iv with something of a custom design. > > Mike > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:22:19 -0500 From: "Mike Pitts" Subject: 4-cyl DIS pin-ins Hi, I'm working on a project to possible retrofit a 4-cyl GM DIS system to a Mazda 4-cyl engine (for a turbo project). The Mazda already uses a waste-spark system, but it's powered directly by the ECU and I would like something self-contained, the GM units are perfect for this. I picked up a DIS system off a late 80's Tech-4 GrandAm today as well as a DIS system off a Chevy. Both DIS units use the waste-spark coils, but they have different control lines. The Chevy DIS has 3 weatherpack plugs and the Pontiac has only two. Does anyone have the pin-ins of these DIS units available? TIA, - -Mike - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 18:28:36 -0500 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: 4-cyl DIS pin-ins Yes. I'll put them on the ftp site. On the 2.5 ignition, the "missing" connector is on the engine side, hooked to the crank sensor. If the 2.5 crank sensor is physically broken, replace it now. They usually fail when hot if the case is cracked. Shannen Mike Pitts wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm working on a project to possible retrofit a 4-cyl GM DIS > system to a Mazda 4-cyl engine (for a turbo project). The > Mazda already uses a waste-spark system, but it's powered > directly by the ECU and I would like something self-contained, > the GM units are perfect for this. > > I picked up a DIS system off a late 80's Tech-4 GrandAm > today as well as a DIS system off a Chevy. > > Both DIS units use the waste-spark coils, but they have > different control lines. > > The Chevy DIS has 3 weatherpack plugs and the Pontiac > has only two. > > Does anyone have the pin-ins of these DIS units available? > > TIA, > -Mike > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:52:02 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: 4-cyl DIS pin-ins I'll have to dig, but the 3 pins sounds like the 2.8, that uses the crank sensor only reluctor sensor. And I have a pin-out for that. Gottta dig for it. They also reverse one of the coil polarites in the module. I don't have a clue on the other but also have data to dig thru on that. Grumpy > I'm working on a project to possible retrofit a 4-cyl GM DIS > system to a Mazda 4-cyl engine (for a turbo project). The > Mazda already uses a waste-spark system, but it's powered > directly by the ECU and I would like something self-contained, > the GM units are perfect for this. > > I picked up a DIS system off a late 80's Tech-4 GrandAm > today as well as a DIS system off a Chevy. > > Both DIS units use the waste-spark coils, but they have > different control lines. > > The Chevy DIS has 3 weatherpack plugs and the Pontiac > has only two. > > Does anyone have the pin-ins of these DIS units available? > > TIA, > -Mike > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:02:26 -0500 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: 2.0/2.2/2.5 DIS pinouts Diagrams for this are on the FTP site, named DISPINS1.jpg and 2. Interested in swappin' for 2.8 stuff. Shannen - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 18:21:12 -0800 From: "Andrew Brownsword" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. Thanks for the additional input... I want to get as much information on the tradeoffs as possible before making the leap. I can always switch if there are problems, but that is going to be costly! The response time isn't an issue for driver sensitivity (although I know from experience that I'm sensitive to a much shorter interval than 0.1 sec!), it is more important to avoid leaning out. The existing ECU, however, has acceleration enrichment that is triggered by an increase in RPM. I'd have to double-check but I think it also has a TPS enchriment table. It couldn't cover a 200 ms response time, but it could cover a couple of milliseconds with no problem. Another VAF->MAF converter doesn't seem to think that running the MAF under pressure (only 6-7 psi of boost) will be an issue... and his empircal experience suggests that the MAF is, if anything, more responsive than the original VAF. There is also the issue of crud & oil deposits from the turbo accumulating on the MAF sensor, but he doesn't think cleaning it periodically is a major issue. I'm really interested in hearing other opinions on these issues. Advantages of the MAF approach are: - - Considerable amount of output data is available - - Cheaper & wider part selection; easier to replace if it fails - - Generates output across the full 0 - 5 volt range, taking maximum advantage of the input 10-bit DAC Advantages of the Link AFM: - - Programmable - - Not vulnerable to vacuum leaks - - Certain to work in a boosted application (without cleaning) Now I'm off to search the archives for info on this topic. Thanks, Andrew > Just some numbers to mull over while your thinking this thru. > Joe Average driver thinks .1sec is an instanteous response. The best of F1, > can detect .01 (I think it was Senna, that set this "record"). This is > just in reference to engine response. > The 200 msec., might be to fully stabilize, on the hot style sensors but a > good part of that is smoothing to a level you'll never notice/see. The > transistional delay to airflow is several msec., as I've heard reported. > There is no AE (or little, to none), on the gm MAFs, yet on the MAPs there > is MAP AE, Coolant temp AE and TPS AE. (AE=Accleration Enrichment). > If your system is looking for a V difference, how does the Ford MAFs line > up?. > Can you get a Ford sensor and put it in parrarell with your door sytle > sensor and compare them, and then use your existing code (with changes) to > "read" the other sensor? > >> Hmmm... this is a strong argument for converting to speed/density. The >> pressure change should be instantaneous -- or at least as fast as the VAF >> signal change. >> >> > How about adding a MAP sensor, and looking for a sudden change in that?. >> > >> >> I'm also working on converting my AFM to MAF but I've ran into a >> >> couple problems that I don't see mentioned here. The response >> >> time of the AFM to changes in air flow is almost instantaneous. >> >> >> >> Any thoughts? BTW the car is an 88 BMW 535i if that helps. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 21:34:47 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. Don't run a GM MAF dowstream of the turbo. Matter of fact I wouldn't run anything downstream of except possibly a throttle body. Lose a seal and loose a MAF, no thanks. The hot wires and films don't clean as cherry as you might think. While now terribly illegal the GM early method was blowing the MAFs out with Freon. The is I was told, that ther is a chemical reaction to oil and the films. They used a burn off system in the early GMs when they were exposed just to atmoshpere.. (I used films to mean both types). Just my 2 cents worth. Also, MAPs are about $100 cheaper then a MAF ($40 vs 140, typ min) Thinking that your (or anyone) is so much better then the .01 is a mind trap (notta flame, but I did play this game, and typically what feels faster is slower too, the major co. capitalize to the max on fooling ones senses, doubt me?, drive a late S/C Gran Prix, or STS). Grumpy - ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Brownsword To: Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. > Thanks for the additional input... I want to get as much information on the > tradeoffs as possible before making the leap. I can always switch if there > are problems, but that is going to be costly! > > The response time isn't an issue for driver sensitivity (although I know > from experience that I'm sensitive to a much shorter interval than 0.1 > sec!), it is more important to avoid leaning out. The existing ECU, > however, has acceleration enrichment that is triggered by an increase in > RPM. I'd have to double-check but I think it also has a TPS enchriment > table. It couldn't cover a 200 ms response time, but it could cover a > couple of milliseconds with no problem. > > Another VAF->MAF converter doesn't seem to think that running the MAF under > pressure (only 6-7 psi of boost) will be an issue... and his empircal > experience suggests that the MAF is, if anything, more responsive than the > original VAF. There is also the issue of crud & oil deposits from the turbo > accumulating on the MAF sensor, but he doesn't think cleaning it > periodically is a major issue. I'm really interested in hearing other > opinions on these issues. > > Advantages of the MAF approach are: > > - Considerable amount of output data is available > - Cheaper & wider part selection; easier to replace if it fails > - Generates output across the full 0 - 5 volt range, taking maximum > advantage of the input 10-bit DAC > > Advantages of the Link AFM: > > - Programmable > - Not vulnerable to vacuum leaks > - Certain to work in a boosted application (without cleaning) > > > Now I'm off to search the archives for info on this topic. > > Thanks, > Andrew > > > > Just some numbers to mull over while your thinking this thru. > > Joe Average driver thinks .1sec is an instanteous response. The best of F1, > > can detect .01 (I think it was Senna, that set this "record"). This is > > just in reference to engine response. > > The 200 msec., might be to fully stabilize, on the hot style sensors but a > > good part of that is smoothing to a level you'll never notice/see. The > > transistional delay to airflow is several msec., as I've heard reported. > > There is no AE (or little, to none), on the gm MAFs, yet on the MAPs there > > is MAP AE, Coolant temp AE and TPS AE. (AE=Accleration Enrichment). > > If your system is looking for a V difference, how does the Ford MAFs line > > up?. > > Can you get a Ford sensor and put it in parrarell with your door sytle > > sensor and compare them, and then use your existing code (with changes) to > > "read" the other sensor? > > > >> Hmmm... this is a strong argument for converting to speed/density. The > >> pressure change should be instantaneous -- or at least as fast as the VAF > >> signal change. > >> > >> > How about adding a MAP sensor, and looking for a sudden change in that?. > >> > > >> >> I'm also working on converting my AFM to MAF but I've ran into a > >> >> couple problems that I don't see mentioned here. The response > >> >> time of the AFM to changes in air flow is almost instantaneous. > >> >> > >> >> Any thoughts? BTW the car is an 88 BMW 535i if that helps. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 19:11:58 -0800 From: "Andrew Brownsword" Subject: Re: Mass airflow sensors. > Don't run a GM MAF dowstream of the turbo. Matter of fact I wouldn't run > anything downstream of except possibly a throttle body. Lose a seal and > loose a MAF, no thanks. The hot wires and films don't clean as cherry as > you might think. While now terribly illegal the GM early method was blowing > the MAFs out with Freon. The is I was told, that ther is a chemical > reaction to oil and the films. They used a burn off system in the early GMs > when they were exposed just to atmoshpere.. > (I used films to mean both types). Hmmm... that does indeed sound unpleasant. I agree about the possibility of a vacuum leak ruining one's day. > Just my 2 cents worth. Also, MAPs are about $100 cheaper then a MAF ($40 > vs 140, typ min) Hmmm... just using a straight MAP sensor is not something I've seriously considered. It would require an pressure vs. RPM map in the ROM -- and I don't think I have the space for it. Tuning would also be a pain. > Thinking that your (or anyone) is so much better then the .01 is a mind trap > (notta flame, but I did play this game, and typically what feels faster is > slower too, the major co. capitalize to the max on fooling ones senses, > doubt me?, drive a late S/C Gran Prix, or STS). Heh, you mis-read my message... I claimed only to be more sensitive than the 0.1 sec that you claimed for the average Joe. I've done this kind of testing with a different kind of device, and I'm sensitive down to about 0.05 sec. I have a hard time believing that anyone can be sensitive down to 0.01 sec, but then I can't believe how those guys can drive at those speeds! Cheers, Andrew - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 20:54:41 -0700 From: bearbvd@xxx.net (Greg Hermann) Subject: Whipple contact info?? Anybody out there got contact info, url, or whatever for Whipple Industries in Fresno(?) CA--The screw compressor supercharger folks? (Hi, Carl!) 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, 19 Feb 2000 22:59:30 -0500 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Whipple contact info?? Whipple Industries- Superchargers 3292 N. Weber Fresno, CA 93722 (209) 442-1261 Keep this URL: http://www.racersworld.com/yellowpg.htm Shannen Greg Hermann wrote: > > Anybody out there got contact info, url, or whatever for Whipple Industries > in Fresno(?) CA--The screw compressor supercharger folks? > > (Hi, Carl!) > > 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 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 19 Feb 2000 20:24:32 -0800 From: Carl Summers Subject: RE: Whipple contact info?? Hi Greg, Their phone number is 559-442-1261...fax is 559-442-4153 and I think they even have a URL now... http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com ....but as to talking to someone working for them who knows something about ?????? well I know of only one person....and HE isn't anywhere close to Calif....and since this is a public forum I won't tell what I know, because I used to work there......I'm not going to go into my new products that their competitors are releasing this year.....I love private label......AND I look forward to being sued by them and proving in court I didn't learn a damn thing there.....as more money comes in I'm hiring HE when the time comes...pissed off the wrong guy......I have always been loyal to former employers till NOW....I do believe it is an isolated problem with this manufacturing company...oh well, enough bandwidth - -Carl Summers Click on this link below to see the easiest way to handle internet transactions. https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=drsagan%40pacbell.net - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.org]On Behalf Of Greg Hermann Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 7:55 PM To: diy_efi@xxx.org Subject: Whipple contact info?? Anybody out there got contact info, url, or whatever for Whipple Industries in Fresno(?) CA--The screw compressor supercharger folks? (Hi, Carl!) 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 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: 19 Feb 2000 20:43:28 -0800 From: "Eric Aos" Subject: RE: Whipple contact info?? Another good reasource... http://roadsters.com/engines.html Gotta plug the home boy :) Eric Aos (ps. anyone else up here in the Pacific NW?) > Keep this URL: > http://www.racersworld.com/yellowpg.htm > Shannen > > Greg Hermann wrote: > > > > Anybody out there got contact info, url, or whatever for > Whipple Industries > > in Fresno(?) CA--The screw compressor supercharger folks? > > > > (Hi, Carl!) > > > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:39:19 -0800 From: Carl Summers Subject: RE: Whipple contact info?? Great Directory, Thanks for the post. - -Carl Summers Click on this link below to see the easiest way to handle internet transactions. https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=drsagan%40pacbell.net - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.org]On Behalf Of Eric Aos Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2000 8:43 PM To: 'diy_efi@xxx.org' Subject: RE: Whipple contact info?? Another good reasource... http://roadsters.com/engines.html Gotta plug the home boy :) Eric Aos (ps. anyone else up here in the Pacific NW?) > Keep this URL: > http://www.racersworld.com/yellowpg.htm > Shannen > > Greg Hermann wrote: > > > > Anybody out there got contact info, url, or whatever for > Whipple Industries > > in Fresno(?) CA--The screw compressor supercharger folks? > > > > (Hi, Carl!) > > > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------- > 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 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 #69 **************************** 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".