DIY_EFI Digest Wednesday, March 8 2000 Volume 05 : Number 093 In this issue: Lotus carlton ECU? RE: Electronic Transmission Control RE: Electronic Transmission Control Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: FI question Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Re: FI question Re: FI question Re: Electronic Transmission Control Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Re: FI question Re: FI question Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Thanks to all who responded... Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Re: Thanks to all who responded... Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Re: Thanks to all who responded... Re: Thanks to all who responded... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:01:22 +0000 From: Dave Evans Subject: Lotus carlton ECU? Hi all Can anyone help Identify this ECU, I believe it to be a GM-P4, it's fitted to the Lotus Carlton in the UK and the Lotus Omega in Europe, the number's on /in the unit are as follows: OUTSIDE: SERV. NO. 01228331 AWSX 867519 M011201519 16157519 BAR CODE THINGY *867519M0XXXXXXXX* /* XXX appears to be part of Vin Number*/ INSIDE: Once the lid is off, the number 309033100260285 is printed on some kind of shield inside the box. The EPROM is held in a blue lidded carrier, and has DELCO AXSH 2423 printed on a label over its UV window. In the carrier is the 28 pin EPROM, a thick film circuit of some kind (marked 1070033), and 2 IC's. One is a 16 pin device with the number 16154201 printed on it, and the other is a 14 pin device with the number 16150031 on it. all the devices do straight to a 33*2 (i.e. 66 total) IDC type connector, which connects to the motherboard. The EPROM appears to be a National 27C256B Also does anyone have a copy of the EPROM in the cartridge used by the TECH1 for this car? - -- Dave Evans Lotus Carlton 3.6L 24v dual Turbo Vauxhall GSi Carlton 3.0L 24v - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:06:20 -0800 From: Carl Summers Subject: RE: Electronic Transmission Control I don't remember the name of the company but there is a manual valve body conversion available for the 4L80E and works pretty well for a hot rod....Call Clovis Trans at 559-299-1973 and ask for Randy....he has one in his blown 57....He is very helpful with options for these and has a controller cheaper than what you listed....hth's - -Carl Summers - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.org]On Behalf Of nacelp Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:43 AM To: diy_efi@xxx.org Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control Ahh, way too much work, I'll gladly take it off your hands for shipping . Since, I doubt you'll do that, you might just look at a diesel pickups pcm, and see what it needs. Might consider that the dumber the controller the harder the shifts. Or tranny life becomes an issue, since you'll need to have high line pressure shifting for it to live at WOT shifting. Just thinking out loud Grumpy > I've picked up a good 4L80E transmission out of a '94 pickup for use in a > project that won't have EFI. Aftermarket vendors want from $900 to $2000 for > a computer to control the transmission. Way too much. > > What would it take to make the EMC out of a similar vehicle and get it to > ignore all but TPS and VSS so it can control the transmission? > > Any other suggestions? > > Gwyn Reedy > Brandon, Florida > mailto:mgr@xxx.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 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:08:02 -0800 From: Carl Summers Subject: RE: Electronic Transmission Control You can use the trans controller from a diesel(hummer) from GM....or use the 8625 stuff....a couple of guys from the list here have done that......hth's - -Carl Summers - -----Original Message----- From: owner-diy_efi@xxx.org]On Behalf Of Gwyn Reedy Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 8:25 AM To: DIY_EFI@xxx.org Subject: Electronic Transmission Control I've picked up a good 4L80E transmission out of a '94 pickup for use in a project that won't have EFI. Aftermarket vendors want from $900 to $2000 for a computer to control the transmission. Way too much. What would it take to make the EMC out of a similar vehicle and get it to ignore all but TPS and VSS so it can control the transmission? Any other suggestions? Gwyn Reedy Brandon, Florida mailto:mgr@xxx.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 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:39:31 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control The best ones are in the 86-87 Buick Grand Nationals, and Ttypes. There are others but those come to mind, right off the top of my memory Grumpy > so, > what were(are) the 200R4 trans available in? > Swayze > mswayze@xxx.com > kswayze@xxx.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "nacelp" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 1:34 PM > Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control > > > > Nope, electrically controlled shifting. > > Line pressures, and shift rpm, governed by PCM. Minor point, Powertrain > > Control Module, rather then ecm, ref engine. > > The 700R4/200R4, all used electrical TCCs > > 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 17:09:23 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control > The low 1st of the 700R4 and 4L60E are one of the strong points! Ha, maybe in your opinion, but never in mine. They designed that feature for the slug 305s that had trouble getting out of their own way. It also, allows em to run a slopey, or forgiving calibration, (you're pick) since the engine sees so little load with all that gear multiplication to get the mass moving. It lets > you put a sane gear in the rear end (3.23 or 3.73) and still have an > efficient overdrive. While I can spin the tires at will, when I need > them to stick, they will stick. But then there is the fact that there's > 12" of very sticky rubber back there... ;) I have 3.4s in the 700R, and 3.40s in the 200R4. I'll take the longer 1st gear anyday. Cruise is about a wash, gear wise. And to do that you need to have a much wider torque band. If it's so great then why didn't they use it behind the GN's which for years were the fastest cars gm built?. Look at what is going on at the 60' mark if you drag race your 700R4. Unless you spin it high, your about ready to shift right before the 60' mark. Ever wonder why some folks have such lousy 60' times when they run them?. While you combo may avoid these issues, I'd rather have a stronger, more reliable, 200R4 then any 700 series. BTW, I used both. BTW, spinning any tire just slows ya down, so why even mention that?. Try a tad less width, and the rotation inertia drops also, and allows ya to acclerate fast also. I'll take a 200R4 with a 10" to a 700R4 with a 12" day. Grumpy The 200R4 gives you the absolute best feature of all having a dual pattern bell housing, and light weight AL case <>.. > -- > Steve > 97 Chevy Camaro Z28, Mystic teal, A4, not stock > 90 Kawasaki EX500A4, black, M6, not even CLOSE to stock! > lt1_z28@xxx.net/~lt1_z28 > Aluminum, steel, carbon fiber, titanium, and two cast iron balls. > McMillan Motorsports- http://www.mmsbikes.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 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 18:53:22 -0500 From: "Jason R. Haines" Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control Gwyn, The 1991-1993 6.5L diesel powered trucks that used the 4L80E transmission had a stand alone transmission controller (and so does the Rolls Royce that uses the 4L80E transmission 8-)). The GM part number for the 1991-1993 truck controller is 16147609 and the part number for a stock chip is 16173828 (I think the broadcast code is BACZ and I think this is a 1992-1993 1 ton CK truck). You can use this controller and then a DRAC module to get the speed data correct for your gearing and tire size. The controller really needs to have at least the engine rpm and vehicle speed data. Several companies should be able to make you a harness for this or you could buy the GM factory harness and modify it. I am sure someone on this list has figured out the calibration for the transmission controller 8-). I stock bin file might already be on the FTP site. Regards, Jason - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gwyn Reedy" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 11:24 AM Subject: Electronic Transmission Control > I've picked up a good 4L80E transmission out of a '94 pickup for use in a > project that won't have EFI. Aftermarket vendors want from $900 to $2000 for > a computer to control the transmission. Way too much. > > What would it take to make the EMC out of a similar vehicle and get it to > ignore all but TPS and VSS so it can control the transmission? > > Any other suggestions? > > Gwyn Reedy > Brandon, Florida > mailto:mgr@xxx.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 > > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:59:39 EST From: MdntRdr1@xxx.com Subject: Re: FI question Is the guy that was looking for info on FI for a slant-six on this list? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:18:17 EST From: MdntRdr1@xxx.com Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control In a message dated 03/08/2000 14:11:16 Pacific Standard Time, nacelp@xxx.net writes: << The low 1st of the 700R4 and 4L60E are one of the strong points! <> Fact, not opinion. Case in point, that low first blasts my 4wd K-5 to 60 mph in under 10 seconds. Nuff said. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:22:06 -0500 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control 4= number of forward speeds. L= Longitudinal trans. 80= relative torque rating. E= electronically shifted. This trans is a THM400 with overdrive and special dual stator torque converter, and minus the manual valve body. Shannen Swayze wrote: > > I had assumed the E after 4L80 was for electronic(computer) control. which > suffix denotes just a TCC. > (I am assuming the 4L80 is truck version(duty) of 200R4.) > byE > Mike > Swayze > mswayze@xxx.com > kswayze@xxx.net > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Thu, 9 Mar 100 09:50:48 +0800 (WST) From: Bernd Felsche Subject: Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) nacelp writes: >> The condition which is being avoided is that of knock. A knock >> sensor is apparently out of the question to aid in learning the >> engine's response under a range of conditions. >If your only talking aout one of the acoustic trash sensors. Try working >out an ionization type, and I'd bet your "idea" would change. Not my idea, nor my engine. > It is theoretically >> possible that a single knock event can destroy a fragile engine. >??, where did you hear that?. That is in the realm of not knowing what your >doing, tune up wise. Theory based on what? Theory based on the knowledge of pressures under knock. If we didn't make our engines so conservatively, the _fragile_ engine which is just strong enough (with only a small factor of safety) to handle only nominal combustion conditions would fail on the first severe knock event. >> However, you don't need to run the engine to severe knock >> conditions, and once you've learnt the response, you can use that to >> avoid the knock condition by a safe, but minimal margin. >Sounds like your of the school, of as much timing as possible, rather then >then as little timing as consistent with max HP. The difference is what >lets engine win races, or live on the street. The timing envelope needs to be established before you can attempt to set the timing for maximum BMEP. If you cannot safely advance the timing that far - a typical situation - the a reduction in power is evident. The original poster said that 0.5 degrees of retard was worth 50 horsepower. >he speed of >> deflection of the crankshaft - the knock pressure will cause the >> angular velocity to exhibit a characteristic "jitter". You won't be >> able to measure that easily at the flywheel end - the inertia will >> "squelch" the jitter, but a measurement at the other end could be >> worthwhile if there are no inertial loads there. >Oh, well then the gm strategy of measuring accleration rates doesn't work??. It just won't be as effective. GM are probably trying to save themselves a sensor and encoder. Along with the associated interface requirements. I also said that measuring at the flywheel would be more difficult; not impossible. > sensor if the resolution were high enough. >> Of course, that's an empirical approach... >> The exhaust backpressure determines the internal exhaust gas >> recirculation and hence the remaining displacement to be filled with >> fresh mixture. That's the air-fuel ratio - remembering that the two >> differ by about 400C (if not more) in temperature, making for a more >> volatile mixture (hence the need to retard with more EGR). >Retard with EGR??. It's inert as far as combustion goes. The delution, on >higher rpms is being way over stated, or overthought here in my book. The >is a huge column of gas drawing across the exhust as it opens, and draws >more raw fuel into the exhuast, then there is EGR at higher rpms. At >cruise, yes there is some, and at idle lots of self egring, but niether are >boost conditions. Yes; retard with EGR because the mixture is more volatile. There is more energy in the mixture before compression increasing the likelihood of knock. The "huge column of gas drawing across the exhust as it opens" is irrelevant here unless you open the inlet valve well before TDC on the exhaust stroke, relying on the boost pressure to flush the combustion chamber as the exhaust _closes_ - only feasible if you're always operating under significant boost. The total EGR results is that amount which is not exhausted at TDC, and any exhaust gas which is drawn back with the exhaust valve still open as the piston moves away from TDC. With a higher exhaust backpressure possible under high-boost conditions as described by the original poster, the amount of exhaust gas drawn back in will increase if the exhaust valve is left open for too long. If that weren't the case, then we could leave the exhaust valve open for the entire intake stroke. Intake only happens because the pressure in the cylinder is lower than that "above" the valves. The amount drawn in through each valve is determined by the pressure differential once the gases start to flow. The higher the pressure in the inlet and exhaust tracts, the greater the flow potential. Flow dynamics resulting from valve opening/closing play a significant role - the inertia of the gases increases with density under boost. >> If there's an exhaust valve overlap with inlet, and we don't know >> the exhaust backpressure, then we must measure if the overlap causes >> exhaust to be drawn back into the cylinder, or if a significant >> portion of the fresh mixture is being "scavenged" into the exhaust. >> Enter your trusty O2 sensor. You need it to react fast enough to >> detect a rise in O2 after the exhaust valve to indicate scavenging, >> or to remain "level" indicating only exhaust gases downstream of the >> exhaust valve (obtaining such a sensor's a problem for higher engine >> speeds). >Nope, just tune for best performance. Easier said than done. >Your acting like electronics is the end all to performance, and ignoring >tuning. The electronics is a tool to achieve optimum tune. It's the "permanent" instrumentation that can be applied to extract maximum performance. The more accurate your instrumentation, the greater the potential to extract optimum power. >There is nothing truly trusty about O2 sensors, they degrade with use, are >affected, by temp, fuel, and back pressure. So you need to worry about >those considerations then also. How are they affected by backpressure? Temperature is easy to stabilise. Using compatible fuels is not a big problem either in most cases. There are different types of sensors with different compatabilities. >We can still calculate the AFR based on our knowledge of >> volumetric efficiency of the engine. >> Prior testing with the engine will indicate appropriate ignition >> timing to avoid knock at a particular AFR for a specific load/boost. >Which again accounts for the backpressure (or lack of it) issue. The simplification of reducing the AFR due to the amount of EGR is just one possible way of applying the "knowledge". A separate EGR mapping would (in hindsight) be more accurate. - -- Real Name: Bernd Felsche Email: nospam.bernie@xxx.au http://www.perth.dialix.com.au/~bernie - Private HP - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 20:34:38 -0500 From: Matt Cramer Subject: Re: FI question At 07:59 PM 3/8/2000 EST, you wrote: >Is the guy that was looking for info on FI for a slant-six on this list? Yep, that's me. Matt Cramer - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:44:48 EST From: MdntRdr1@xxx.com Subject: Re: FI question Guy in a couple of my classes is working on this right now. He told me to pass on the name Clifford Research, he found what he was looking for there, and he has a catalog if you can't find anything on the web about them. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 20:49:26 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Electronic Transmission Control >From your responses, I'll just bow out here, to avoid a flame war. Just look at the history of the trannies, and the answers are there. Grumpy > << The low 1st of the 700R4 and 4L60E are one of the strong points! > <> > Fact, not opinion. Case in point, that low first blasts my 4wd K-5 to 60 mph > in under 10 seconds. Nuff said. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Thu, 9 Mar 100 10:24:28 +0800 (WST) From: Bernd Felsche Subject: Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Mike writes: >At 12:01 AM 9/03/2000 +0800, you wrote: [pressure tapping via tube] >> Cooling the pipe >>reduces the pressure as far as I know; you need to know the amount >>of cooling (temperature sensors?) to determine the actual >>backpressure. >Doubt it - flow is effectively zero and the sensor need only be about >300mm from the exhaust and behind the heat shield. I'm not thinking of >using any forced cooling normal convective is fine. Once its in steady >state the pressure at the sensor will follow the point at which the pipe >enters the exh manfiold (I would exspect) quite quickly, actually 200mm >behind heat shield would make it OK (torch into garage at 1am, trip over >bin I left there - ouch), So you're treating the cooler air as a static column - fair enough. >>That's a bit more number crunching than you might want to do. Even >>then, the pressure you determine will be the pressure at some time >>in the past - that might be as long as 10 milliseconds ago. You >>almost certainly will not see the pulsations resulting from the >>opening and closing of valves. >Not interested in pulsations (at moment) but the average pressure over a >exhaust cycle (though any pulsations could be interesting, though I'm >not sure of the b/w of the sensor, but IIRC its better then 1mS), I'd be 1 millisecond is typical on the MXP-type sensors according to the spec sheets - for a step of 10% to 90%. >plumbing the pipe into a point just before the turbo flange and the length >of pipe to the sensor may very well dampen any fluctuations well major >peaks anyway. >>An alternative may be to build pressure sensors into the head of the >>engine; those devices must exist (presumably you could buy them if >>you had the money). Another option may be to monitor the speed of >>Of course, that's an empirical approach... >mmmm seems a bit complex when it should be fairly predicatable for >a given engine when the bulk of knock inducing parameters are known >in advance, unless its a test engine with frequent alterations, Other conditions vary; fuel quality and humidity are variables that are typically not measured. >>We can measure "exactly" how much fresh mixture enters the cylinder >>by measuring the flow through the inlet tract, but only if the >>exhaust valve has already closed. What we need for that is a >>high-speed differential pressure sensor and two pressure taps ahead >>of the inlet valve. The inlet temperature is fairly constant and we >>should already know what this is for calculating the amount of fuel >>to inject... >mmm But surely the AFM - even a slow one will point to the overall >flow, cycle to cycle variations are interesting but I can't see >how its information value is of immediate use given the engines >unlikely to have instantaneous speed changes - hence we can use >the s/w to pre-empt the knock condition. The AFM will indicate an average of how much air has been drawn in by the turbo-charger and pumped into the pressure-vessel commonly known as the intake manifold which the turbo tries to maintain at a nominal pressure. The actual amount drawn/pumped into cylinder will depend on the amount of EGR, the boost pressure, valve timing, etc, etc. . As the backpressure can result in some (more) EGR during intake if the exhaust valve is still open, there is a reduced volume in the combustion chamber to be filled by the fresh mixture. >Don't get me wrong, its an interesting proposition but, I seem to >have got myself fixated on the pattern matching pre-emptive value >in AFM, speed, advance, exh pressure etc. Especially as I hope to >push my own setup a bit higher and not having a lot of engine >instrumentation has me at a loss - exhast backpressure sounds like >a useful qty to know - at least for experience - that and EGT. EGT is significant; the energy in the recirculated exhaust gases will increase the possibility of knock as the total energy of the mixture is higher than with all fresh mixture. >>If there's an exhaust valve overlap with inlet, and we don't know >>the exhaust backpressure, then we must measure if the overlap causes >>exhaust to be drawn back into the cylinder, or if a significant >>portion of the fresh mixture is being "scavenged" into the exhaust. >>Enter your trusty O2 sensor. You need it to react fast enough to >>detect a rise in O2 after the exhaust valve to indicate scavenging, >>or to remain "level" indicating only exhaust gases downstream of the >>exhaust valve (obtaining such a sensor's a problem for higher engine >>speeds). >mmm OK got it, but why measure it when its known from the engine >layout that its going to happen at combination of AFM, speed, etc Just in case you encounter a load combination in practice which you haven't already learnt about. It's an _adaptive_ system. The complexity of implementing an adaptive control is frequently unattractive due to the dealing with a (comparatively-)large number of parameters and sensors. If you can acquire sufficient information from the dynamics by other means, then use those to adapt to the changing conditions. i.e. if you can determine the amount of EGR from engine speed, backpressure, EGT, boost, mainfold temperature and airflow, then that would be great. >>Any exhaust gases actually drawn back will add to the base EGR of >>the engine and will be "cancelled out" by a reduced fresh mixture >>intake. We can still calculate the AFR based on our knowledge of >>volumetric efficiency of the engine. >>Prior testing with the engine will indicate appropriate ignition >>timing to avoid knock at a particular AFR for a specific load/boost. >Yes, does sound like a potential issue thats helpful, I need to think >a little more how far I go on my own setup. With hind-sight, working out the EGR (and its energy) is probably a better way of determining the adjustment to avoid knock. >I found out the other day, my block as 3 knock sensor locations along the >length of the block though only the center one is used. Mine has three - the boss between cylinders 1 and 2 is used. - -- Real Name: Bernd Felsche Email: nospam.bernie@xxx.au http://www.perth.dialix.com.au/~bernie - Private HP - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 19:11:45 -0700 From: "derek barger" Subject: Re: FI question I saw this catalog at work. The price is approximately $2000 for the kit. Derek >Guy in a couple of my classes is working on this right now. He told me to >pass on the name Clifford Research, he found what he was looking for there, >and he has a catalog if you can't find anything on the web about them. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - >> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:17:53 -0500 From: Matt Cramer Subject: Re: FI question At 08:44 PM 3/8/2000 EST, MdntRdr1@xxx.com wrote: >Guy in a couple of my classes is working on this right now. He told me to >pass on the name Clifford Research, he found what he was looking for there, >and he has a catalog if you can't find anything on the web about them. Yes, I've got Clifford's website bookmarked. Thanks anyway. Matt Cramer - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:23:22 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) EGR, is low in O2 content, so how is it's total energy higher?. Grumpy > EGT is significant; the energy in the recirculated exhaust gases > will increase the possibility of knock as the total energy of the > mixture is higher than with all fresh mixture. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:26:14 -0500 From: Matt Cramer Subject: Thanks to all who responded... I'd like to thank everyone for the advice here. So I'll probably go about this by the "single-donor" method. Hopefully I'll be able to do this as part of a senior design project at my college and have access to a reasonably well equipped machine shop, so fabricating a crank trigger device and getting it lined up should be absolutely no problem. And yes, I plan on doing this by adapting junkyard parts. There's going to be something major I will have to design myself for it to count as an acceptable project - this is likely to be a sheet metal intake. I hope to use a multi-port sequential setup, and would like to avoid throttle body injection because the fuel distribution on a straight six is something I hope to improve with EFI. Anyway, here are some questions about individual replies: Grumpy - what's this about "finding replacement parts on a Sun?" Was this cut off? John - What kind of EFI system did Ford straight sixes use, and how big are they? Matt Cramer - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:35:38 -0500 From: Seth Subject: Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) Hmm, conventional wisdom is that EGR reduces combustion temperature by being inert, or at least not part of the normal combustion process of atmospheric oxygen and fuel. A homogenous insulator, like the binder in TNT? I don't see how more EGR increases knock. - -Seth nacelp wrote: > > EGR, is low in O2 content, so how is it's total energy higher?. > Grumpy > > > EGT is significant; the energy in the recirculated exhaust gases > > will increase the possibility of knock as the total energy of the > > mixture is higher than with all fresh mixture. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 21:40:32 -0500 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Thanks to all who responded... Use common, easy to find parts so that on a Sunday afternoon, you can walk into an xyz auto parts store, and get what you need to fix your ride. SEFI, only counts for idle, and then really only if using huge injectors. You'd do better using a reliable as a rock comletely hac'd ecm. Try investigating the gm 730, if you want MAP, and the 165 for MAF. If you have to have SEFI (MAF) then the 148. 730+165 covered at www.tunercat.com, and the 148 at the gn ttype site. With the TPI, the intake has the increased volume, cause the fuel ain't displacing air. Might work more on a good exhuast, then worrying about a sheetmetal intake. Grumpy > > Grumpy - what's this about "finding replacement parts on a Sun?" Was this > cut off? > > John - What kind of EFI system did Ford straight sixes use, and how big are > they? > > Matt Cramer > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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: Thu, 9 Mar 100 10:56:40 +0800 (WST) From: Bernd Felsche Subject: Re: AFM measurement/backpressure (was Turbo speed sensor) nacelp writes: >> EGT is significant; the energy in the recirculated exhaust gases >> will increase the possibility of knock as the total energy of the >> mixture is higher than with all fresh mixture. >EGR, is low in O2 content, so how is it's total energy higher?. It's hotter. The total energy of the mixture in the cylinder is higher. The exhaust gases are at 400C or more. The fresh air is at maybe 100C with a turbo and inter-cooler. Therefore the total energy is greater at the end of compression, prior to the start of combustion. You start with a hotter mixture, so you need to compensate for that to avoid knock. - -- Real Name: Bernd Felsche Email: nospam.bernie@xxx.au http://www.perth.dialix.com.au/~bernie - Private HP - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:30:32 -0500 From: Shannen Durphey Subject: Re: Thanks to all who responded... Chrysler Jeeps also use PFI, and I'll bet the new GM inline 6 will be similar. Shannen I have access to a straight 8 Buick engine, and thoughts of PFI fancy fill my days. Matt Cramer wrote: > > I'd like to thank everyone for the advice here. So I'll probably go about > this by the "single-donor" method. Hopefully I'll be able to do this as > part of a senior design project at my college and have access to a > reasonably well equipped machine shop, so fabricating a crank trigger > device and getting it lined up should be absolutely no problem. And yes, I > plan on doing this by adapting junkyard parts. There's going to be > something major I will have to design myself for it to count as an > acceptable project - this is likely to be a sheet metal intake. I hope to > use a multi-port sequential setup, and would like to avoid throttle body > injection because the fuel distribution on a straight six is something I > hope to improve with EFI. Anyway, here are some questions about individual > replies: > > Grumpy - what's this about "finding replacement parts on a Sun?" Was this > cut off? > > John - What kind of EFI system did Ford straight sixes use, and how big are > they? > > Matt Cramer > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 21:41:37 -0500 From: Frederic Breitwieser Subject: Re: Thanks to all who responded... > this by the "single-donor" method. Hopefully I'll be able to do this as Single donor, or at least single family donor (all GM, all Ford, etc) is much easier than cross-OEM fangled systems, especially for someone who is starting out. > reasonably well equipped machine shop, so fabricating a crank trigger > device and getting it lined up should be absolutely no problem. And yes, I It would be much easier if you aquired a simple, TBI setup, and use the dizzy as a crank sensor. A lot of the aftermarket MSD dizzy's can trigger some OEM efi, without too much effort. This might make wiring interesting, but require less machining and adjusting down the road. Wires can be moved much cheaper than fabricating oddball metal widgets. > use a multi-port sequential setup, and would like to avoid throttle body > injection because the fuel distribution on a straight six is something I Good point. > John - What kind of EFI system did Ford straight sixes use, and how big are > they? Most of the straight sixes in the Ford arena were TBI, from what I recall. - -- Frederic Breitwieser Xephic Technology 769 Sylvan Ave #9 Bridgeport CT 06606 Tele: (203) 372-2707 Fax: (603) 372-1147 Web: http://xephic.dynip.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 ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V5 #93 **************************** 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".