DIY_EFI Digest Friday, April 7 2000 Volume 05 : Number 138 In this issue: Neutral safety switch Ford 5.0 swap cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? Re: '93 Ford EEC-IV Re: Ford 5.0 swap Re: Neutral safety switch Re: cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? Re: Ford 5.0 swap Re: cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? eprom Re: eprom C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:31:25 -0400 From: Darren Floen Subject: Neutral safety switch Does anyone happen to know a source for a tranny mounted neutral safety switch for a TH350?I need this to get my 4.3 running properly in my Toy.I can't get it to idle properly......seems without a park/neutral switch,the VSS confuses the ECM and triggers the check engine light,then the idle starts surging from near stalling to about 1800 rpm's.The TB has been cleaned and a new IAC was installed. I tried ungrounding the conection,and running it up to 40 MPH on stands,to reset the IAC,but it made no difference.I'm using a Howell harness.I've had little time lately to play with it,so i figured i'd ask before i go any further. After i get a switch installed,any tips on where else i can look? Any tips? I'm in digest mode so please CC any responses to dfloen@xxx.net Thanks, Darren Floen Thunderbay,Ontario 85 Toyota 4x4 Xtracab 4.3 TBI TH350 6" Custom lift,RS 9012's,Detroit+True Track 5.29's,Crossover steering,35" Boggers,glass bed "Lotsa dents and scratches" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 06 Apr 2000 09:36:45 -0400 From: Darren Floen Subject: Ford 5.0 swap A freind of mine is planning to swap a 1987 Mustang 5.0 into a 65 Falcon.He plans to use the stock harness,since he has a complete,running Mustang for a donor. Anyone know of any websites that deal with this type of swap? Thanks, - -- Darren Floen Thunderbay,Ontario 85 Toyota 4x4 Xtracab 4.3 TBI TH350 6" Custom lift,RS 9012's,Detroit+True Track 5.29's,Crossover steering,35" Boggers,glass bed "Lotsa dents and scratches" - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 6 Apr 2000 10:30:10 -0400 From: Aribert_Neumann@xxx.ca Subject: cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? I have mated a Bosch M1.5 EFI from a 2.0L GME (Opel) engine to a 2.3L formerly carb'ed engine. Much to my pleasant surprise it works surprisingly well with out any changes to any sensors or to changing any look-up tables in the ECU (I am not knowledgeable in that area). THe engine idles good when cold but will die if the throttle is lifted abruptly (i.e. lifting off of the throttle when approaching a red light - I have gotten good at slipping the clutch just before the vehicle comes to a stop to restart the engine). At an outside ambient temp of 50 deg F this condition last for about 3+ miles in city driving. THe temp sensor (Bosch P/N 0 280 130 026, with addition numbers of 050 and 026 on the hex flats) appears to have a very similar resistance range to the GM (North America) sensors when comparing my Bosch sensor to the values posted in the archives. Can I add an additional resistor in line (sensor has two contacts - I assume the ECU sends a 5.0v signal thru the sensor - have not confirmed yet) between the water temp sensor and the ECU? I have seen posting in the archives make mention of adding resistors in parallel or in series but not of mentioning specific resistor values used. FWIW, I added a Cyberdyne A/F gage to check the A/F and compare with my plug readings since I am running a system designed for 2.0L on a 2.3L engine. If I were able to take an average of the gage display range I suspect / perceive that the engine is slightly lean on average. If I shift the water temp resistance to give an indicated cooler temp to the ECU can I expect it to enrichen the A/F a bit. Other options that I am considering to enrichen the A/F is to replace the water thermostat with a lower (180 deg F) temp unit (currently I am running a 195 deg F unit - closest in value to the thermostat used in the GME engine. A more expensive alternative would be to replace the injectors with a higher flow rated unit. I understand that changing the ECU state tables is a more elegant solution but that is not a viable option based on my lack of knowledge and the ECU in the vehicle is the only one that I have and I would need to source a spare from Europe if my original were to become non-functional. patiently waiting in digest mode for any direction / suggestions - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 06 Apr 2000 07:40:09 -0700 From: clayb Subject: Re: '93 Ford EEC-IV > Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:40:35 -0600 > From: "Programmer" > Subject: Re: '93 Ford EEC-IV > > oh--well, then--you're in for a long, long wait. Best of luck, cause > they share squidly. First off, the info is scrambled, the algorythms > in most ECA's changes per vehicle--I've personally seen 4 different > ECA's in the same model/year pickup. You can try "Shiftmaster"--but > you'll still rely on them somewhat, and be about 8 years behind the > technology. I wasn't going to give up quite that easy. While these ECU's may not be as well known as the GM's, I've already seen calibration tables with their associated labels. Also, a product is available that copies ROM to RAM on startup, along with the modifications you have chosen to make. The main problem I'm facing is I'm not familiar with all the cryptic labels relating to the timing maps. Also, I need to know if timing can be mapped vs. manifold absolute pressure. It is obvious they can be tuned, I just need a little more info. I'm not surprised the chip jockey's won't share, but there are surely other folks out there who are familiar enough with these ECU's. Thought I might find one of them 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: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:40:33 -0700 From: grobbins Subject: Re: Ford 5.0 swap http://windsor-fox.com/faq.htm has a little info on early Mustang/5.0 swaps, which is pretty much the same as a Falcon/5.0 Grant Darren Floen wrote: > A freind of mine is planning to swap a 1987 Mustang 5.0 into a 65 > Falcon.He plans to use the stock harness,since he has a complete,running > Mustang for a donor. > > Anyone know of any websites that deal with this type of swap? > > Thanks, > > -- > Darren Floen > Thunderbay,Ontario > > 85 Toyota 4x4 Xtracab 4.3 TBI TH350 > 6" Custom lift,RS 9012's,Detroit+True Track > 5.29's,Crossover steering,35" Boggers,glass bed > "Lotsa dents and scratches" > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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, 6 Apr 2000 11:46:37 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: Neutral safety switch I do beleive you want some bits off of a Genie Shifter arrangement. They used to advertise in the Pure Hot Rodders Magazines. ie, not Car Craft, Popular Hot Rodding, or Hot Rod. Might just call Jegs, or Summit. Grumpy > Does anyone happen to know a source for a tranny mounted neutral safety > switch for a TH350?I need this to get my 4.3 running properly in my > Toy.I can't get it to idle properly......seems without a park/neutral > switch,the VSS confuses the ECM and triggers the check engine light,then > the idle starts surging from near stalling to about 1800 rpm's.The TB > has been cleaned and a new IAC was installed. > > I tried ungrounding the conection,and running it up to 40 MPH on > stands,to reset the IAC,but it made no difference.I'm using a Howell > harness.I've had little time lately to play with it,so i figured i'd ask > before i go any further. > > After i get a switch installed,any tips on where else i can look? > > Any tips? > > I'm in digest mode so please CC any responses to dfloen@xxx.net > > Thanks, > > Darren Floen > Thunderbay,Ontario > > 85 Toyota 4x4 Xtracab 4.3 TBI TH350 > 6" Custom lift,RS 9012's,Detroit+True Track > 5.29's,Crossover steering,35" Boggers,glass bed > "Lotsa dents and scratches" > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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, 06 Apr 2000 09:50:48 -0600 From: Chad Subject: Re: cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? >FWIW, I added a Cyberdyne A/F gage to check the A/F and compare with my plug >readings since I am running a system designed for 2.0L on a 2.3L engine. If I >were able to take an average of the gage display range I suspect / >perceive that >the engine is slightly lean on average. On the engines I work with, it may run lean on average, but there could be certain Throttle Positon/ RPM conditions that are actually too rich. Richening up the entire map could worsen this, losing power. Not a problem, just a consideration. >If I shift the water temp resistance to >give an indicated cooler temp to the ECU can I expect it to enrichen the A/F a >bit. On some ecu's, Yes. Some of the ecu's out there respond more than others to variances in the water temp signal, so you might not get as much of a result as you are looking for. >Other options that I am considering to enrichen the A/F is to replace the >water thermostat with a lower (180 deg F) temp unit (currently I am running a >195 deg F unit - closest in value to the thermostat used in the GME engine. A >more expensive alternative would be to replace the injectors with a higher >flow >rated unit. I understand that changing the ECU state tables is a more >elegant >solution but that is not a viable option based on my lack of knowledge and the >ECU in the vehicle is the only one that I have and I would need to source a >spare from Europe if my original were to become non-functional. > >patiently waiting in digest mode for any direction / suggestions Whenever we run into an ecm that continually runs lean, we bump up the fuel pressure a little bit by tweaking the pressure regulator a little bit. This gets more fuel through the injector while it is open. There are other considerations here, but it works well with a continuously lean engine. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 06 Apr 2000 09:53:13 -0600 From: Chad Subject: Re: Ford 5.0 swap This one is for mustang to early bronco conversions, same era as the falcon at least. http://www.bronco.com/tech/upgrades/EFI_swap.html >A freind of mine is planning to swap a 1987 Mustang 5.0 into a 65 >Falcon.He plans to use the stock harness,since he has a complete,running >Mustang for a donor. > >Anyone know of any websites that deal with this type of swap? > >Thanks, > >-- >Darren Floen >Thunderbay,Ontario - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 06 Apr 2000 17:01:36 +0100 From: Franc Buxton Subject: Re: cold engine driveability - modify water temp resistance? Aribert_Neumann@xxx.ca wrote: > > I have mated a Bosch M1.5 EFI from a 2.0L GME (Opel) engine to a 2.3L formerly > carb'ed engine. Much to my pleasant surprise it works surprisingly well with > out any changes to any sensors or to changing any look-up tables in the ECU (I > am not knowledgeable in that area). THe engine idles good when cold but will > die if the throttle is lifted abruptly (i.e. lifting off of the throttle when > approaching a red light - I have gotten good at slipping the clutch just before > the vehicle comes to a stop to restart the engine). (Stuff deleted...) > A > more expensive alternative would be to replace the injectors with a higher flow > rated unit. I understand that changing the ECU state tables is a more elegant > solution but that is not a viable option based on my lack of knowledge and the > ECU in the vehicle is the only one that I have and I would need to source a > spare from Europe if my original were to become non-functional. > > patiently waiting in digest mode for any direction / suggestions > A much cheaper alternative to changing the injectors might be to increase the fuel pressure. Injector flow is to a large extent proportional to fuel pressure. I have done this on my Rover Metro (UK), fitted with a 1.8-litre engine in place of the 1.4 and using the 1.4 engine management. Symptoms like the ones you mention almost completely disappeared, performance, emissions and fuel economy are all very good. Fuel pressure increase in this particular case was from 3.2 bar to 4.75 bar, surprisingly somewhat more than the proportional difference in capacity, but that's what it needed! Provided the engines concerned are of the same series, I suspect this will work for you, too. Good luck! Franc. - -- W------W WW--- ---WW fab@xxx.uk W(-(+)^^(+)-)W (| L |) fab@xxx.com \ /WW\ / X\____/X tel.: +44 (0)705 060 4-FAB XXXXXX (+44 (0)705 060 4 322) XXXX http://www.StunnedBuffalo.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: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 13:00:22 -0500 From: "Todd Burkard" Subject: eprom Where is a good place to buy blank 27256 EPROMS that anyone hasn't had problems with I checked with Radio Junk but they didn't have a clue what I was talking about. I still need to by the new Memcal (I was corrected from Calpack thanks) but I don't want to erase the factory chip and keep reburning it that way I know I will have a chip that will at least make it run (new at this and from what I see you never get it the first time). Thanks, Todd - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, 6 Apr 2000 14:31:04 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: eprom Astro Marketing Talk to Sheri (407) 727-8817 Grumpy > Where is a good place to buy blank 27256 EPROMS that anyone hasn't had problems with I checked with Radio Junk but they didn't have a clue what I was talking about. I still need to by the new Memcal (I was corrected from Calpack thanks) but I don't want to erase the factory chip and keep reburning it that way I know I will have a chip that will at least make it run (new at this and from what I see you never get it the first time). > > Thanks, > Todd > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- > 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, 06 Apr 2000 19:55:59 -0700 From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) Subject: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 11:03:22 -0800, garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) wrote: >Q: any way >to move those useful and inexpensive OEM controllers into the realm of >WOT closed-loop ECU, once affordable AFR sensing becomes available? It's entirely TOO quiet around here! :) After fielding this topic a couple days ago, I've received a bit of private communication from a few guys that suggested the above was quite doable. Hmmm. Seems like adopting some short-cut nomenclature is in order, for those interested in talking about this further. I liked referring to the subject as one chap styled it, "closed loop OEM controllers" and another guy's abbrev. of that as "C/L WOT control", so I've joined them together in the subject line like Cioppino :), which should make it easier for us to type/discuss. So if we wanna emphasize closed-loop, we can just type C/L and everyone will know what we're referring to, or C/L WB WOT OEM ECUs for the whole enchilada, closed-loop wideband wide-open-throttle OEM ECUs. Take your pick from the menu. OK, so yous guys that consider this a slam-dunk, let's get this toad on the road in public, and light off this thread, eh? Seems we have to start, as a point of departure, with the basic bug-bear that normally an OEM ECU keeps to closed-loop feedback ops with the normal switch-type O2 sensor, ONLY until some major throttle pos or MAP/MAF input spells "significant load/accel", and then the table-driven enrichments and fueling take over, and the ECU stops listening to the O2 sensor; we're then in open-loop. Question is, if we want to use a wideband AFR sensor to control a simulated switch-type O2 sensor input to the ECU at any commanded AFR "crossing", then HOW do we go about using cal changes in the OEM ECU, and any other needed tricks, to *contrain* the ECU to stay in closed-loop and follow the simulated O2 sensor input, to give us closed-loop control of AFR at any fueling regime we choose. I can see how one might use an EGOR-module (or NTK box, or whatever) to set a "commanded AFR", and also how to simulate this AFR as the "stoich-crossing" to the ECU that's expecting to see a switch-type O2 sensor input, that's the easy part; what I don't fathom completely at this point is how to KEEP the normal OEM controller, even at significant TPS/MAP/MAF inputs, from leaving C/L, ignoring our O2 input, and running outta it's open-loop fueling tables, as it normally would. I'm thinking that anyone who shows how this trick can be done is going to make a major contribution to opening up WB WOT to wide application and experimentation, not to mention bringing the cost way down from the FelPro's and Motec's. Anyone wanna light the fuse, and get what's likely to prove a barn-burner of a thread going? I cain't help; I'm pretty clueless when it comes to the OEM ECU end of things. Gar - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:08:13 From: Bob Tom Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... At 07:55 PM 4/6/00 -0700, you wrote: > >Question is, if we want to use a wideband AFR sensor to control a simulated >switch-type O2 sensor input to the ECU at any commanded AFR "crossing", then >HOW do we go about using cal changes in the OEM ECU, and any other needed tricks, >to *contrain* the ECU to stay in closed-loop and follow the simulated O2 sensor >input, to give us closed-loop control of AFR at any fueling regime we choose. > >I can see how one might use an EGOR-module (or NTK box, or whatever) to >set a "commanded AFR", and also how to simulate this AFR as the >"stoich-crossing" to the ECU that's expecting to see a switch-type O2 >sensor input, that's the easy part; what I don't fathom completely at >this point is how to KEEP the normal OEM controller, even at significant >TPS/MAP/MAF inputs, from leaving C/L, ignoring our O2 input, and running >outta it's open-loop fueling tables, as it normally would. I'm thinking >that anyone who shows how this trick can be done is going to make a >major contribution to opening up WB WOT to wide application and >experimentation, not to mention bringing the cost way down from the >FelPro's and Motec's. > >Anyone wanna light the fuse, and get what's likely to prove a >barn-burner of a thread going? I cain't help; I'm pretty clueless when >it comes to the OEM ECU end of things. >Gar My particular interest is with the Dodge truck pcm. Information is sparse and I'm electronically and efi challenged. I'm sure that there is more involved but, basically with this pcm, the 'major' factors that determine C/L seems to be the ECT and TPS sensors. This EFI is a MAP speed density efi with the MAP having the major role in determining AFR while in C/L. It seems that C/L is entered when the ECT reaches about 70F and stays in C/L until the TPS indicates 70-75% opening (I'm doing dynamic testing to see if I can determine this with a scanner). What I want to do is to run at WOT but to somehow make the computer think that it is not in WOT mode and hence O/L. My thought was to see if some solid state device could be constructed to limit the voltage sent to the PCM from the TPS somewhere short of where O/L is triggered. The device would consist of a battery-powered arming switch which, when turned on, would activated a solid state device which is tapped into the output wire of the TPS. The solid state device would allow for an adjustable internal preset voltage to be 'dialed in'. Any TPS output voltage less than this preset voltage voltage would pass directly to the PCM and only the preset voltage would be sent to the PCM if the device detects any TPS voltage greater than or equal to this preset voltage. That's the only way that I could come up with to keep the PCM in C/L. AFR mixture would be correct up to this preset voltage for the vehicle. Whether the AFR mixture is more than adequate afterwards because the tb will be wide open is beyond me. In my case, I've tested with larger size injectors (even with stock injectors I'm running more rich than lean). I realize that not knowing whether the AFR is adequate is a dangerous situation but I am being very careful in my R&D. The reason that I want to stay out O/L is the computer that I have retards timing too much and puts out too high a AFR at WOT. In C/L, everything checks out and there are significant performance gains. I sure would appreciate seeing some inputs in this specific area. Thanks. Bob - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:12:31 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Subject: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... > >Q: any way > >to move those useful and inexpensive OEM controllers into the realm of > >WOT closed-loop ECU, once affordable AFR sensing becomes available? > It's entirely TOO quiet around here! :) > > I can see how one might use an EGOR-module (or NTK box, or whatever) to > set a "commanded AFR", and also how to simulate this AFR as the > "stoich-crossing" to the ECU that's expecting to see a switch-type O2 > sensor input, that's the easy part; what I don't fathom completely at > this point is how to KEEP the normal OEM controller, even at significant > TPS/MAP/MAF inputs, from leaving C/L, ignoring our O2 input, and running > outta it's open-loop fueling tables, as it normally would. I'm thinking > that anyone who shows how this trick can be done is going to make a > major contribution to opening up WB WOT to wide application and > experimentation, not to mention bringing the cost way down from the > FelPro's and Motec's. I got several ideas, the basic question is to kludge or not to kludge. For the intial testing I see a Kluge as the easy way out. That would be a matter of just intercepting the TPS signal and tampering with it so that it never reaches a high enough value for PE, to start. Yet at some point switch from the oem sensor to the WB, or swich cross over points of the WB module. The tps interception could be as easy as just a voltage divide. Just picking numbers here, say PE starts at 4.0v, yet the max value is 4.3. If we use a 10:1 voltage divider the 4.3, drops to roughly 3.9 and that not enough to hit PE, yet at idle if the min setting was say .65v, then that would drop to .59, which should be a livable number for the ecm. Then with comparator set at say 3.5, we'd switch O2 sensors or cross over voltage for the WB Module. Min Kludge devise is getting into the calibration file, and seting the PE enable to 99%. and that should prevent the PE mode. Then using a comparator, off of the TPS, switch cross over points of the WB O2. I'll admit that these aren't the perfect answers as PID'ing in the calibration would be best, but that get so specific as not to be practical for all to enjoy. Grumpy > > Anyone wanna light the fuse, and get what's likely to prove a > barn-burner of a thread going? I cain't help; I'm pretty clueless when > it comes to the OEM ECU end of things. > > Gar > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:29:00 -0700 From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:12:31 -0400, "nacelp" wrote: >I got several ideas, the basic question is to kludge or not to kludge. OK, to K or not to K, that is the question. (Sorry, I couldn't resist...) >... tps interception ... or... > ...getting into the calibration file, and setting the PE >enable to 99%. and that should prevent the PE mode. I take it we could refer to this as "major PE-enable/disable tweaks"? So we have two mechanisms on the table so far. (1) is to intercept the TPS signal, which is almost always used to flag/force PE modes, and then we attempt to prevent them, by faking a false TPS input, and/or (2) to systematically disable PE as much as the cal tables will allow. OK, wellNgood, I understand the overall concept, but...What I'd like to understand further is, for say an example OEM/GM ECM, is there a bit that says "past this parametric point/level (TPS or MAP or whatever), enable PE (aka go to O/L)"? The real question to me seems to be how MUCH authority can we get over O/L vrs. C/L; not so much whether we can force it without exception. That's why I'm asking cases-by-cases. For example, we don't really care if there's no way to prevent the coolant temps, below a certain value, forcing O/L and major enrichment. On the contrary, we want that! We therefore don't need to worry about intercepting these temp sensor inputs. Just let them be, and if they force the ECU into O/L, no harm done; since actually we WANT them to go to major O/L enrichments in these cold regimes. But what we MUST accomplish for this concept to work (i.e., taking OEM ECUs into WOT C/L), is to be able to thwart the normal excursion of the ECU into O/L when either the TPS or MAP/MAF suggests we should 'normally' go to tables. I can readily see how interception of TPS could be accomplished, BUTTTTTTT how about the ECU's normal transition to O/L when the load/MAP/MAF exceeds a certain level? Can we/should we intervene there? Reason I fear this is more problematic, is that we may not be able to just FAKE or fudge the load inputs, otherwise we lose needful accel and other transient enrichments that ARE really needed, because relying on the AFR feedback alone, may be too slow/sloppy (given that all we are getting is bang-bang controller response times; hey, even WITH tightly servo'd C/L O2 sensing, FelPro still allows O/L enrichment during major load/TPS excursions). What would be IDEAL (I'm dreamin here, so bear with me), is that we could control via cal table settings, the parametric limits of each of these inputs (or their derivatives/rates-of-change), be they TPS or MAP/MAF, so that we could say, beyond a certain level/rateOchange, GO to O/L and apply enrichment table values, but whenever these inputs settle below these extreme transient levels, then return to C/L and follow the "commanded AFR" (aka the stoich-crossing setpoint we fake/program using WB sensing). If we can do this across the board with most all key inputs in a table-driven manner, we CAN control when we KEEP to C/L and follow the WB O2 sensor, and at all the other times, we not only LET, nay...but DESIRE the ECU to use it's enrichment tables to control O/L the mix. For example, we WANT to ignore the WB O2 sensing when we're in cold-crank/start and during warm-up. We also WANT to ignore the WB O2 sensing when someone transitions from 0 TPS to F/S TPS in a quarter-second, and use the table-driven enrichments. Same goes with rapid load excursions. If we can control via cal tables just WHEN we want to go to C/L, then we'll have cracked this cookie, and ushered in a new age of WB AFR control, where it counts most. It's good (or at least OK) to have O/L PE dumping safety-measures of fuel during a major power-up, during the first few fractions of a second; but if after those transients, we can accomplish forcing the ECU to lock on to a nice tight C/L 12.5AFR lets say, during the longer period of major acceleration, then we will have accomplished something quite useful. Because once we can control the AFR precisely during major power phases, we'll be able to test just EXACTLY what AFR is indeed optimum for acceleration/load, and then lock that in via C/L AFR feedback/programming. No more FelPro or Motec envy. :) If this can be accomplished within OEM ECUs, via cal table changes and sensor intercepts alone, where needed, without resorting to 'custom' ECM code changes, we've really met a horizon. Thanks Bruce for the spark; I'd say as an mere EE, that sensor intercepts should/can be viewed as very minor irritations easily accomplished. What we need to determine next is how much authority can be accomplished via PE-mode programming/disabling, and whether a combo of your two suggestions could possibly accomplish the whole end game. If so, methinks it's possibly fairly major doo-doo. :) Anyone else have further suggestions/comments/caveats? Speak up, pulleze. Gar - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:30:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Merethe Wichstroem Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... - --15197996.955099855154.JavaMail.webmail1@xxx.no Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! I feel its possible to go C/L (coolant???:-))outside the aria where the ECU is going C/L by controlling the temp sensor,or adding fuel pressure by a PWM valve in series with the existing fuel system.By controlling the fuel pressure we can force the oem ECU into the C/L fueling requiered for ad on kompressors+.Then we are one step further than Felpro.And could be the perfect ad on for aftermarket equipment.But if we want to take it all the way we need to have C/L ignition as well,to make a ad on automatic .How to get controll of the advance? Espen - --15197996.955099855154.JavaMail.webmail1@xxx.no-- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 02:43:53 PDT From: "mike mager" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Gar, Again, Wow!, what a great project (C/L WB WOT - in _any_ ECM!)! When I was first (completely alone!) trying to figure out how a (an EFI) computer worked, I wondered why WOT was open, rather than feedback; now I get, and you will give the sensor capability, right (EGOR)? Mike >From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) >Reply-To: diy_efi@xxx.org >To: diy_efi@xxx.org >Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... >Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 00:29:00 -0700 > >On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 01:12:31 -0400, "nacelp" wrote: > > >I got several ideas, the basic question is to kludge or not to kludge. > >OK, to K or not to K, that is the question. (Sorry, I couldn't >resist...) > > >... tps interception ... > >or... > > > ...getting into the calibration file, and setting the PE > >enable to 99%. and that should prevent the PE mode. > >I take it we could refer to this as "major PE-enable/disable tweaks"? > >So we have two mechanisms on the table so far. (1) is to intercept the >TPS signal, which is almost always used to flag/force PE modes, and then >we attempt to prevent them, by faking a false TPS input, and/or (2) to >systematically disable PE as much as the cal tables will allow. > >OK, wellNgood, I understand the overall concept, but...What I'd like to >understand further is, for say an example OEM/GM ECM, is there a bit >that says "past this parametric point/level (TPS or MAP or whatever), >enable PE (aka go to O/L)"? The real question to me seems to be how MUCH >authority can we get over O/L vrs. C/L; not so much whether we can force >it without exception. That's why I'm asking cases-by-cases. > >For example, we don't really care if there's no way to prevent the >coolant temps, below a certain value, forcing O/L and major enrichment. >On the contrary, we want that! We therefore don't need to worry about >intercepting these temp sensor inputs. Just let them be, and if they >force the ECU into O/L, no harm done; since actually we WANT them to go >to major O/L enrichments in these cold regimes. > >But what we MUST accomplish for this concept to work (i.e., taking OEM >ECUs into WOT C/L), is to be able to thwart the normal excursion of the >ECU into O/L when either the TPS or MAP/MAF suggests we should >'normally' go to tables. I can readily see how interception of TPS could >be accomplished, BUTTTTTTT how about the ECU's normal transition to O/L >when the load/MAP/MAF exceeds a certain level? Can we/should we >intervene there? Reason I fear this is more problematic, is that we may >not be able to just FAKE or fudge the load inputs, otherwise we lose >needful accel and other transient enrichments that ARE really needed, >because relying on the AFR feedback alone, may be too slow/sloppy (given >that all we are getting is bang-bang controller response times; hey, >even WITH tightly servo'd C/L O2 sensing, FelPro still allows O/L >enrichment during major load/TPS excursions). What would be IDEAL (I'm >dreamin here, so bear with me), is that we could control via cal table >settings, the parametric limits of each of these inputs (or their >derivatives/rates-of-change), be they TPS or MAP/MAF, so that we could >say, beyond a certain level/rateOchange, GO to O/L and apply enrichment >table values, but whenever these inputs settle below these extreme >transient levels, then return to C/L and follow the "commanded AFR" (aka >the stoich-crossing setpoint we fake/program using WB sensing). > >If we can do this across the board with most all key inputs in a >table-driven manner, we CAN control when we KEEP to C/L and follow the >WB O2 sensor, and at all the other times, we not only LET, nay...but >DESIRE the ECU to use it's enrichment tables to control O/L the mix. For >example, we WANT to ignore the WB O2 sensing when we're in >cold-crank/start and during warm-up. We also WANT to ignore the WB O2 >sensing when someone transitions from 0 TPS to F/S TPS in a >quarter-second, and use the table-driven enrichments. Same goes with >rapid load excursions. If we can control via cal tables just WHEN we >want to go to C/L, then we'll have cracked this cookie, and ushered in a >new age of WB AFR control, where it counts most. > >It's good (or at least OK) to have O/L PE dumping safety-measures of >fuel during a major power-up, during the first few fractions of a >second; but if after those transients, we can accomplish forcing the ECU >to lock on to a nice tight C/L 12.5AFR lets say, during the longer >period of major acceleration, then we will have accomplished something >quite useful. Because once we can control the AFR precisely during major >power phases, we'll be able to test just EXACTLY what AFR is indeed >optimum for acceleration/load, and then lock that in via C/L AFR >feedback/programming. No more FelPro or Motec envy. :) > >If this can be accomplished within OEM ECUs, via cal table changes and >sensor intercepts alone, where needed, without resorting to 'custom' ECM >code changes, we've really met a horizon. > >Thanks Bruce for the spark; I'd say as an mere EE, that sensor >intercepts should/can be viewed as very minor irritations easily >accomplished. What we need to determine next is how much authority can >be accomplished via PE-mode programming/disabling, and whether a combo >of your two suggestions could possibly accomplish the whole end game. If >so, methinks it's possibly fairly major doo-doo. :) Anyone else have >further suggestions/comments/caveats? Speak up, pulleze. > >Gar > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.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 #138 ***************************** 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".