DIY_EFI Digest Saturday, April 8 2000 Volume 05 : Number 140 In this issue: RE: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... MAF sensor impedance Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: Ford 5.0 swap Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Re: '93 Ford EEC-IV Re: Neutral safety switch 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:59:32 +0100 From: "Rich M" Subject: RE: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Guys (and maybe some Girls?), Assuming my understanding is correct, accel. enrichment and the like is performed in response to rate-of-change signals, notably from TPS. This can still be accomodated while limiting the actual max. TPS value as has been already suggested. This would allow the ECM to perform transient (required) enrichment, whilst inhibiting steady-state O/L operation. If the accel. enrichment is also a result of rate-of-change of MAF also, then this might not be so easy? Rich. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 08:55:31 -0400 From: Rodney_L_Wiggins@xxx.com Subject: MAF sensor impedance Does anyone know the output impedance for a Ford MAF sensor? Or perhaps where I might find this information? Thanks, Rod 86 944 turbo, nitrous, big turbo, etc. 69 Land Rover. blindingly slow, but very capable. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 09:48:25 -0700 From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 12:59:32 +0100, "Rich M" wrote: >Assuming my understanding is correct, accel. enrichment and the like is >performed in response to rate-of-change signals, notably from TPS. This can >still be accomodated while limiting the actual max. TPS value as has been >already suggested. This would allow the ECM to perform transient (required) >enrichment, whilst inhibiting steady-state O/L operation. If the accel. >enrichment is also a result of rate-of-change of MAF also, then this might >not be so easy? As mentioned earlier, at least some aftermarket controllers (maybe all?) have tables to apply enrichment for ALL/any of the below: (1) throttle rateOchange (2) throttle pos (the actual position itself) (3) MAP rateOchange These of course are applied on top of the base fueling tables, if I understand the proper nomenclature. BUT, the issue of control over O/L vrs C/L has more to do with what events/limits THROW you into the use of these tables. To illustrate what I'm getting at with that last sentence, consider that altho say for example #3 is USED in determining how much enrichment to add once in O/L, it may not of itself cause you to be thrown into O/L. So the key variables we need to be able to control in order to keep OUT of O/L are the parameters that cause us to be thrown into O/L in the first place. Obviously, throttle pos and rateOchange have limits that throw us into O/L, and we may indeed be able to fudge these since they aren't usually part of/parameters of the base fueling tables. But the problem comes in when an engine parameter is used both to trigger O/L and is used in fueling calcs. Hence, trying to intercept and munge MAP values, for example, isn't gonna be workable, unless we have some way of controlling the *limits* themselves that cause transition to O/L. In general, that's why control over the limits that force O/L seems to always be a better plan than interception and munging of sensor inputs. The question remains, do we have enough authority via table values and flags, to control/prevent transition to O/L if we/when we want to. In addition to the OEM controllers, someone who's an active part of the 332 group and is familiar with it's code, could perhaps say what the O/L trigger conditions/parameter limits are, and if even that controller could be "persuaded" to stay in C/L via cal changes alone. That might be a good examplar place to begin, since all the code is visible. Anyone familiar with that code? Obviously if you have full access and control over the code, you can do better than just faking out the ECU like we've been discussing, so I'm not proposing the above as the desired way of doing C/L WB in something like the 332; just that since it's code is available and open, it might still be an instructive example to look at. Pretend it's an OEM controller you can peer into openly, but can't change the coding, and then see if you can get by with just cal changes. 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 14:20:28 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... > > If the accel. > >enrichment is also a result of rate-of-change of MAF also, then this might > >not be so easy? I've never seen that. Not saying it doesn't exist, just none of the popular gm stuff uses it. > As mentioned earlier, at least some aftermarket controllers (maybe all?) > have tables to apply enrichment for ALL/any of the below: > (1) throttle rateOchange > (2) throttle pos (the actual position itself) > (3) MAP rateOchange Only option 2, seems to be applicable, again gm wise. > These of course are applied on top of the base fueling tables, if I > understand the proper nomenclature. This gets muddier, as I understand things. They usually have a commanded AFR. The corrections for temp., apply, and then some us B/L number corrections to richen the mixture, others just use 128. BUT, the issue of control over O/L > vrs C/L has more to do with what events/limits THROW you into the use of > these tables. To illustrate what I'm getting at with that last sentence, > consider that altho say for example #3 is USED in determining how much > enrichment to add once in O/L, it may not of itself cause you to be > thrown into O/L. Your trapping yourself by using the word "add". Like I said some use a commanded AFR that they figure out, and run at. So the key variables we need to be able to control in > order to keep OUT of O/L are the parameters that cause us to be thrown > into O/L in the first place. Well, in general, there are a number of those, ie time after restart, CTS, lots of defaults from sensor failures, etc.. I wouldn't want to disable all of those features, or you get a very dumb ecm, and that's what we're trying to avoid in large part. Obviously, throttle pos and rateOchange > have limits that throw us into O/L, and we may indeed be able to fudge > these since they aren't usually part of/parameters of the base fueling > tables. But the problem comes in when an engine parameter is used both > to trigger O/L and is used in fueling calcs. Hence, trying to intercept > and munge MAP values, for example, isn't gonna be workable, unless we > have some way of controlling the *limits* themselves that cause > transition to O/L. I think your overthinking this, to a slight degree. If we don't allow a PE mode by clipping the TPS value, there will be no PE. If you want to get clever code wise, you might use some like the EGR area for setting a specific set of conditions for using the EGR as the "govenor" for the C/L WOT, and use the EGR enable to trigger a remote feed back devise, that uses the original PW the ecm calulates for the AFR commanded. Geez, I hope someone other then me understands what I'm trying to express here. > In general, that's why control over the limits that force O/L seems to > always be a better plan than interception and munging of sensor inputs. > The question remains, do we have enough authority via table values and > flags, to control/prevent transition to O/L if we/when we want to. Yes, for the hac'd ecms. 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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 11:30:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Wilkinson Subject: Re: Ford 5.0 swap I have recently completed an engine swap of the same type: '90 mustang 5.0 => '75 Toyota Land Cruiser. everything went very smoothly...I purchased the entire wiring system with the engine. In my garage I assembled the wiring harness and placed the engine on a stand. I proceeded to get it running on the stand and performed major wiring modifications...The best wiring diagrams anywhere are in the MITCHELL shop books at your local public library... they are better than ford's own diagrams. these allowed me to cut out all unused wiring and modules (heater,A/C,Stereo,pwr windows...). I am very pleased with the results and I have the satisfaction of having done it myself... - --- Darren Floen wrote: > A freind of mine is planning to swap a 1987 Mustang > 5.0 into a 65 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.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: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 15:27:12 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Yes, an ex-list member had done that. But, his talent was way beyond mere mortals, and alias, he didn't feel compeled to share it. Just one of them things Grumpy > Has anyone tried writing an engine-management program > from scratch for an OEM ECU? > Thanks, > 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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:45:15 -0700 From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:20:28 -0400, "nacelp" wrote: >I've never seen that. Not saying it doesn't exist, just none of the popular >gm stuff uses it. > >> (1) throttle rateOchange >> (2) throttle pos (the actual position itself) >> (3) MAP rateOchange > >Only option 2, seems to be applicable, again gm wise. OK, great, this is good news. The above case is real, tho. The FelPro system has all three of the above. >Well, in general, there are a number of those, ie time after restart, CTS, >lots of defaults from sensor failures, etc.. I wouldn't want to disable all >of those features, or you get a very dumb ecm, and that's what we're trying >to avoid in large part. Right, I agree; we just have to cover enough of them so we can keep C/L during the 'important' times. Let the ECU still go to O/L during all those "special" circumstances and cases; that's very desirable. >I think your overthinking this, to a slight degree. Yup, I was hoping so; I was trying to err on the side of pessimism, and see if it got better from there. Sounds like it indeed does. Great. >If we don't allow a PE >mode by clipping the TPS value, there will be no PE. Understood. This seems much more tractable since it sounds like for the GM ECMs, this is the only "hole" to plug. Sounds good. Just wish there was a flag/column in some table for the TPS, that could be set to disable PE without intercepting the sensor itself. But I ain't complainin; this sounds doable so far. >Yes, for the hac'd ecms. As you well know, I'm hoping just such a scheme can be tried successfully *especially* on the GM ECMs, given their wide availability, their relative ease of use, and knowledge base already out there. Can't wait to get someOdem lil EGOR-modules out there and have a go at it. I know there are some others that have thots on this subject; come on, speak up, help us sort thru this and maybe raise the confidence level even more, eh? Don't be shy. :) Walt, you listenin? 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 19:29:22 -0400 From: "nacelp" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... > OK, great, this is good news. The above case is real, tho. The FelPro > system has all three of the above. I'll admit to not having total recall, but I don't remember thedemo software showing that, at least as a tuning feature. > >Well, in general, there are a number of those, ie time after restart, CTS, > >lots of defaults from sensor failures, etc.. I wouldn't want to disable all > >of those features, or you get a very dumb ecm, and that's what we're trying > >to avoid in large part. > Right, I agree; we just have to cover enough of them so we can keep C/L > during the 'important' times. Let the ECU still go to O/L during all > those "special" circumstances and cases; that's very desirable. > >I think your overthinking this, to a slight degree. > Yup, I was hoping so; I was trying to err on the side of pessimism, and > see if it got better from there. Sounds like it indeed does. Great. > >If we don't allow a PE > >mode by clipping the TPS value, there will be no PE. > Understood. This seems much more tractable since it sounds like for the > GM ECMs, this is the only "hole" to plug. Sounds good. Just wish there > was a flag/column in some table for the TPS, that could be set to > disable PE without intercepting the sensor itself. But I ain't > complainin; this sounds doable so far. Yes, that can be done code wise, but I was offering an alternative for those without hac'd ecm applications, and those that don't care to don't wan to do much prom editing. > >Yes, for the hac'd ecms. > As you well know, I'm hoping just such a scheme can be tried > successfully *especially* on the GM ECMs, given their wide availability, > their relative ease of use, and knowledge base already out there. Can't > wait to get someOdem lil EGOR-modules out there and have a go at it. Course this is all theory till we get things up and running <<>>.... Just need to get a EGOR to use forra while Grumpy > > I know there are some others that have thots on this subject; come on, > speak up, help us sort thru this and maybe raise the confidence level > even more, eh? Don't be shy. :) Walt, you listenin? > > 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 > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 09:00:59 -0400 From: David Cooley Subject: Re: '93 Ford EEC-IV Clay, Here's a list that I'm on that's dedicated to disassembling the EEC-IV and EEC-V there is a LOT of information on the list and it's all shared... No one is keeping anything from anyone. It's like the DIY and GM_ECM lists but deals with the Fords. To subscribe, e-mail: eec-subscribe@xxx.net > > > > 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. =========================================================== David Cooley N5XMT Internet: N5XMT@xxx.net Packet: N5XMT@xxx. Member #7068 We are Borg... Prepare to be assimilated! =========================================================== - ----- End of forwarded message from owner-diy_efi@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: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:43 -0400 From: Bill Shaw Subject: Re: Neutral safety switch You might try rigging up a switch in the cab for a test. Flip the switch when you shift to neutral and see if it solver your problem. If not you cal start looking elsewhere for the problem. Bill Darren Floen wrote: > 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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:09:10 PDT From: "mike mager" Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... Thanks, Grumpy, Mike >From: "nacelp" >Yes, an ex-list member had done that. >But, his talent was way beyond mere mortals, and alias, he didn't feel >compeled to share it. Just one of them things Grumpy > > Has anyone tried writing an engine-management program > > from scratch for an OEM ECU? > > Thanks, > > Mike ______________________________________________________ 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:36:56 -0700 From: garwillis@xxx.com (Garfield Willis) Subject: Re: C/L WB/WOT OEM ECUs... On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 19:29:22 -0400, "nacelp" wrote: >I'll admit to not having total recall, but I don't remember thedemo software >showing that, at least as a tuning feature. Oh yah, it's in there. Run CalCom, load the demo file (you have to load the demo file, or otherwise, those tables aren't visible), then look at the "VE or Fuel" screen/button. You'll see tables/maps for all three. >Yes, that can be done code wise, but I was offering an alternative for those >without hac'd ecm applications, and those that don't care to don't wan to do >much prom editing. Yeah, when I said flag/column in the tables, I meant in the CAL tables. >Course this is all theory till we get things up and running <<>>.... >Just need to get a EGOR to use forra while Patience, they'll be available soon; then you can play to your heart's content. But we have to have some inkling of what is possible, in order to prepare the proper App Notes for switch-type O2 simulation. That's why I'm bird-dog'ing this topic now. It's hard to figure out for all OEM ECUs what's required to "pretend I'm your switch-type O2 sensor". So I'm interested in preparing instructions for the most common and most promising OEM ECUs; hoping those will be the GM ecms. 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 ------------------------------ End of DIY_EFI Digest V5 #140 ***************************** 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".