DIY_EFI Digest V2 #15
Garrett Fulton
gfulton at salisbury.net
Sun Jan 12 14:32:58 GMT 1997
Fellows, I've been lurking on this list for quite a while as I consider the
information so fascinating and informative. I've now got a problem on a
car that I can't solve and hope someone here can offer a little advice.
It's a 92 Olds Cutlass Supreme with a 3.4 L 24 valve v-6. When it starts
cold it goes to 3000 rpm and slowly, (about 10 seconds), drops back to
about 1500. After staying at 1500 about 10 seconds, it increases to 1750
and the SES light comes on. I've read the codes with an OTC diag. tester
and it's always the code for the IAC solenoid. I replaced it, but no help.
Don't believe I have any vacuum leaks on the engine. According to the OEM
serv. manual, the code is set for the IAC sol. when theres a difference of
200 rpm between commanded and actual rpm. That's exactly when the light
comes on, at the 200 to 250 rpm jump when it's cold. If anyone has any
ideas I'd sure appreciate hearing them. You might want to respond to my
e-mail address as I know this is not the proper forum for this type of
problem and I don't want to clog the list with it.
Thank you
Garrett Fulton
gfulton at salisbury.net
----------
> From: DIY_EFI-Digest-Owner at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
> To: DIY_EFI-Digest at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
> Subject: DIY_EFI Digest V2 #15
> Date: Sunday, January 12, 1997 5:00 AM
>
>
> DIY_EFI Digest Sunday, 12 January 1997 Volume 02 : Number
015
>
> In this issue:
>
> Re: octane booster
> Re: Smog Stuff
> Re: Motronic
> Re: Forwarded: Re: Airflow measurement - again...
> Re: GM ALDL Information
> Re: Cross Port " Air flow measurement "
> Re: Motronic
> More TPI questions from me
> Re: Motronic energizer bunny
> move on: Thermisters
> Phone Number
> Re: TPI questions from me
> Re: Phone Number
> O.D. TRANS
> Re: O.D. TRANS
> Calpak and Boost
>
> See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the
> DIY_EFI or DIY_EFI-Digest mailing lists.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: "John Faubion" <jfaubion at beaches.net>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:21:02 -0600
> Subject: Re: octane booster
>
> > >>So would I......just tell me where to buy it. My local aviation
> facility
> > >now requies an "N" number (aircraft ID) before purchase will be
granted.
> >
> > OK, so pluck a number off some Piper Cub **that isn't based at the
> > facility** and use that number. They just need a number right? This
> should
> > work if they don't make you show any paperwork. Call your old
out-of-town
>
> > college buddy and have him get some random number off a plane at the
> airport
> > in his town. Learn some aircraft-speak and you should be able to
> > "social-engineer" yourself some avgas no problem.
>
> The main reason for requiring an aircraft number is to cover their butt.
> AVGAS has no road use taxes added and selling it to be used in a street
> vehicle would be a definite no-no. However if you let them know it is for
> your race car, which would "never" see street use, and you bring in fuel
> cans, you should have no problem buying 10-30 gallons at a time. I've
done
> it this way for years at many different airports. They just want to make
> sure your no using it on the street.
>
> John Faubion
> jfaubion at beaches.net
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "George M. Dailey" <gmd at tecinfo.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:44:58 -0600 (CST)
> Subject: Re: Smog Stuff
>
> I know what you'r saying Vance. It seams like every car I drive is way
under
> powered now. I'm spoiled rotten! Have you installed the O.D. tranny yet?
>
> GMD
>
> At 10:19 PM 1/10/97 -0800, you wrote:
> Its been about three
> >years now-enjoy cold start\running, low end torque,general disability(
once
> >in awhile drive a carb vehicle and go nuts).
>
> >
> >Vance
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Scot A. Sealander" <Sealand at clarityconnect.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 13:07:41 -0800
> Subject: Re: Motronic
>
> thor at pixie.co.za wrote:
>
> > Nobody is questioning Todd's perogative of divulging any information
> > which may put him out of business, however, his comments (remarks) made
> > to someone who merly requested some information and help in this forum,
I
> > believe, is not in the spirit of this group.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> > Remeber, there may be someone out there who also has the requested
> > information, and is willing to share it.
>
> Interesting. The only people who I have found that want to "share it"
are
> those who the info cost them nothing. Nothing, as in no expense, no
sweat,
> no long hours pouring over code or ECM hardware. In other words, they got
> an illegal copy of say, a GM calibration document and have no problem
> passing along someone else's effort. The info is not valuable to them,
as
> they "paid" nothing for it.
>
> In Jim and Todd's case, I fully understand their reluctance to put it all
> that effort out front, and most would not understand it anyway!
>
> I have seen "read-it-in-a-magazine ECM experts" on various automotive
> mailing lists, who must have never seen a line of code, telling others
how
> things work. Their mis-information is sometimes amazing. I responded to
a
> TPS question once, and got a "Clearly, you have no knowledge here"
> response. It was because of the "common knowledge" that these experts
> continue to purpetuate. It takes a long time to stop urban legend....
>
> Even book authors and magazine writers can put out mis-information. A
> popular book says "Rotating the TPS counterclockwise increases the
voltage
> and results in a richer air/fuel ratio......" This is in error, but
> because it is published, I guess it is considered truth.... ;-) Or a
> recent magazine article that said "The oxygen sensor .... is the primary
> input to the fuel delivery system." Another serious error.
>
> Jim and Todd have taken the considerable time and effort it takes to
really
> find out how the BMW/Porsche boxes function, (and did not read magazines
to
> get there) and most here do not understand the time and serious effort
> involved, or their level of expertise at this. (Just ask the person who
> said they had 1% of code commented and gave up. The only real difference
> between Jim/Todd and this person may be that they did not give up!
>
> I like Jim's offer of help to those who would help themselves. It is
> admirable and shows true class in my opinion.... YMMV.
>
> Scot Sealander Sealand at clarityconnect.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: adt1 <adt1 at cris.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:24:31 -0500
> Subject: Re: Forwarded: Re: Airflow measurement - again...
>
> >Someone else on this list posted a message suggesting use of a strain
> >gauge for flow measurement. I've been thinking about that some more
from
> >time to time and it seems like a good idea. His idea was basically
based
> >on mounting a small object in the air flow path via an arm that has a
> >strain gauge. Increased air flow equates to change in the load cell
> >reading. To cancel out vehicle dynamics an identical setup outside the
> >flow path is used and the signals are subtracted. The resulting reading
> >needs to be corrected based on air temp since the drag force is a
> >function of air density, viscosity, velocity ^ 2. Knowing density (by
> >temp) and viscosity, we can calculate or look-up velocity, and knowing
> >velocity, area, and density, we can determine mass flow rate.
> >
> >Not too many people commented about his message unfortunately, and I
> >can't find the original posting. What are your thoughts?
>
> This approach to air flow measurement sounds very similar to
> a vane meter. Both the strain gauged arm and the vane meter
> rely on an aerodynamic drag force to deflect a spring. The
> deflection is measured (by a strain gauge in the first case
> and a potentiometer in the second) and then converted to mass
> flow rate.
>
> I'm not saying it's good or bad, just pointing out the
> similarity I see. It makes me wonder how big the sphere
> would have to be to get a good magnitude of deflection.
>
> Anthony Tsakiris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: adt1 <adt1 at cris.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:24:32 -0500
> Subject: Re: GM ALDL Information
>
> >I think I've converted him to the GM way, he is (was) a Ford man.
>
> Doh!
>
>
> Anthony Tsakiris
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Roy <spectric at globalnet.co.uk>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 19:54:47 +0000
> Subject: Re: Cross Port " Air flow measurement "
>
> Kalle Pihlajasaari wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here is a messsage from another list I'm on.
> >
> > It seem that ultrasonic flow measurement might be a out the box
sollution
> > but I have no idea how these are implemented, perhaps someone in
> > the UK could make a few calls and let the list know what is on offer.
> >
> > Forwarded message:
> > > Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 20:51:20 +0800 (HKT)
> > > From: Stuart Smith <spsmith at hk.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [STAMPS]..Wind Speed Devices!!!! Low Speed+
> > >
> > > Solent of the UK make an ultrasonic anemometer rated down to 0.02m/s!
The
> > > deluxe versions also do 3 dimensional direction output! The top end
goes
> > > up to 90m/s as well. However it is somewhat more expensive than the
> > > conventional type, however they are well made and the accuracy specs.
good
> > > as they have no friction etc...
> > >
> > > Contact: Biral Industrial & Research, UK
> > > Ph: +44 1275 847787
> > > Fax: +44 1275 847303
> > > e-mail: info at biral.com
> > > WWW: http://www.biral.com
> > >
> > > Stuart Smith
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Kalle Pihlajasaari kalle at ip.co.za http://www.ip.co.za/ip
> > Interface Products P O Box 15775, DOORNFONTEIN, 2028, South Africa
> > + 27 (11) 402-7750 Fax: 402-7751 http://www.ip.co.za/people/kalle
> >
> > DonTronics, Silicon Studio and Wirz Electronics uP Product Dealer
> >
> > FROM Roy Spectrics Ltd
> >
> > These anerometers are of no use at all unless you have an inlet tract
that can handle a device that is 2ft tall! They are marine devices fitted
onto boats to measure windspeed and direction. They would also have
difficulty in coping with the pulsation
> s found in the inlet tract.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Carter Hendricks <carterh at crl.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 12:53:41 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Re: Motronic
>
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Scot A. Sealander wrote:
>
> > In Jim and Todd's case, I fully understand their reluctance to put it
all
> > that effort out front, and most would not understand it anyway!
>
> Right. But:
>
> What is so weird about this thread is that Jim and Todd [and a few of the
> other wizards] have been overwhelmingly generous with their time and
> information. If we keep whining, they will go away. Lets move on to how
> new questions, like how to get 50 more horsepower by reprogramming a chip
> or using a $20 exhaust sensor to...
>
> --Carter
>
> [who feels awful for having
> started this mess, when I was
> just trying to thank these guys]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jones <rwj5125 at electriciti.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 14:51:26 +0000
> Subject: More TPI questions from me
>
> Daniel Burk wrote:
> >
> > John Hess wrote:
> > >
> > > You DO NOT want an '85 TPI...PERIOD! The best bet is the early '86
> > > Corvette, Plug the enrichment injector hole, plug the left fuel rail
> > > connector to the enrichment injector, and install an '89 chip.
> > >
> > > If you install the '89 system, the only changes required are to notch
> > > the two center manifold to head bolt holes to accomodate the
different
> > > bolt angle that the aluminum head has versus the iron head (of
course,
> > > you might consider late model aluminum Corvette heads if you have the
> > > coin). The '89 chip is simply a better tune in addition to getting
> > > rid of the cold start injector.
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Daniel Burk[SMTP:ws6transam at voyager.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 09, 1997 10:12 PM
> > > To: diy_efi at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Mike's TPI question
> > >
> > > Mike: You want a TPI from a '85 or '86 Z28 Camaro, corvette, or
trans
> > > am.
> > >
> > > Those are the only cars that came with TPI, and pre-'87 will not
> > > require you to modify the intake manifold.
> >
> > Okay, okay, I get the picture!
> >
> > Mike: Ignore my advice.
> What is the difference between the 85 vs. 89 system. I know the 85 uses
> a cold-start injector system while the 89 and up units do not. Why is
> one better then the other? Why does everone want to eleminate the cold
> start injector? What is the difference between the speed density system
> and the mass Air Flow? Would one be more desirable for my application?
> Is one system better? Also, it seems as if everone on the list perferes
> the 89 EPROM, why?
>
> Mike Jones
> rwj5125 at electriciti.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Dave Zug <dzug at eecis.udel.edu>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:33:59 -0500
> Subject: Re: Motronic energizer bunny
>
> > thor at pixie.co.za wrote:
> >
> > Nobody is questioning Todd's perogative of divulging any information
> > which may put him out of business, however, his comments (remarks)
made
> > to someone who merly requested some information and help in this
forum, I
> > believe, is not in the spirit of this group.
>
>
> Maybe someone could write a "our mission" statement about the list.. to
> tell others what the spirit of the list exactly is. when i was young (9
> months ago) i thought i had found this really great spot where all these
> code pirates were that would give me all they had just because. (thats
> really what i thought, for a day or so.. others may think that at
> first) what i HAVE found was alot better.. people who have worked hard
> to get where they are and will guide you thru the basics and want you to
> learn the way they did.. thru hard work.. a good way (IMO) to get there,
> i have found.
>
> If someone had given me a dump of 8 or 9 ECM's completely commented, i
> would have looked for 10 minutes and decided that "i'll go sell chips
> now".
> (well not really, i do have scruples, you get my point).
>
> I can appreciate and confirm that the "gift" of the microprocessor
> identification (posted in another message about the MOTRONIC-BMW) was
> truly a GIFT, it took me 2 months to get my micro's I.D. and then
> another 4 to beleive it.
>
> another message i saw hit it right:
> read the prom, learn the language, know some automotice engineering
> theory, setup a test rig (or test car!) and start digging! and dont give
> up and have fun....and share some!
>
> oh, and visit http:/p3.net/~dzug/89gpturbo.html (my project's story) I'm
> really an amateur, but i know it. just give me a few years with this
> hobby ;-)
>
> the bunny thing isnt a cut, it just keeeeeps going (USA TV Commercial
> Humor) sorry :-)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Dave Zug <dzug at eecis.udel.edu>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:45:05 -0500
> Subject: move on: Thermisters
>
> Carter Hendricks wrote:
>
> ><snip>
>
> > Lets move on to how
> > new questions, like how to get 50 more horsepower by reprogramming a
chip
> > or using a $20 exhaust sensor to...
>
> With some talk I've seen/Read on thermister accuracy being comprimized
> by the voltage being passed thru it (and thus heat), is there any merit
> to 10k standard thermisters being used in place of the 3k standard I've
> seen? or are there manufacturere who DO use the 10k standard? (10k ARE
> better right?) It dont look hard to change ECM tables for this
> upgrade.. but if it were offered as an aftermarket upgrade, i'd think it
> was some marketing guys' idea. (point of diminishing returns again)
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jennifer Rose <javer96 at snowcrest.net>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:52:50 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: Phone Number
>
> Mike
>
>
> The phone number for GM SPORT SALVAGE is 408-432-8498.
>
> Vance
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: peter paul fenske <pfenske at direct.ca>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 05:34:47 -0800
> Subject: Re: TPI questions from me
>
> Chomp munchee_______----__--_-_--_----
>
> >start injector? What is the difference between the speed density system
> >and the mass Air Flow? Would one be more desirable for my application?
> >Is one system better? Also, it seems as if everone on the list perferes
> >the 89 EPROM, why?
> >
> >Mike Jones
> >rwj5125 at electriciti.com
> >
> Hi Mike
>
> Reason people malign the 85 is not because of the components but
> because of the older ecm used. It is a C3 version #870 with a slower
> interface rate of 160 baud. Also uses an older processor a varaint
> of the 6801 motorola.
>
> The 86-89 ecms are an intermediate step. Capable of both 160 and 8192
> baud aldl. The number for these ecms is #165. People perfer
> the 89 calibration since they think the cold start system which is
> independant of the ecm is failure prone. I have never had a problem
> but I suppose one can.
>
> Now these systems are all mass airflow sensor based. Thus you
> will always need a sensor that can cost you from 200 to 500 dollars
> when it goes. Of course maf will handle considerable engine changes
> without fussing.
>
> Now on too the 90-92 map driven systems. Lots of 730 ecms and harness in
> the millions of J cars. Celebs, cavaliers ect ect.
> I usually pay 80$ canadian here for a ecm and harness.
> The calibration is cheap. 50$ canadian and part number 1615348 gets you
> the calibration package. The map sensor is cheaper and doesn't require
> you to relocate your rad, just kiddin.
>
> Mind you map doesn't handle massive engine changes..
>
> GL:peter
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jones <rwj5125 at electriciti.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:06:48 +0000
> Subject: Re: Phone Number
>
> Jennifer Rose wrote:
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > The phone number for GM SPORT SALVAGE is 408-432-8498.
> >
> > Vance
>
> Thanks
> - --
> Mike Jones
> rwj5125 at electriciti.com
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Jennifer Rose <javer96 at snowcrest.net>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 18:06:43 -0800 (PST)
> Subject: O.D. TRANS
>
> George
>
> Now that you mention it- wanted to replace turbo 400 with a 4l80e
trans.
> Just need to find one real cheap!! Had the wild notion my current ECM
(165)
> could be use to control the new trans. Of course this is after learning
to
> tweak code for better performance LOL.
>
> Vance
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: peter paul fenske <pfenske at direct.ca>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:03:52 -0800
> Subject: Re: O.D. TRANS
>
> At 06:06 PM 1/11/97 -0800, you wrote:
> >George
> >
> > Now that you mention it- wanted to replace turbo 400 with a
4l80e
> trans.
> >Just need to find one real cheap!! Had the wild notion my current ECM
(165)
> >could be use to control the new trans. Of course this is after learning
to
> >tweak code for better performance LOL.
> >
> >Vance
>
> Hi guys.
>
> I don't think it is within the capability of a #165 ecm to
> control the electronic trans. Not unless you considerably down
> grade the code that is running.
>
> Now a stand alone controller could be interesting. There actually
> isn't that much to control
>
> Later: peter
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: peter paul fenske <pfenske at direct.ca>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 07:09:34 -0800
> Subject: Calpak and Boost
>
> Hi All
>
> Just was interested if anyone had the eprom contents of the syclone
> calpak. If not ok just have to spend some money.
>
> Also if someone can send me the 89 tpi prom I could have a look
> and see what it would take to disable the egr and vats for you
> guys.
>
> With the syclone stuff I am getting serious about writing some
> code and adding it to the 730 tpi stuff. What I want to do
> is interecept the map a/d reads using a 2 bar map instead of
> a 1 bar. When pressure exceed baro or a calibrated value I intend
> to switch the open loop calibration to my own table. Also switch
> in an external driver for additional injectors when the boost
> from the vortech cuts in. This is similiar to what is done in
> the LT5 to switch in the extra injectors.
>
> I would like to see how the Map reads are done in the syclone.
>
> Tnx everybody: peter
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of DIY_EFI Digest V2 #15
> ****************************
>
> To subscribe to DIY_EFI-Digest, send the command:
>
> subscribe diy_efi-digest
>
> in the body of a message to "Majordomo at coulomb.eng.ohio-state.edu".
>
> 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".
>
More information about the Diy_efi
mailing list