ION and EGOR

[garfield at pilgrimhouse.com]

On Thu, 21 May 1998 03:21:46 PDT, "Silicon Challenged"
<expert_not at hotmail.com> wrote:

>ION and EGOR are going to be seperate - I hope - please?

Oh YES, absolutely.

>Might want to use multiple EGORS depending on exhaust plumbing.  Would 
>hate to run V-6 dual exhaust on pick left or right bank only.

Gotcha covered again. Good point on the multiple sensor business. BTW,
do any production cars ever come this way with duals on exh and sensor?
Just wonderin if there are stock ECMs available to scan two sensors.
Heh, not sure what they'd do, control mix on each bank separate (:o) or
what, but it's an interesting question.

>Please leave the plumbing decisions to the engine builder and not force 
>single exhaust for the world just to get the benefit of EGOR.

We're in violent agreement.

>Do you need multiple ION's if you are running coil per plug like Buick 
>V-6s or has someone figured out how to electrically switch these units 
>between plugs.

Because they are smallish, I'd think we'd start with a 4-cyl ION, you
use a pair of them for 6's & 8's. Not THAT much waste on the 6's,
really. They'll be pretty small and cheap, anywho. No way it's gonna be
economical/feasible to do one for each jug count (4,6,8), and we can't
do them one per cylinder, that would be nutso, and doing an 8-cyl only
and maybe partially populating the cards would probably leave the
"module" bigger than we'd like, but this last option of just doing an
8-cyl board is I guess the runnerup possibility at this point in the
thinking. BUT, we really need to go down the road a pace with ION before
we start tryna decide these nitsNnats, methinks.

But certainly, we must pick something that makes sense for all our
engines, packaging-wise.

>Would hate to have to build 6 units and have 4 excess EGORS

Not a reality that's ever gonna be, except in nightmares.

>Combining the two would only be right for single exhaust mechanical 
>distributer.  But if the circuit was available, guess the few of us that 
>don't fit the combined mold could build our own.

Oh yes, definitely. The circuit WILL be available for both, and you'll
find I think that many will wanna whip one up for testing whilst we cool
our heels and give Sandy a break on foot-tapping for the pc board. BOTH
circuits will be simple enough that you could discrete wire (and
certainly wire-wrap) in a couple evening's time. The pc board is an
elegant miniaturization option, but the simplicity of these circuits
makes them eminently breadboardable as well. The pc board I feel IS a
vital necessity for use on engine managers in even slightly
important/critical apps, like racing or flying. Definitely don't want
wire-wrap, for example, on the track for very long. Too vibration-prone.
True also of discrete wire, if you don't pot or tack-down wisely.

>Please Please Please - keep it simple and seperate so that all of us can 
>use them.  And hopefully simple enough so that it is not so specialized 
>that it can't be adapted to "non standard" engines.

Yup, you undoubtedly missed the discussion/post just yesterday or before
on this very theme. Your wish has been granted, even before you spoke
it!

>When the cost is all weighed out, I think maybe the difference will be 
>so low that it won't be worth it to combine them and kill the rest of 
>us.

Well "Challenged", you seem to think about this exactly as I do. Hmmmm,
now is that a good thing, I wonder? Heh. B)

Cheers,
Gar