DELIVERY ERROR: Re: holley 4d_ efi changes??

[mailer-daemon at the.link.ca]

-------____mime_boundary___089786756453412zxc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Failed to deliver the following message:

Sender: realsquash at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: holley 4d_ efi changes??
Sent: Nov 23, 1998 11:30:41

Reporting Server: sask.hinz.com

Message could not be delivered to:

Recipient: <noone at sask.hinz.com>
Reason: User not found in MS Mail address book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


-------____mime_boundary___089786756453412zxc
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from 
          by ;
          MON, 23 Nov 1998 11:30:37 -0600
Received: from esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (mail at esl.eng.ohio-state.edu [128.146.90.233]) by the.link.ca (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA18957 for <Howard.McKay at sask.hinz.com>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:30:33 -0600
Received: (from mail at localhost)
	by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA02486
	for diy_efi-outgoing; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:38:22 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: esl.eng.ohio-state.edu: mail set sender to owner-diy_efi using -f
Received: from send1e.yahoomail.com (send1e.yahoomail.com [205.180.60.64])
	by esl.eng.ohio-state.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA02482
	for <diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 11:38:21 -0500
Message-ID: <19981123163433.8393.rocketmail at send1e.yahoomail.com>
Received: from [204.95.195.97] by send1e; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:34:33 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:34:33 -0800 (PST)
From: andy quaas <realsquash at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: holley 4d_ efi changes??
To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: diy_efi at efi332.eng.ohio-state.edu
X-UIDL: cd975bbd85e142f5171c03a818a8ef7f

OK, you're all partially wrong.  The 2D system is a microprocessor
unit that is tuned with a few pots.  The 4D system is uP controlled
also.  It is tuned with a few pots, also.  It is closed-loop only and
has an IAC.  The 4Di is the exact same as the 4D except you program it
with a laptop (very powerful ECU).  The analog systems are still
available.  The 4D/Di kits share nothing with the 2D or the analog
systems.  NOTHING.  You can buy a closed-loop kit for the analog
systems.  I had a 4Di on my truck.  I would have to recommend it to
anyone who wants EFI, but can't afford to burn chips and pay for port
EFI.

Andy Q


---Bill the arcstarter <arcstarter at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was written: (re: ProJection kits)
> 
> >has the holley 4d_ system throttle body changed at all since its 
> inception?
> 
> I haven't seen one but it looks like the old analog unit has been 
> discontinued and replaced with a low-end digital unit.  This would
be a 
> 2d system I think.  It still contains the 5-6 pots on the front for 
> hacking up the fuel tables...
> 
> The 2d system is $620 from Jegs.
> 
> I think only the 4di system allows laptop-type remote adjustment of
the 
> specifics.  (4di is $1242 from Jegs-open loop - no learning)
> 
> There is some sort of closed-loop O2 kit you can get for $100.  But I 
> have a hard time seeing how this thing would know if the engine is 
> warmed up yet, etc.  Other than that I *think* it connects in between 
> the injectors and the ECU.  I think is "massages" the injector pulse 
> widths.
> 
> Someone else on diy_efi said this thing runs at a fixed frequency and 
> variable duty cycle, if that matters...
> 
> One problem I've had researching these ProJection systems is FINDING 
> good tech information..  Yea I called Holley but they weren't keen on 
> chatting.  I bought the stupid installation video for $15 just to see 
> what I could learn (was worth it).
> 
> So is anyone using one of these things?
> 
> I'm thinking I can do just as well with a GM TBI, a PIC and some 
> solder... :)  Anyone care to help?
> 
> 
> >PS just read in hotrod dec/98 has one article w/ the 4di answering a 
> few of
> >my q's, the digital systems TPS is far more sensitive than the
analog's
> >TPS.....so even thought the guy w/ this system upgraded to the 
> Again - just guessing here but I'd have a hard time believing they
use 
> two different TPS sensors, one on the old analog and one on the new 
> digital.  Perhaps the author meant that the new *system* worked
better 
> than the old one? 
> 
> Comments always invited.
> -Bill
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> 

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


-------____mime_boundary___089786756453412zxc--