DIY_EFI Digest V4 #491

[neilaura at accessworldnet.com]

>I'm British, please explain what it means.
>
>Neil
>
>Catching hell already.
>
>British technology means... A clever idea, Lucased.
>
>Now, don't get me wrong, if I hated all things UKish, I wouldn't burned
>the car within 500 miles of buying it... I think it is a bloody fine
>tribute to my phenomenal patience that the car doesn't have "Bring back
>the V2" stickers all over it at this point. 
>
>I am joking! Jeeze, tough crowd...
>
>Hell, I just celebrated a unique event in my ownership of the car... 500
>miles of driving and only stranded once! 

You have been conned!!.
It is a physical impossibility for a British car to be reliable for 500 miles.

It was special enough that I
>emailed several friends... I mean, it was BIG! An absolute first. What
>makes it doubly special is that the failure was actually *cheap to fix*...
>all it was was the muffler coming unglued, and $10 later the damn thing
>was welded together almost perfectly except that one of the resonator
>chambers had ground a hole in itself from when it hit the pavement at
>70MPH (hence the leaky exhaust). 

This weekend I'll pull the damaged
>section and get'er fixed up proper... but I'm missing my own point here.
>
>500 miles, and only stranded once! That is damned special. The first 2500
>miles I drove that car (I bought it used) I must have had 20 major
>failures (y'know, brakes feel fine, until you reach the stoplight and then
>phssss down to the floor they go... stuff like that)

You have not been shown the "twin trailing boot" brake backup system.
Oops sorry, that's British motorcycles.

 in 20 major 
>systems... I didn't think cars like this HAD 20 major systems. I've owned
>the car for a year and a half now, and I've driven it less than 4500
>miles. Compare that to my '97 S10 that just passed 74K miles.
>
>So if yer gonna bust my balls, do it for the fact that my description
>of how those damned carbs work was totally wrong. Well, it was part right,
>except that it isn't, and the fuel regulates on the vacuum which is passed
>to the diaphragm through an inside butterfly, which isn't much different
>than what I said except that I was totally wrong. I had to figure all of
>this out myself after I posted it just so I wouldn't feel good about
>myself last night.
>
>Hey! WAKE UP! Yeah, you... damn, but it is hard to keep people paying
>attention all the way to the end of these emails.
>
>Anyway, I've had a couple of very interesting responses, and I've
>insulted an entire country, but I still don't have a clue...

Insults don't work with the British.
Whatever you say about us is quite probably true. (except the sheep rumour)
>
>...about what something like this typically costs.
>
>Am I looking at 225 UKP, 1600.00 HKD, 5.000 DM, or what?
>
>TIA,
>	Jon
>
>
Trying to drag this conversation back on topic.
Is anyone on the list experimenting, developing or just thinking about an
analogue fuel injection system?.
I read an old article some time ago about Chryslers early FI research. It
seems they developed an analogue system that had 2 low pressure injectors.
Using the ignition pulse, and a TPS they changed the pulse width of a tube
type multivibrator to give a 20:1 fuel/air ratio across the engines rev
range for 1 injector. Using another multivibrator, which used information
from temperature and pressure sensors, the other injector was used to fine
tune the mixture to 14.7:1. 
By all acounts this gave excellent driveability and fuel economy.
Anyone ever heard of this?.

Neil (Proudly British, but my deepest apologies for inflicting you with the
Spice Girls)