P&H Injector Interface

[Len sabatine]

At 02:25 PM 5/19/00 -0700, you wrote:
>On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:39:24 -0400, Len sabatine <sabatine at epix.net>
>wrote:
>
> > This sounds like some very useful work ; cost effective and painless
> >  upgrading for retrofit projects. Add to that your not contemplating
> >  wearing a gun belt and mask for these relatively low cost items. Cool.
>
>Alright, thank you for the comment.
>
>Here's something more to contemplate on the topic. The "jumper" method
>is just one way to deal with getting the P&H drivers in-circuit. There
>be substantial tradeoffs.
>
>Injector drivers, even P&H ones, have to dissipate some modest amount of
>heat. The connectors for the Sat injectors usually are a pretty good run
>of harness out from the ECU box to the engine top. So the "jumper"
>method would want to have the modules near the injectors, so you didn't
>create a much longer run by connecting the original connectors to a box
>somewhere on the firewall, and then back up/out to the injectors again.
>That's gonna require that the interface module have some robust heat
>transfer capacity.
>
>BUT, let's face it, anyone doing this with an OEM controller (switching
>to P&H injectors, that is), is probly capable of putting a splice in the
>harness after the injector wires exit the ECU, going over to the
>injector interface module, and then hooking up the existing injector
>wires to the output of the module. Then, you don't need the "jumper" nor
>the special connectors, plus the interface now lives inside the cabin
>somewhere, and therefore needs somewhat less cooling wherewithal, and
>needn't be hermetic.
>
>If we took the "jumper" approach, and the modules would hafta have some
>clunky fins and live atop the engine, would that make you want to opt
>instead for the perhaps less convenient but cleaner method of splicing
>into the existing wire near the ECU instead? Makes the packaging/thermal
>design considerably easier/smaller, and avoids the special connectors,
>but isn't quite as slam-dunk convenient as plugNplay.
>
>What say ye, gentlemen? Which passes muster in the sanity check?
>
>Gar
>The General Routinely piggybacks various "Modules" on Vehicles circa late 
>80's,
  Early 90's, Like 4 out Buffers, D.R.A.C. etc. This Area would most likely be
  less obtrusive, easier,less costly and have improved heat dissipation 
qualities.
  The most recent splice/shrink and seal connectors , plus metripacks,etc 
appear
  effective and durable.
  IMHO,If one is going to place ckt in the engine real estate, flex Circuit 
hi temp
  material may be a good plan, however this won't fit the K.I.S.S. rule you 
are appearing
  to employ. Merely My 2c. Plug and Play beats Plug and Prey, hands down.

  Len



>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
>in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org