Jump to content
Ultimate Subaru Message Board

NorthWet

Members
  • Posts

    4552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by NorthWet

  1. Probably a bogus code... well, maybe useless is more accurate. "No start" conditions are notorious for their unhelpful codes. Check to see if your distrib-rotor's set screw has backed out (I a assuming a particular type of distrib, one with a screw-down distrib-cap). Actually grab the rotor and see if it can be turned or pulled off. If this is not your problem, disable your ignition electronics (disconnect the distrib connector, and crank the engine over, watch ing to see if the rotor turns. If it does not, then your distributor-side timing belt is broken. If it does, remove the rubber plug covering the holes in the non-distrib-side belt cover, and check if that belt is snapped. If all else is good, try using a spritz of starting fluid to see if it is fuel related. Good luck.
  2. I appreciate you responding to my posts in a positive manner. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with giving a pro-MS view. Frankly, I think that you may have given more useful information on MS than I have seen previously on this forum. Kudos. You may not have as yet turned me to "The Dark Side" (do you have cookies???), but you have supplied good info and a link, and I will be looking through it. Sounds like it is a different "scene" than it was 4 or 5 years ago. Hmmm..."asset"... hmmmm.... maybe the first syllable of that word fits me better. I suspect that my view of programming would clash mightily with the establishment's concepts. Meh... Cheers!
  3. I know them as barbs, too. I am not sure what advantage you might be thinking of in using a barb fitting, but IMHO there isn't anything useful to be gained with substituting a barb: the existing fitting doesn't tend to leak at that part of the connection, and I think the barb would make hose removal near impossible without slitting the hose. Going to hard-lines might reduce maintenance worries, and that could be done either with the re-tap as you suggested, or (better, in my opinion) would be to go to an hydraulics shop and get a banjo fitting that you can connect to a hard-line. To OP: Sorry for the deviation from your topic. The upshot is, in my (limited) experience, the turbo itself does not leak coolant. It doesn't need to leak, as the rest of the engine has plenty of places to leak.
  4. Is this a typo, or am I getting tripped up by our "common language" issue? Not quite sure what an "aftermarket tab" is. Not sure what if any good your mate's extra radiator offers. My understanding (subject to being corrected by reality ) is that there is little flow through those hoses while the engine is running. Their main purpose is to be a thermosiphon cooling system after the engine is shut off to prevent excessive coking in the bearing housing.
  5. At the risk of inflaming an issue (not my intent ) that really comes down to a difference of opinion, a couple comments: Megasquirt, is OK but it is not for everyone, just like a Camaro is OK but it is not for everyone, How available is it overseas? If it is available, how much more would it cost, and how long to get replacement parts? Come to think of it, if someone in the USA was driving through Montana or Wyoming (or anyplace between the 2 coasts) and their MS unit died, what would they do? Sit down and build a new MS-II or shell out another $500 for a prebuilt model, then sit around waiting for it to arrive? Would a method similar to what I have in mind be better? Maybe not, but maybe. The processing unit is a jelly-bean, off-the-shelf item available at Radio Shack, Fry's Electronics (or its non-West-Coast counterparts) and Amazon.com... plus hundreds if not thousands of locations around the world. Anybody is free to make them, so they are ubiquitous and inexpensive. They are small enough and cheap enough that you can keep a spare in your glove-box or your shirt pocket. It should be possible to design a no-frills sensor and actuator board that could provide basic but acceptable driveability and that would cost $20-ish, and that could also be carried in the glove-box or your shirt pocket.. It is also, by its nature, extensible. To whatever anyone wants to try. On a more personal note, nobody, not even my wife, knows what I enjoy and why. I have already enjoyed this journey more than I could express. Cheers!
  6. The coolant chamber on the turbo is a casting with no seals except at the 2 hose connections. The top hose gets very brittle due to very hot fluids in it (I have had a couple literally crumble during attempts to remove them), and the bottom hose (which snakes up under the turbo from its fitting in the right-side head) is a pain to get at and almost impossible to routinely check. I have heard of one or two people claim that there turbo was leaking internally, but I have never seen any proof, just anecdotal information.
  7. So, I thought that maybe I was out of touch with MS pricing, since I felt that there was a significant difference in costs between the 2 approaches. I may be looking at the wrong places (first place I looked was DIYtune), but nothing came in for under $300. That may be in the same price range to many, but to me there is a significant difference between $300-$600 and my target of $50-$100. (If I wanted to go a single-chip solution for the SPFI community, it could be done for less than $20.) I understand that many feel that the MS community would better suit them, and that is fine, but for many years I have been hearing about this person or that person planning on building an MS unit; I have thought of doing it myself. But in all of these years, I have personally known only one person who actually did it, and maybe 2 or 3 more that say that they have. There seems to be a lot of talk but not much success. For me, the thought of paying $250 (at the time) for a box of electronics components, still having to sort out wiring, and not having any base maps was kind of off-putting. And, back then, the capabilities were whatever the designer said that they were, so tough luck if you wanted something different... like the ability to compensate for altitude changes without having to turn off your engine and restart it. I am sure that MS units have improved, and offer more flexibility. But the price is still rather high for spend-thrift owners of 30-year old econoboxes. If you want to look at a community supporting itself, look at robotics. Or perhaps better, the robotics people that are making their own 3D printers... printers that can print many of the "soft" parts needed to make more 3D printers. The people that have successfully built their own 3D printers is probably 10 times greater than those who have built or bought MS units. The point? Proprietary process control, like MS, will always be a niche market, and it is likely to become a smaller niche market once the tech-savvy kids see how easy it is to take their robotics-community hardware and software wiki and make their own process control units. And, when they are not driving their vehicles, they can unplug the ECU-specifics from the MCU and use it to run robotics races, or print something they need, or take it hiking as a GPS/radio/locator-beacon. MS is fine. I hope it works out well for you. Too me, MS was a lot like Apple: Tightly controlled, overly expensive appliance, losing market share as the wild-wild-West PC market became dominant. For me, if this doesn't play out well, I can still make a CNC mill, and then a 3D printer. Cheers to all, regardless of their view of my views!
  8. Ivans: Basic TCU function seems practical. The FSM maps out most of the controls and actions. The devil will lie in getting it as smooth as the original, as this will take some playing around to get the right firmness and quickness of shifts. Best bet seems to be to use a (software/file) configuration for lazy shifts and then refine from there. Looks like it needs 6 solenoid drivers and about a dozen light/indicator drivers. If you want to lose the shift-select lever, then that will be a little more work to get the electro-mechanical actuators sorted.
  9. Ivan, which are you referring to, TCU comment or the power/supervisor chip? For the TCU, using a jelly-bean MCU board connected to a secondary board ("shield" in Arduino terms) that has the solenoid drivers ( electronic rather than mechanical relays). There may already be a "shield"/board that already has what would be needed. Regarding the power/supervisor chip, it will have the function of supplying clean power to the other modules/mini-boards, and allow reliable standardized communication to the system of modules. (BTW, the concept I have is of these modules being around 2"(5cm) on a side, and the user plugging the needed modules together sort of like LEGO bricks.)
  10. Ivans Imports, not much power to be had on this path, except minor ones from efficiency or perhaps more by removing rpm limitations. As far as TCU issues, let me know what issues you are having and what you would hope to see: There might be something quick-and-dirty (lacking the street refinement of the stock TCU) that could be put together so that you could play with it. As far as progress on the main topic, I have wasted a bunch of time on a power supply/management module. This may sound simplistic, but there are some useful things that can be integrated into management. (e.g. - a separate, super clean power source for sensors.) After days of frustration trying to lay-out the board, I discovered that the chip I was using was superceded by what looks to be a simpler, cheaper, better-optioned chip... looks much more elegant... and still only US$3. It provides a clean 5V (or 3.3v) at a couple amps, lets devices know when the voltage stabilizes on power-up, and provides CAN and LIN communication. The chip is an automotive grade IC, intended to manage power in car electronics. Hopefully, I will have the circuit planned and the board routed tomorrow.
  11. Cleaning the one you have seems more practical. It is pretty easy to make your fuel pump drain your tank for you, of just let gravity do the work.
  12. I am hoping that "hot tank" is your generic term for thorough cleaning, and not what is actually going to happen to it. Traditional hot tanking is ruinous to aluminum parts.
  13. Although a slight distraction from this project, I came across something that might eventually benefit it: One of the areas of interest in the "Open" universe is making 3D printers. (More specifically, ones that can replicate many of its own parts.) One offshoot is machines that do CNC milling, and CNC PC board etching. I watched a Youtube vid of a machine made by a teenager, and was simply amazed. This could make producing prototype boards at home much easier, and without noxious chemicals.
  14. Mice think Subarus are great, too! Any Subaru here that sits for 2+ days risks mice moving into the vent system.
  15. Like Ivans Imports said: They all have jets... kind of what defines them as a carburetor. BUT... a jet is simply a fancy name for an orifice, something through which fluids pass, used for metering. The person may have meant that the jets aren't changeable, or that there may not be any replacement jets available.
  16. I am sure that we can cobble-up something better than 2 switches and no TCU.
  17. I would imagine that the MPFI heads would not be worth the effort. SPFI is still probably a better way to go, though, regardless, you may need a plenum before the MAF in order to dampen the pulses from the SC.
  18. This is more of a memory-jog for others, because I can't remember the exact information: Calipers on turbo models of the EA82-line interfere with EA81 rims. I can not remember if it is ALL EA82 calipers and just the EA81 rims, or if it is just the Turbo calipers and all non-turbo rims.
  19. Have you dealt with Dellortos or Weber DCOEs before? What is the intake pulsations like between the SC and the Dellorto's venturis? Jetting carburetors such as these can be tedious, especially if you mistake how the air flow rate at the venturi fluctuates. IIRC, the emulsion tubes need to be selected with the pulsation in mind. Also, from the pictures I can't tell if you are running anything beyond the airbox flange of the carburetor, such as an airbox or airhorns. Having at least airhorns is important if the venturis are seeing strong pulsations, otherwise significant fuel can be lost to standoff. (I used to run a pair of Weber 40DCOEs on my 71 Datsun 510 (nee Nissan Bluebird) with an L20B. They turned out to be nothing but trouble for me, especially the brass floats that kept "sinking"... not a good thing when you park pointed down hill. Did MUCH better with a Holley 390CFM 4-barrel. Better driveability, better mileage, and no real loss in peak power.) Oz still using Gallons Imperial? Cheers!
  20. Anybody interested in checking-out/learning the nuts-and-bolts side of Open Hardware/Software might want to check out a few sites...which are likely to lead you to other sites. To me, it is refreshing to see the free exchange of ideas and products, without the usual proprietary nonsense and pretending that it is all magic. Some suggestions: adafruit.com elecfreaks.com sainsmart.com sparkfun.com For checking-out component (ICs, connectors, etc) specs/prices/availability: digikey.com mouser.com The above are not endorsements, merely good starting points. SparkFun has what appears to be a nice tutorial on the basics of using MCUs... might be worth a look: https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/57 Cheers! Edit: Even if you aren't so interested in the nuts-and-bolts, the first set of sites can give you some idea what is already available and/or possible. Lots of it is geared towards playing with robotics, but it is still applicable to vehicles.
  21. Twitch, the breadboard is just to make sure that I have the basic concept functional. Since I haven't etched my own boards in decades, and the cycle time for PCB Service companies is a couple weeks (mostly shipping transit), I see no other practical option. Once a design is basically sound, professional boards would be made (at a couple of USD/board). Ivan, I am not certain what you have in mind regarding controlling the stock controller. My guess is that you want to "spoof" it, to give it synthesized inputs to control its output; if so, then this might be a little more difficult then doing a straight replacement... I don't know. The controllers can simulate any reality, so almost anything that doesn't violate physical laws is possible. "Practical" may be a little different. For a straight replacement, the main thing that I would be concerned about is not so much what the TCU does but how it does. The duty solenoids are PWM-controlled, so we should know the pulse-rate and any other oddness from the solenoid-drivers. My understanding is that the "POWER" resistor affects the solenoid signal(s), somebody saying that it controls an overlay-signal on the main signal. I don't know, and it would be something to find out. It should all be doable, just need to gather some data.
  22. Yeah... why reinvent the wheel if you can clone it? One of the possibilities is to feed synthetic sensor data to a bench mounted ECU and record its responses. A lot of information could be gathered without (directly) burning any fuel. I have another thought along the same line, but I need to do some more research first. I am satisfied with my proto-design for the crank/cam sensor interface"breakout board". It uses through-hole resistor and capacitors rather than cheaper, smaller SMDs, so it could made smaller than its current 30mmX30mm size. The Maxim IC will be a pain to breadboard for testing, as it comes in a QSOP-16 package, which I haven't been able to find any existing carrier boards for it, I think that the fine spacing between the leads won't work well for a home-etched board, and I would prefer to validate the design before I have PC boards made for it. I may end up using an X-acto knife to cut the gaps between leads.
  23. Twitch, make sure that you make your own assessment of anything from me that doesn't involve a lot of think-time. I am an iterative thinker rather than linear thinker: I turn around and around a thought trying to look at it from all angles, and it can take some time to reach a truth. It makes me very good at problem solving, but crap on snap judgements. Good to hear about the HDMI displays. Much of the MCU world seems to favor simpler LCD displays (with a lot of them being touch screens ). Ivan, my aim is to make a gateway to stuff like you mentioned, rather than just reinvent the Subaru ECU. If I/we/someone gets the platform in place, a lot of the enhancements should be near-trivial. The ignition/injection function can become our daemon, doing the bidding that we want. Lots of possibilities once a platform exists. And so much of the electronics needed to do it are available in mass-market ICs. And yes, if we have a good insight into how the TCU interacts with the 4EAT, we could build a module or unit that will handle that. The processing power is available, as are the solenoid drivers and monitors. Perhaps the best way to approach this is to make a module that audits the TCU's inputs and responses during actual driving. Cheers!
  24. Twitch, I did some looking at the Raspberry Pi, and my impressions (worth maybe 2 cents ) is rather mixed. It seems a very interesting and powerful unit with good price/performance. It is intriguing to me for use as a computer, but It seems less well-suited for a process-control role. My very first impression was that it is marketed as a "boutique" item: Cutesy branding (names and logo), branded accessories (e.g. a backpack that looks like a raspberry), and limited add-ons (meh... newish product). It's targeted demographic seems to be people that want a cheap Linux box with great graphics. It gave me the impression of trying to have the cache/exclusiveness/coolness that Apple wanted to surround their iMac. I am more hyper-rational than hip, and the marketing left me feeling out-of-place. Now, some concrete issues. Currently, the hardware is tightly controlled, with one source for all units. The Foundation that produces it has exclusive deals with (IIRC) 2 distributors in the world, from which resellers can buy units to sell to us. The UK firm Broadcom is the producer of the SoC (System on Chip) that the RP uses, and they seem to tightly control availability and information on their chip. I have yet to find any way to purchase this chip, which is not surprising since the RPF's FAQ says: "But I demand the documentation for the chip. Give it to me! To get the full SoC documentation you would need to sign an NDA withBroadcom, who make the chip and sell it to us. But you would also need to provide a business model and estimate of how many chips you are going to sell." (source: http://www.raspberrypi.org/faqs ) This kind of stuff disinclines me to think of the Raspberry Pi as a jelly-bean unit. I think it might make a great user interface for an ECU, but since it's video is HDMI-only, I don't know what display devices would be practical. It is still a new product line, and hopefully it will grow over time. Thanks for getting me thinking about the Raspberry Pi. It looks like a great value for stuff that I could do. Cheers!
×
×
  • Create New...