Having installed the small 7"cooling fan that came with my system on my heat exchanger recently, I can say don't waste your time except for the possible benefit due to your exchanger location. Either my heat exchanger due to size 26x7x3.5 is efficient enough surface area wise to negate it or it just isn't effective. I noticed absolutely no improvement in idle air temps and unplugged it to eliminate the amp draw, as long as the car is moving the inlet temps are pretty stable ~10 deg above ambient, changing slightly with the ambient temps at cruise speed. Also my coolant temps are pretty stable at cruise running right at 100 deg above ambient.
I would be a little concerned about condenser temps with the exchanger that close to it at idle. I've watched how easily the gauge pressure climbs on the A/C high side with the fan running at idle on a 90 deg day, I suppose 117 deg ambient temps will be just as merciless. My exchanger sits pretty far out from the condenser so at a stand still the air pulled by the fan is from the gap between the two exchangers rather than through the intercooler exchanger and then the condenser.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 06-26-2013).]
I found that once I removed the shroud ducting from between the radiator and the condenser
*THAT* will affect your engine cooling more than anything else you've done. The air's path through the various heat exchangers MUST be ducted for them to work in a Fiero.
Yeah, I agree, I plan on cutting them up and refitting them between the condenser and the radiator. That's about all I can do with them. I'm thinking about powering up the fan, and seeing how much of an effect installing the FMHE has on the airflow coming out of the radiator. It's sitting still that is the only time I am concerned. The fan is ECM controlled, so I can add programming to turn on the fan in ways that benefit a turbo car too.
I was thinking about my setup last night and I am curious as to what you are going to to do with yours. I like how ericjohn was running hard-lines for the w2a system. I need to redo mine. Whodumbass has mine run on top of the coolant pipes. LOL interheater!
Originally posted by BV MotorSports: I was thinking about my setup last night and I am curious as to what you are going to to do with yours. I like how ericjohn was running hard-lines for the w2a system. I need to redo mine. Whodumbass has mine run on top of the coolant pipes. LOL interheater!
Only if your heater lines are not insulated and even then it's not likely to cause much of a problem given the small contact area. Just be sure to use non corrosive metal lines of good diameter.
I've been thinking about using 1/2" EMT for the lines going under the car. It's cheap, easy to bend, galvanized, and the diameter matches my pump, the Intercooler and the FMHE. So I think that's what I'll do. Put the tank back in, put some pipe in on either side of it then put the under plate in for support. Hope it fits!
Originally posted by Fierobsessed: I've been thinking about using 1/2" EMT for the lines going under the car. It's cheap, easy to bend, galvanized, and the diameter matches my pump, the Intercooler and the FMHE. So I think that's what I'll do. Put the tank back in, put some pipe in on either side of it then put the under plate in for support. Hope it fits!
I wouldn't use any metal line aside from aluminum here unless you intend to use an anticorrosive coolant instead of distilled water. I used some sort of galvanized tubing from Home Depot and found it to be very unforgiving if you are not strict with water purity. It nearly ruined my heat exchanger and intercooler with scale after a temporary contamination with tap water after a leak, while I thought I had a little time to get around to flushing and refilling. Then again GA water could have been exceptionally hard. I don't recall what type of pump you have but generally you should use a high pressure pump for 1/2" diameter line/hose covering that distance. I doubt my bilge pump would move water very effectively through a tube diameter that small and use 3/4" as a result.
Did you see where I asked you to make me one of your LQ1 dipsticks?
Yes, I was going to ask if it was for a 3800 or lq1. Either way I'm going to have to go to the pullit for another donor dipstick, and that will have to wait till it cools off into the lower 100's it's obscenely hot this weekend!
On the intercooler plumming, if you have had issues with EMT conduit, I really don't see any harm in a full rubber installation either, but it is a lot of hose!
My pump is a cheapie Chinese built unit by "Zhonglongmotor" I've opened it up for a quality assessment, and found its actually quite a good little pump. It's a potted, sealed brushless motor, with a wet permanent magnet armature. So there is really nothing to burn out so far as I can tell. And in testing, at 3.5 amps it throws water out pretty violently. We'll see how efficient it is. I've got plenty of IAT sensors for that! I figure I can make a boost/timing limiting code for excessive IAT going into the engine. I think that's reasonable protection.
Yes, I was going to ask if it was for a 3800 or lq1. Either way I'm going to have to go to the pullit for another donor dipstick, and that will have to wait till it cools off into the lower 100's it's obscenely hot this weekend!
On the intercooler plumming, if you have had issues with EMT conduit, I really don't see any harm in a full rubber installation either, but it is a lot of hose!
My pump is a cheapie Chinese built unit by "Zhonglongmotor" I've opened it up for a quality assessment, and found its actually quite a good little pump. It's a potted, sealed brushless motor, with a wet permanent magnet armature. So there is really nothing to burn out so far as I can tell. And in testing, at 3.5 amps it throws water out pretty violently. We'll see how efficient it is. I've got plenty of IAT sensors for that! I figure I can make a boost/timing limiting code for excessive IAT going into the engine. I think that's reasonable protection.
The heater hose is reasonably priced at Home Depot as opposed to a parts store ~$14 for 10' of 3/4", the problem with the bilge style pumps is that they'll still run with near or complete blockage so depending on where you locate your tank the resistance to flow can be significant (from what I've observed) with a low pressure pump as opposed to those running a Mezzier pump. I installed a bigger tank and placed it in the trunk where before it was up front and placed the initial external pump in series with the in tank bilge pump, 950 gph in tank and 500 gph after the intercooler to help after the first restriction. Nice thing about the low cost bilge pumps is that I discovered a week or so ago Walmart has a nice selection of them.
If you have a low resistance system a conservative pump will do fine as my system does not run any cooler with two pumps going and upgraded from 5/8" to 3/4" hose, how ever the coolant capacity gives you more reserve under sustained boost. I'd still like to figure out a way to capture the cold temps of the AC dryer and store it in the intercooler coolant.
I did some more work on the air oil separator system. I really wanted to build one that I could feel comfortable that no oil was going to be sucked into the turbo's intake. It could puddle in the intercooler if it did. So here's the finished product:
It will have a few of these stainless scrubbers stuffed inside. This should give the air/oil mist plenty of surface area to coalesce, then drain back into the oil pan. I've decided to T the drain port in with the turbo's oil drain. This way, The air pressure and oil mist from the turbo has a upward facing relief, and only liquid oil should drain back down into the oil pan. We'll see how all this plays out. If anything goes wrong, there will be blue smoke, and I'll be draining oil out of the intercooler.
I also worked on the other component in the breather system, The intake collar. I took a short 2.5"X4" Stainless intake connector, drilled a couple of holes in it at the appropriate locations and welded in a 3/8" NPT half coupler, for the IAT, and a 1/2" NPT half coupler for the 3/4" barb that will allow the air oil separator to vent into the intake. Ambient IAT sensor
In place
The more I look at the FMHE installation, the more confident that it's going to work out just fine. I think there is plenty of space for the fan to pull air into the condenser and radiator. But at the suggestion of my father, It would probably be a good idea to vent the hood. And I couldn't agree more. But I won't consider doing that till I am up and running.
It's once again time for a little cleanup in the garage, but the heat is getting oppressive. I am hoping that SPEC can get me my pressure plate in the next couple of days. This way I can pull the engine off, slap it in place and put it back on the cradle, and really start to finalize this whole job. I can't believe it has taken me 7 months so far to get this far. I was hoping it would only be about 3-4 to finish. But then I got a bit obsessive (hence my username). This project is turning out better then I imagined and the scope of the project is quite a bit bigger then I thought it would be. Not to mention FAR more expensive then I could have ever imagined. I'll explain that when this project is done. I've been keeping a record of all that was spent. I think I am right at the point where there are only a couple of things to buy. Just some fluids, some hoses and clamps, and a few other odd's and ends.
Unless you're running dual IAT sensors that's not the best location for your sensor, it will only measure ambient air temps when you need actual going into the motor, although you have intercooling and will not likely see extreme temps there will definitely be a substantial difference between ambient and boost temps at the throttle blade that could affect your fueling.
Originally posted by Fierobsessed: It would probably be a good idea to vent the hood.
This will have a significant negative effect on your air conditioning. The hot radiator outflow from the hood vent goes straight to the cowl plenum intake for the A/C.
I agree with Upson... your fueling will need to be based on an IAT inside the manifold, or as least as close to the throttle as you can get it. If you have extras just for logging, that's fine, but the sensor used for your fuel and spark needs to read the air actually going into the engine.
I've got 3 IAT's. One on the intake, Pre turbo as shown above, one post turbo, and one more post intercooler, but pre throttle blade. The 8F code is meant to work with a true MAT sensor, mounted into the side of the upper intake manifold on the 3.1L, Post throttle blade. It's probably not that big of a deal that mine is on the wrong side of the throttle blade, but there is a bit of cooling that occurs at high vacuum on the inside of the intake.
The one post intercooler is the only one that is being used for fuel management, the other two only report to the ALDL as of this time. I added them primarily to help to figure out how the intercooler is doing, as well as to document the changes needed in the tune based on the outside temperature,
I added a second IAT in the upper plenum itself as a second temp feed for monitoring and noted that you have to be mindful to make sure it is in a direct air stream or you may end up in a dead spot (like between two ports) that doesn't get much turbulence to show true efficiency of the intercooling from what I recall in some differences I was seeing between the sensors. I was testing the effect of the methanol injection which was chilling the manifold below ambient. I need to set it up and test it again.
FWIW: in stock N/A 60V6 calibrations, air temps have VERY little effect on fueling. i was curious about this one day and threw everything on my testbench and moved coolant around to roughly 190*F and monitored the change in BPW from changing the IAT signal from ~0*F to ~150*F. at low airflow/fuel flow, there was something like .08mSec change to a ~1.5mSec pulse width between the highest and lowest temps.... proportionally higher at higher flows.
it all runs down to the intake runner temp calculation, it's HEAVILY biased towards coolant temp rather than IAT. i'm not sure if you'll run into the same problem with 8F, but just something to be aware of in case air temps cause a large fueling error for you.
not that i'm saying it's a good design, but the L67s measure air temps before being compressed.... and those M90s make some heat.
There is a good reason for that. MAF systems, such as the L67's, The IAT sensor is required to work with the MAF to determine the most precise airflow coming into the Blower/engine. With the air quantity measured accurately, you already know how much fuel is needed. How hot the blowers outlet air is only really effects detonation resistance. (I'll concede, fuel vaporization efficiency is a factor) But it is completely predictable based on boost pressure and intake temperatures, and is compensated for in the factory tuning. I believe the interdependence of the IAT and MAF is the reason GM started bundling them into the same component a few years back, probably saved a buck or two as well, Win/Win for them.
On this SD based engine, the air temperature is just a compensator, it just skews the airflow (well, fuel flow) numbers a bit. So as long as the sensor reports something proportional to the temperature's that the engine is consuming, it's going to be fine. Might just need some light tweaking, or none at all.
FWIW: in stock N/A 60V6 calibrations, air temps have VERY little effect on fueling. i was curious about this one day and threw everything on my testbench and moved coolant around to roughly 190*F and monitored the change in BPW from changing the IAT signal from ~0*F to ~150*F. at low airflow/fuel flow, there was something like .08mSec change to a ~1.5mSec pulse width between the highest and lowest temps.... proportionally higher at higher flows.
it all runs down to the intake runner temp calculation, it's HEAVILY biased towards coolant temp rather than IAT. i'm not sure if you'll run into the same problem with 8F, but just something to be aware of in case air temps cause a large fueling error for you.
That may be an area to consider tuning, 8F has an Async factor vs Manifold air temp under acceleration enrichment however, all of the values listed are identical so if the table is being accessed it would show no fueling influence as a result of the temp change. More important regarding the IAT temps is the effect on spark knock protection which code59 fortunately has a table reference for.
FWIW: in stock N/A 60V6 calibrations, air temps have VERY little effect on fueling. i was curious about this one day and threw everything on my testbench and moved coolant around to roughly 190*F and monitored the change in BPW from changing the IAT signal from ~0*F to ~150*F. at low airflow/fuel flow, there was something like .08mSec change to a ~1.5mSec pulse width between the highest and lowest temps.... proportionally higher at higher flows.
it all runs down to the intake runner temp calculation, it's HEAVILY biased towards coolant temp rather than IAT. i'm not sure if you'll run into the same problem with 8F, but just something to be aware of in case air temps cause a large fueling error for you.
There is a good reason for that. MAF systems, such as the L67's, The IAT sensor is required to work with the MAF to determine the most precise airflow coming into the Blower/engine. With the air quantity measured accurately, you already know how much fuel is needed. How hot the blowers outlet air is only really effects detonation resistance. (I'll concede, fuel vaporization efficiency is a factor) But it is completely predictable based on boost pressure and intake temperatures, and is compensated for in the factory tuning. I believe the interdependence of the IAT and MAF is the reason GM started bundling them into the same component a few years back, probably saved a buck or two as well, Win/Win for them.
Yeah, correct temp is vital to correct MAF reading. Also, GM has all the test data they could ever need on blower performance. They can look at RPM and airflow into the blower and know the blower's heat input in a very deterministic way. Turbo heat input isn't as deterministic because turbine RPM can vary considerably with engine load and RPM, while the supercharger RPM does not.
i'm sure i did, but this was playing with stock A1 and A1 doesn't bias spark at all based on air temp. i added it in for nAst1 since it kind of bothered me for it to be left out. had been dealing with some knock that only happened when the IAT was reading high(either from just that high of temps underhood, or a heatsoaked sensor).
What do you do with the oil once it is captured in the can? Does it somehow return to the oil system or do you dispose of it at every oil change?
Awesome project, I am in awe at your fabrication skills. I would love to learn how to do ANYTHING with metal and watching threads like this really blows my mind . I can't wait to hear the first impressions when you get this on the road.
A little off topic, but what do you think the response time is for those air temp sensors. I've found them to be really slow. Unless I'm in boost for a long time there is no change in temp according to the logs.
Is there a type of sensor that's faster or something?
What do you do with the oil once it is captured in the can? Does it somehow return to the oil system
The can will always be draining back to the oil pan by gravity. I've decided that I will be combining the turbo drain with the miniscule amount that the separator will be accumulating. So they will both drain into the oil pan together.
quote
Originally posted by Slowbuild:
A little off topic, but what do you think the response time is for those air temp sensors. I've found them to be really slow. Unless I'm in boost for a long time there is no change in temp according to the logs.
Is there a type of sensor that's faster or something?
Are you using the same sensor as I am? It's a stock V6 Fiero sensor from the air filter housing. (Delphi TS10077) I know they do have some lag time, but I'm uncertain just how much of the lag is in the sensor, and how much is programmed into the ECM. ECM's have a "Lag filter" that slows the readings down to eliminate transient signals, It might not use it at all for this sensor though. That being said, the Turbo Grand Prix used the exact same sensor as the V6 Fiero IAT. The lag time might not be something that we can improve.
But, You could look down the list of Delphi TS100?? part numbers, maybe there is one that has a finer sensor element? Probably won't have the same resistance profile though... It could be fixed in the code if needed.
Some potential candidates: TS10098 (Ford connector, fine sensor element) TS10080 (Direct replacement, different profile?) TS10036 (1/4" NPT, needs bushing) TS10003 (89-90 Isuzu, Fine sensor element)
I don't recall the name of it but 8F code mask does appear to have an offset/calibration table for the MAT sensor that I imagine is already set to compensate for lag time probably the way spark advance works. Seeing it was a special calibration table I never tampered with it.
byte 4C is raw MAT counts(which is the MAT you see in the datastream). at ED07, it's the only place written to, immediately after an A/D read of channel 8, so no modification is made to it at all. what you see is what the sensor is reporting.
after that, typical MAT offset and then normalization and then DTC checking. either an estimated(when DTC present) or normalized MAT value is stored to byte C6. it's the only place it is stored, so no filtering is applied to it either.
looking for other places in the code where either are referenced, noticed that 864E, bit 5 is actually not enabled in the code... normally used to switch between MAT and IRT for the alpha-n idle table. MAT is always used.
8653, bit 7 determines if normalized MAT is directly used apparently nowhere in the code(no stores are made after calc is done and next subroutine ignores generated values) or if IRT is calculated. that does have some filtering built in but it's not actually used in the base pulse calculation either(like it is in later code)... normalized MAT is at D059. after looking at all of this, i'm reminded of why i don't particularly like 8F, too buggy.
A little off topic, but what do you think the response time is for those air temp sensors. I've found them to be really slow. Unless I'm in boost for a long time there is no change in temp according to the logs.
Is there a type of sensor that's faster or something?
Chay
The Fiero open-element IAT sensor responds fairly quickly. However, some applications, like the L98 tuned port 350, use a coolant temp sensor for the IAT. This sensor has the element enclosed in a brass shroud and is MUCH slower to respond than the Fiero-type IAT.
Originally posted by RobertISaar: after looking at all of this, i'm reminded of why i don't particularly like 8F, too buggy.
It is pretty unique, almost seems unfinished. It kind of makes me want to use manual $DF, and focus on adding in real support for boost. If done carefully, really not a whole heck of a lot needs to be done. Think about modding the section that makes the map variables, have it create normal map variables based on 2-bar value *2, capped at 255. Then, use the 2 bar variable only to reference the main fueling table and spark, extend those tables with some boost columns. Then you could borrow the waste gate controls from $58 or $8F. Ok this part is a bit hairy. but its doable, IF, you have the ram space. There's always plenty of program space though!!
But in all honesty, Using 8F and dealing with its difficiencies and crappy workarounds is easier then creating a highly custom OS like above. I think I'll look into the feasibility of DF, or maybe A1? Either way, I'm going with 8F for now, if that turns out to be just fine and drivability is up to my standard, then it is what it is!
I'm using a stock sensor, no brass, there is a plastic protected element that looks like glass kinda. I tested it in hot water etc and it seemed to function ok, but laggy. Maybe I need to freshen it up a bit.
Do you see changes in air temps in your logs soon after going on boost?
that is NEARLY identical to the route that i went with nAst1 to add boost support....
i did run out of program space though(i have less than 200 bytes of usable space left, some of it not continuous, either). using a 9396, have TONS of leftover RAM, i need to build a custom MEMCAL adapter to open up portions of the addressing space to be used with the PROM, since the way GM connected what would be pin A15 on the PROM is actually connected to VCC. then dealing with CS, OE... it's been interesting to come up with a solution that isn't overcomplex.
I took some time today and read up on the nAst1 project some more. It was quite some time ago that I took a look at it. I dismissed it as it wasn't particularly useful to me a after a few pages in because without boost support, 8F really is a better choice to start tweaking from...
Well, I read up about 20 pages of the 54, and the more I read, the more interested I am! I didn't realize that it had gained boost support. That's kind of a big deal. I'll certainly entertain test bedding for you with this project.
Only one thing I wanted to mention. Without reading up on 537 posts, It's really hard to understand the list of features, changes, uses, and Pinout's of your project. It would be very helpful if you could include that data with your uploaded package, or in the post that the link that you have in your signature directs to.
That being said. You have one seriously ambitious project, and I am blown away with your intricate knowledge of code to function. I find it difficult to follow the disassemblies in the more complicated routines. I know I can make routines, but they won't have interrupts, stack pushes/pulls, Fdiv's or anything like that. Kind of like working with the tools you know best, and working around the ones you're not comfortable with. I'm comfortable with port accesses, table lookup mods, ALDL mods, and a decent number of other stuff. But I've always had trouble correlating a performance issue to a specific table/value.
This is a bit O/T, but is mostly directed to you.
Quick story. My Van (LT4 Hot cam Vortec 355 with a BBC TBI Running '427/$0D) had a severe surge at idle in gear. I ported the flags for AE, PE, DE, and DFCO to the ALDL to help figure it out. The engine was getting a AE pulse with each surge due to an unstable MAP sensor reading, IE my cam is a bit aggressive. So I raised the Delta MAP threshold for AE. This fixed the aggressive surging. But to this day it still surges, and all I can think is: Is it an error in my VE table? Spark table? Is it an Idle setting? Is it a closed loop fuel tuning parameter that is out of control due to a moved O2 sensor? I can never figure all that stuff out. Far too many possible reasons. ALDL isn't telling a clear enough story, all its saying is that the IACV is going nuts trying to quench the surge, O2 is going crazy, and so is the fueling. I gave up figuring it out years ago. It drives ok enough for me. There is too many settings for me to figure out what is causing the issue. I find that so frustrating, I gave up trying.
And my opinion is that the 16197427/$0D might be the most flexible ECM. It does everything from 4L60E's TH350's, Manual Transmissions, L4's to V8's... It really is a huge improvement over the 7730. It has some flaws though. Not enough PWM/Digital Outs, or Analog Ins, and No boost support. It sort of has a built in TCM that runs semi independently of the ECM too. It's a great ECM for 2.8 Fiero's, and Especially 4.9 Caddy cars, but no one on here has done that yet
As for my project... Still waiting on a pressure plate. Hope it comes in soon! In the meantime, Ill keep playing with the FMHE and its plumbing.
if you think the thread is bad, the directory i have everything stored in is probably a little worse... i'll see what i can do to somewhat organize it and perhaps document some things that i may have forgotten to do before.
the 7427 is would be an interesting place to start with if you wanted to run full custom code seeing how it's a P6(so the 6811 pink book is a lot more relevant). the lack of I/O(and non underhood case) is why i chose to go with probably the most common P4 family units still in existance. the 2.5K of RAM is also nice with the 9396, since the MPFI 60V6 factory code already runs really close to hitting stack overflow.
for $0D, does it have IDLE over/underspeed ignition error tables? Not familiar with $0D but $8D uses ignition timing to finely control idle and those tables allow ECM more/less control. Usually a choppy cam will throw off the synergy of the calibration and idle is the first major tuning hurdle.
Also, 12P might be worth a look if interested as stated above.
. I can't wait to hear the first impressions when you get this on the road.
