camaro Build *Project thread*
#15
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Thread Starter
Id like to keep it as cheap as possible...sense i have two sitting here and am getting another one tomorrow..so id preferre it but if not no biggie
Also in case your wondering i am going to use an FMU It has a vacuum line coming from the intake manifold to reference the amount of boost in the engine. From this it closes off the returnline according to the boost signal and the actual size of the plates therefore increasing fuel pressure to accomidate the added need.
There are different rates of FMU'*. 12:1 10:1 4:1. These numbers are the ratio'* to boost that the fuel pressure increases. For example a 10:1 fmu will increase the fuel pressure 10 psi for every 1 pound of boost
Just realized this should probably be in performance and brainstorming......Or power adders?
Also in case your wondering i am going to use an FMU It has a vacuum line coming from the intake manifold to reference the amount of boost in the engine. From this it closes off the returnline according to the boost signal and the actual size of the plates therefore increasing fuel pressure to accomidate the added need.
There are different rates of FMU'*. 12:1 10:1 4:1. These numbers are the ratio'* to boost that the fuel pressure increases. For example a 10:1 fmu will increase the fuel pressure 10 psi for every 1 pound of boost
Just realized this should probably be in performance and brainstorming......Or power adders?
#16
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Camden, MI
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, that would be a 1227302 ECM, which runs on the $3A mask and uses a 2732 chip... they're rather limited in what they can do, and use the low-frequency MAF that tends to fail randomly. i can also tell you the stock MAF tops out at ~155.38 grams/sec and will in no way be enough for any kind of boost. you're code-limited to 255 grams/sec anyway, which may not be enough depending on how much boost you end up running.
it might be easier to just run on a ECM/mask meant for boost, such as the TGP code($8F), that would allow up to ~14PSI. it'* also a hell of a lot more capable(and reliable) and could even control a boost control solenoid if you use one. it doesn't use a MAF either, which simplifies intake routing.
i would suggest looking into my nAst1 project, but i have yet to add boost support.
i'll try and give a more in-depth list of options for you in the morning, just be sure to post after this so i have a reminder.
it might be easier to just run on a ECM/mask meant for boost, such as the TGP code($8F), that would allow up to ~14PSI. it'* also a hell of a lot more capable(and reliable) and could even control a boost control solenoid if you use one. it doesn't use a MAF either, which simplifies intake routing.
i would suggest looking into my nAst1 project, but i have yet to add boost support.
i'll try and give a more in-depth list of options for you in the morning, just be sure to post after this so i have a reminder.
#19
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Danville, Illinois
Posts: 2,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For your FMU, stick with 4:1. Your stock fuel pressure is ~38psi I think. You don't want to go any higher than 60psi. This will limit you to 6psi of boost.
Honestly, with L67 injectors you don't really need to raise the fuel pressure. At your fuel pressure, they will flow 33.6lb/hr. Thats enough for 325hp, which is probably beyond what an M62 can put out of a iron head 3.4L.
It'll be a lot easier for Robert to pull a tune out of his @ss if the fuel pressure doesn't change a whole lot.
This is a good read, even though it'* mean for Megasquirt:
http://www.megamanual.com/v22manual/minj.htm
Honestly, with L67 injectors you don't really need to raise the fuel pressure. At your fuel pressure, they will flow 33.6lb/hr. Thats enough for 325hp, which is probably beyond what an M62 can put out of a iron head 3.4L.
It'll be a lot easier for Robert to pull a tune out of his @ss if the fuel pressure doesn't change a whole lot.
This is a good read, even though it'* mean for Megasquirt:
http://www.megamanual.com/v22manual/minj.htm
#20
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Camden, MI
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
depends. the 85 was a one year deal, used a low frequency MAF like what you have now, the 86-89 all used the same ECM(1227165), but they used digital MAFs now(frequency based, not voltage based). better codebase to start with than any other stuff that early. 90-92 used a (mostly) speed-density ECM (the 1227730) that'* capable of running on a LOT of different masks, including the TGP code. there were MAF masks made for it, but they were generally pretty lackluster and GM eventually disabled the MAFs in late 1988 due to random failures.