[T2] ECU and larger displacement
Sami Dakhlia sami.dakhlia at gmail.comTue Aug 9 12:22:29 PDT 2016
- Previous message: [T2] ECU and larger displacement
- Next message: [T2] ECU and larger displacement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hi, Good point. Here are a couple of pictures. I hope the link will work for everybody. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B3JXI3RTjfDCMlcyWTF3Z3RYQkU Thanks, Sami On Tuesday, 9 August 2016, c.dreike <c.dreike at verizon.net> wrote: > I am still curious about the spark plug reading. The plugs are new, only > about 50 miles on them (by now just over 100). All the plugs presented > identically with completely clean ceramic center, no carbon what so ever on > the metal portions exposed to the combustion chamber. I would think that if > the engine was running 11.5- 12.5 AF ration that there would be some carbon > present. We may not yet have the whole story on what is going on. > > Sami, if you get a chance, maybe you could post a photo of a spark plug > for us to see and the list can make comments. > > Sorry Sami, > Chris > 64 DD Kamper Kit with FI > > > > On 8/9/2016 12:15 AM, Sami Dakhlia wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Fellow list member Chris Dreike offered more than a helping hand >> today. He pulled his wideband O2 sender and gauge from his magnificent >> DD bus and clamped the sender on my bus's '75 exhaust pipe; then sat >> in the backseat, holding the gauge, while I cruised up and down I-405. >> >> The readings' range was between 11.5 and 12.5, even at WOT, >> invalidating my hypothesis that the engine might be running lean. On >> the contrary, it might be running a tad rich. >> >> This also means that there is no pressing need to replace the ECU for >> an early '76 one. The '75 FI system designed for a 1.8-liter engine >> appears to adequately cope with a 2-liter engine, i.e., not cause a >> lean-running condition at WOT. >> >> It appears that I was misled by a poorly installed CHT sender. >> >> Thank you, Chris! Many thanks also to Bob, who offered to send me a >> later-model ECU from his stash. And to Jon, Syd, and Dennis for >> offline conversations and advice. I shall henceforth strive to worry >> less and just enjoy the ride! >> >> Cheers, >> Sami >> >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Sami Dakhlia <sami.dakhlia at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Dennis, >>> I had removed the crush washer to adjust for the presence of the >>> sensor ring. Did not hear any unusual noises and did not see tell-tale >>> marks around the hole. :-( Too bad, because I really wanted to believe >>> in the escaping hot gases story... >>> >>> The injectors are the same for the various years. So I'm still >>> thinking it could be the ECU. I wonder if with a 1976 ECU (only the >>> displacement changed between '75 and '76, the AFM did not -- and in >>> particular was of the 6-prong type without air temp sensor, so >>> compatibility with the rest of FI system is more likely), the >>> injectors would fire more often for a given AFM position? >>> >>> With a ECU swap, the AFM would then need to be re-adjusted (adjust >>> spring to make it stiffer), effectively increasing the air flow rate >>> at which the AFM reaches the full open position. In other words, just >>> swapping the ECU would not be enough. And together with the stiffer >>> AFM, the ECU would get meaningful information as the AFM reacts to >>> WOT. >>> >>> Good idea to do a dyno test, perhaps I'll be able to do that on my >>> next trip. A proper diagnostic would make a lot of sense before I >>> concoct more hypotheses! >>> >>> Thanks again, >>> Sami >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Dennis Gentry <dennis.gentry at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Did you use a crush washer plus the sensor ring, or just the sensor >>>> ring? >>>> If you left off the crush washer, the plug might extend into the >>>> cylinder a >>>> tiny bit more, making it run hotter? If hot gases were escaping, you >>>> should >>>> have been able to hear it, plus it would leave tell-tale marks around >>>> the >>>> hole. (Try running with a spark plug only screwed in a couple of turns >>>> to >>>> see what I mean. :) >>>> >>>> I like your hypothesis about it running lean, since too lean will >>>> definitely >>>> cause high CHT. Are you thinking that the injectors meant for a 1.8 L >>>> engine are failing to keep up with 2 liters of displacement at high >>>> RPMs? I >>>> don't think that's the cause, since (I think) the injectors were the >>>> same >>>> from 1975 through 1979, when the stock engines became 2.0 L in 1978 or >>>> so. >>>> You could check for too-lean and for reasonable vs. too-low power >>>> output by >>>> putting it on a dyno and measuring the CO/O2 levels in the exhaust, but >>>> I >>>> imagine there is an easier way to do it that I'm not thinking of right >>>> now. >>>> >>>> Good Luck! >>>> Dennis >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Sami Dakhlia <sami.dakhlia at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'm back in California for the month, my annual pilgrimage to the US >>>>> to work on my '75 bus (and see family, too :) >>>>> >>>>> I must admit that I'm just not enjoying the bus as much as I used to; >>>>> it's just a big headache. Too much time spent on fixing things, not >>>>> enough time spent traveling. Last year I installed a Dakota Digital >>>>> head temperature gauge and the temp readings went through the roof! >>>>> >>>>> We suspected that the O-ring crimped on the thermo-couple didn't allow >>>>> for a proper seal of the sparkplug, allowing hot gases to escape and >>>>> cause the high temp readings. I've now relocated the sender, wedging >>>>> it between the fins, not under the sparkplug. Not perfect, but a >>>>> better solution will have to wait until the day I have to pull the >>>>> engine. >>>>> >>>>> While the temp readings are no longer outrageous, they're still north >>>>> of what's acceptable, sometimes above 380 F. And the engine is lacking >>>>> power, even by vw bus standards. >>>>> >>>>> Which brings me to a new hypothesis: the engine is running lean when >>>>> pushed to the limit (highway driving at 60mph, or climbing hills). >>>>> It's a '75 model and came stock with a 1.8 liter engine. I have since >>>>> "upgraded" to a 2 liter engine. I have so far assumed that the AFM >>>>> would properly compensate for the extra displacement, but now I'm >>>>> wondering. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I also adjusted the AFM following the instructions at >>>>> >>>>> http://www.itinerant-air-cooled.com/viewtopic.php?f=50&t= >>>>> 7761&sid=26d79b8f4581a7c3219fbb1581ad5523 >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> Sami >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> type2 mailing list >>>>> type2 at type2.com >>>>> https://www.type2.com/lists/type2/listinfo >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> type2 mailing list >> type2 at type2.com >> https://www.type2.com/lists/type2/listinfo >> > > _______________________________________________ > type2 mailing list > type2 at type2.com > https://www.type2.com/lists/type2/listinfo
- Previous message: [T2] ECU and larger displacement
- Next message: [T2] ECU and larger displacement
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the type2 mailing list