|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 29, 2013 8:18:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 30, 2013 8:58:39 GMT -5
I was thinking of using a dual sync distributor for 3 things: - crank sensor - cam sensor - distributing spark but it seems there is benefit in splitting up these functions. The rotor phasing has me concerned: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6276891&postcount=5But then he continues: Seems like it's not uncommon to use a crank trigger: from same yellowbullet page Of course, if you just wanted a cam signal, you wouldn't need a dual-sync distributor. You could just a regular distributor and remove 7 teeth from the distributor reluctor. One could get rid of the distributor, and install separate crank and cam sensors: from board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7567730&an=0&page=7Or, I was thinking one could use the dual-sync distributor without any spark plug wires on it, and remove the cap and rotor, and shave it down so its a short nub, just used for crank and cam sensing. I see other people have thought of the same thing: www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/archive/index.php/t-164628.htmlboard.moparts.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Number=7386266The pics of his car that I've seen, though, show a distributor blockoff cap, and crank trigger: www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/mmo72010.htmlI ordered the book, so I could read up on it before asking him about the rubber isolated motor plates. It looks like it will also be interesting to see what it has on distributorless setups.
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Nov 30, 2013 11:47:28 GMT -5
I like the idea of distributor less ignition for your application. It seems cleaner and mor efficient. Obviously you would be using a coil-near-plug like a lsx engine. I have minimal experience with FAST xfi but the set up I have worked on used a crank trigger, but also used a distributor to get spark to the plugs. If you do go that way I would use a separate cam sensor and not a complete distributor just sitting there. Both Ford and Chrysler have used funky cam sensors that look like chopped off distributors in OE applications. If you could chop the distributor down to near flush and mount a sensor that would work. Are you using a timing chain or belt drive? The cam sensor mounted on the cam gear / belt drive is cool and discrete. Jeep 4.0 sensor www.am-autoparts.com/Jeep/GrandCherokee/camshaft-position-sensor/AM-32409772/535906.htmlHere is some talk about using factory ford sensors to convert a 351w to coil near plug. forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1208465-crank-sensor-fox-who-has-one.html
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Nov 30, 2013 16:21:55 GMT -5
Thanks, Spanks. Those are some good links: > If you do go that way I would use a separate cam sensor and not a complete distributor just sitting there. I agree. That would be huge and ugly, way up there: hotrodenginetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/440Mopar_500.jpgSome distributors aren't too tall: www.davesmopar.com/330.htmI did find this pic of a theoretical "super shortie" distributor. www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/performance-v8-440-3d-model/479086I don't think the artist was terribly familiar with mopar distributors. But how about something like this! It's an MSD 8514, no longer manufactured. It's for a chevy, too, but the concept is valid. But EFI Connection makes this guy: www.eficonnection.com/eficonnection/ItemDetails.aspx?ItemId=623also for a Chevy, but the concept is valid. > Are you using a timing chain or belt drive? Right now, a chain. But right now, I'm just trying to get a motor that runs without the pushrods falling out. Once I get that, I'm open to changing to whatever's best for the EFI setup. I earlier posted this pic of a cam sensor on a mopar wedge with jesel belt drive: Here's another: It seems that belt drive is a convenient cam sensor solution, as the cam pulley is easily seen/accessible. www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_1006_project_505_engine_block_jesel_comp_and_indy_hardware/photo_10.htmlHaving no front cover seems great for changing cam timing in between drag runs, but it doesn't seem so good for a street car. I don't think I want to have that belt exposed to the elements. I could put a cover in front of it though. Something like this: and mount the sensor pretty instead of with that gross angle-iron. It'll all probably be covered by the water pump, though. After reading about the benefits of crank trigger: > Torsional vibrations in the camshaft and subsequent drive assemblies can combine to produce staggering fluctuations in ignition timing. www.msdpromag.com/ct.htmit seems best to read the cam sensor position directly from the cam pulley. If I'm using LSx coil-packs, the EFI computer may require that the cam sensor also be LSx compatible, which might force a solution using the distributor hole, or cam pulley. I'm really just trying to get educated on ideas, and then rely on the EFI guys to help put a solid solution together.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 3:19:04 GMT -5
It's a real bummer when the web-browser crashes, and the pending post text is lost. It looks like there are two main types of low-profile cam sync sensors that can be used by bigstuff3 EFI: 1) Ford: > If you have a 302 block, use the 5.0 Explorer cam sensor. > If you have a 351W block, use the 3.8 sensor with Wildstreet's spacer. > I now have adapters to put 3.8 cam sensors in a 351w. This is a drop in deal. forums.corral.net/forums/aem-ems/1338953-12-tooth-wheel-brackets-aem-how.htmlforums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1208465-crank-sensor-fox-who-has-one.htmlThe Ford sensor can be used on BS3 to drive LS1 coils: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4971342) GM cam sensor, part number 1104068 www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23647&page=2> AcdelcoPartNumber=213-350 > This is the cam sensor oil pump drive. > According to the AC Delco catalog, this part is for 1998-2000 7.4 gas heavy duty trucks, like Kodiacs. www.lateral-g.net/forums/archive/index.php4/t-7746.htmlThe Holley Crank Trigger manual says that the unit sold by EFI connection is the same thing: www.holley.com/data/Products/Technical/199R10525.pdfI don't see any mopars using either of these, but it wouldn't seem that hard to machine one to work. Here's the BS3 manual on cam sensor options: bigstuff3.com/pdf/Ignition%20Guide%20rev%201.2.pdfstrangely, it's not linked from their manual page bigstuff3.com/manuals/And then there's the third option of using a sensor off the cam snout. Here's a guy talking about how he's had bad luck with cam sensors in the distributor hole: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=368141Of course, that's on a chevy with the sensor at the rear of the camshaft. Even so, the Jesel belt drive setup seems to offer the benefit of easy sensing on the front. Here's a guy that machined this piece for a 4x LSx cam sensor: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=563258I see some more stuff for jesel, but I'm going to save this before my browser crashes.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 4:22:17 GMT -5
I think the jesel setup is the way to go. They sell a 1x cam trigger washer. Here's a nice setup: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=363190&page=5It's the stock sensor. It seems that the trigger can be magnetic, and the sensor not. Or the sensor can be magnetic, and the trigger not. I guess that means that the stock sensor is magnetic. I like how the trigger is a simple one-piece washer (as compared to embedding magnet(s) to the sprocket). It would seem to be difficult to improve over that setup. And if I needed 4x instead of 1x, that guy made a custom 4x trigger washer (pics in previous post). Here's a different setup where the guy glued a magnet to the sprocket www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=412418and another electromotivetec.freeforums.org/sequential-jesel-belt-drive-and-cam-sensor-t1305.htmlhe used the MSD cam sensor kit. Since it senses magnets, the sensor is non-magnetic. www.msdignition.com/Products/Distributors/Acc_/2346_-_Universal_Sync_Signal_Kit.aspxA jesel belt drive, with cam trigger washer, with stock sensor, seems straightforward, reliable, and simple. It looks like mopar 440 has it easy, the jesel belt drive is simple to install. For LSx motors, the block needs to be machined. ls1tech.com/forums/generation-iv-internal-engine/1451653-anyone-put-jesel-belt-drive-rhs.htmlHence the information in the jesel catalog www.jeselonline.com/docs/Jesel_Catalog_Vol7.pdfabout requiring an external oil system on LSx motors: yay for mopar!
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 9:35:39 GMT -5
Earlier I wrote about guy #1 saying: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6270276&postcount=4In a different thread, I see guy #2 says that the thinking of guy #1 is silly: and he also posts some text from the Holley EFI manual, showing that there is a wide range of where the 1-pulse per revolution cam sensor reading can occur. Some related pages: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?p=9255789#post9255789www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491735www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=490508It may be true that the Holley EFI can accept a wide range of values, but that doesn't mean that all EFI systems would operate the same way. It seems that all systems COULD be designed to use one pulse per cam revolution, so that the computer would be able to determine which cylinder (out of two) corresponded with that indicated on the crank trigger, like this pic shows: from How to Use and Upgrade to GM Gen III Ls-Series Powetrain Control Systems By Mike Noonan books.google.com/books?id=FOYhl3CSLwUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=gm+lsx+why+upgrade+to+4x+cam+sensor&source=bl&ots=jxdrwMil-D&sig=5NMSIKPrkHa-22fqdEmU58sJ4t8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=NUSbUsC3HMPwoASAoYCQDw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gm%20lsx%20why%20upgrade%20to%204x%20cam%20sensor&f=falseBut it seems clear that not all engine computers do things this way, otherwise why would there be a 2x or 4x cam sensor? It looks like some engine computers use the cam sensor to know about the intake/exhaust of each individual cylinder: from the same book. forum.efilive.com/showthread.php?14576-Help-with-understanding-alignment-of-4x-cam-and-58x-crank-reluctor-wheels-and-sensor&p=131216&viewfull=1#post131216But Holley EFI doesn't. And BS3 EFI doesn't either. We know this because BS3 references using the GM cam sync drive, part number 1104068 Which we've mapped to AcdelcoPartNumber=213-350 Which we've mapped as being identical to something sold by EFI connection. And is listed as being acceptable to Holley EFI. And Holley EFI requires a 1x sensor. So since BS3 can use the GM cam sync drive, and we know the GM cam syn drive is 1x, we know that BS3 can use the 1x jesel belt drive cam trigger washer with stock LSx sensor. Or it could use the EFI connection GM cam sync drive (modified to plug into the distributor hole), and drivetrain sloppiness isn't a big deal. trigger washer seems simplest.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 10:36:32 GMT -5
I was thinking about coil pack mounting. On the valve covers is the standard LSx way, and that seems the best for shortest wire path and avoidance of crossfire. Wouldn't be mopar wedge-like though. I could hide them with a fake valve cover top: www.holley.com/242-1.aspbut I'm not into beauty covers. I could hide the packs, like this guy: ls1tech.com/forums/12134701-post9.htmlbut that seems to defeat the purpose of having the coils on or near the plug, and defeats the ability to have all the spark plugs wires separated (to avoid crossfire). It's possible that they could be mounted to the frame rails, but that would seem to be a busier solution than valve covers. It looks like on hemis, the common coil pack mounting location is to the fuel rail bracket: or up in that area: all 3 pics from www.fastmanefi.com/photos.htmBut I do like how this guy mounted them under the intake: www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11981247&postcount=129I have enough room for that: I could snake 4 spark plug wires out the front of the manifold, to the 2 frontmost cylinders on each bank. And 4 spark plug wires out the back from under the intake manifold. So they wouldn't cross over the top of the valve covers. It wouldn't be technically as cool as the valve cover solution (for example, spark plug wires 5 and 7 would be running next to each other behind the driver head, instead of directly down from the valve cover). But the tidiness factory may overcome that disadvantage. your friend in options, arthur
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 13:21:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 1, 2013 18:56:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Dec 1, 2013 23:07:11 GMT -5
Well, I'll be damn. When you first mentioned distributor less and needing a cam sensor the first thing I thought of was the Jeep 4.0 cam sensor. I must not be the only one....
All in all that seems like a good option. You can keep a timing chain and not a belt drive, it has a rather clean install, making the bushing should be rather easy or chop up an old distributor and bore out the center to fit.
As for coil placement. The side of the block would be the cleanest install and shortest wires but heat from the headers may be an issue. You will have very little room at the back of the block so I can't se you mounting them there. The front of the block seems like a good option depending on your belt setup but the wires will be long. On top of the engine seems like the best spot. I like the under the manifold idea, plenty of room and wire routing should not be too hard. My only other thought would be the side of the valve cover right above the header. It would leave the top of the valve cover unobstructed and asthetheticly pleasing and you could have short wires all separated nicely.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 3, 2013 17:06:19 GMT -5
As for coil placement. The side of the block would be the cleanest install and shortest wires but heat from the headers may be an issue... I found this thread interesting: forums.corvetteforum.com/c5-tech/2212538-how-to-relocate-your-coil-packs-many-pics.htmlThe guy relocated his Corvette coil packs (originally on the valve cover) to behind the fenders. So you'd need to remove the fender to replace a coil or spark plug wire: People didn't care for him: - putting them behind the fenders - paying a body shop to remove the fenders - using longer spark plug wires - laying the spark plug wires next to each other All of which I tended to agree with. But people were seriously ragging on this guy, while I thought he simply did a nice job explaining what he did in case people might be interested. The takeaway that I got was that: - I don't want to lay spark plug wires next to each other And I prefer short wires over long wires. I think this means that I really have only these options. 1) coils on the valve covers, short wires 2) coils on the intake valley under the tunnel ram, longer wires 3) coils down low (under headers), on engine block or frame rail I'm thinking #3 might work. Since the motor will be so low in the chassis, I envision that the headers will be more "up high" than "down low", like this: leaving "down low" with room for coils. Especially since the spark plugs are below the exhaust ports. I can figure mounting spots later; I'll certainly have more room in the engine compartment than the guy with the Corvette.
|
|
|
Post by spanks79 on Dec 3, 2013 22:34:24 GMT -5
The guy relocated his Corvette coil packs (originally on the valve cover) to behind the fenders. So you'd need to remove the fender to replace a coil or spark plug wire: People didn't care for him: - putting them behind the fenders - paying a body shop to remove the fenders - using longer spark plug wires - laying the spark plug wires next to each other All of which I tended to agree with. But people were seriously ragging on this guy, while I thought he simply did a nice job explaining what he did in case people might be interested. The takeaway that I got was that: - I don't want to lay spark plug wires next to each other Wow that is certainly an unconventional approach to coil mounting. That guy must really hate looking at those coils. While I don't necessarily like his choice of coil mounting, it is likely that he will get thousands of trouble free miles out of that set up. This is certainly not a set up for everyone but a lot of really high HP fast have spark plug wires that likely get close to one another from time to time. On my stock car with a small block Chevy we ran the plug wires all bundled together tight and wrapped in heat shielding and ran 8000 rpm all day long with out arching or misfires, good quality wires obviously. I may not agree with what he has done but criticizing seems unnecessary. I think the lesson should be long spark plug wires and spark plug wires that touch are not evil but should be avoided if possible. If you think your exhaust is going to go up then certainly try block side mounting. Short wires and out of sight.
|
|
|
Post by sigmfsk on Dec 4, 2013 3:11:13 GMT -5
|
|