Why does it matter how many go to the ECU?

David Marshall

http://www.hasenwerk.ca
http://www.fastforward.ca

Box 4153, Quesnel BC, Canada V2J 3J2

On Fri, January 11, 2008
16:10, Jim Akiba wrote:
> Hey David,
>
> No I'm
talking about the ECU main engine harness... 27 wires. We have
> 7
that need to be connected to the van side. How many are on the R-TDI
> going into the ECU?
>
> Jim Akiba
>
> On 1/11/08, David Marshall <mailinglist@fastforward.ca>
wrote:
>> Jim and list
>> To connect a TDI harness
to the vangon would result in connecting the
>> following:
>>
>> Necessary to have a running engine that will tell
the user if something
>> is
>> wrong oil and water
wise:
>> 1  12V always on
>> 1  12V on when key is
on
>> 1  12V when starter is on
>> 1  Ground
>> 1  Plug for accelerator pedal (group of five wires)
>> 2  Oil pressure wires
>> 1  Water temp
>>
-----------------------------------
>> 8  connections - 13
wires
>>
>> Really everything is plugged into the
round connector in the engine bay
>> and
>> a cable
to the front that plugs into the accelerator
>>
>>
If you want cruise control
>> 1  Bake pedal
>> 1
Clutch Pedal
>> 1  VSS from speedometer
>>
-----------------------------------
>> 3  connections - 3
wires
>>
>> If you want to see the MIL and GIL it
would be two more wires to the
>> instrument cluster.  Tach is
another wire... really can't think of much
>> else.
>>
>> Really the wire harness isn't going to be an
issue.  I assume you know
>> what
>> you are doing
and you would had the customer a completed wiring harness
>>
that
>> they just plug in.  Can't see why there would be any
more connections
>> than
>> the TDI.
>>
>> David Marshall
>>
>>
http://www.hasenwerk.ca
>> http://www.fastforward.ca
>>
>> Box 4153, Quesnel BC, Canada V2J 3J2
>>
>> On Fri, January 11, 2008 14:49, Jim Akiba
wrote:
>> > Wow someone brings up complexity.. good good. No
you're absolutely
>> > right adding more thing increases
risk and increases the chances of
>> > failure. However the
zetec conversion itself is so simple, that adding
>> > what
we need to offer outstanding power to weight and great power
>>
> levels STILL keeps things simpler than what's out there. That's
the
>> > arguement for having both power adders. The turbo
is more efficient,
>> > but comes at the cost of
simplicity.. there is another cooling system
>> > for the
intercooler, and there is more intake plumbing, and there is
>>
> an oil feed and return. The supercharger on the other hand while
not
>> > offering the same output levels of efficiency of
the turbo, still
>> > offers great torque in the low end
because it's a positive
>> > displacement blower, and
doesn't have any additional oil lines intake
>> > plumbing
etc.. just an extra idler and longer belt, both still widely
>>
> available.
>> >
>> > We only have 27
wires in the main harness for either implementation,
>> >
how many in the R-TDI? Scott how many in the subies?
>> >
>> > Jim Akiba
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 1/11/08, David Marshall
<mailinglist@fastforward.ca> wrote:
>> >> So let me
get this straight...
>> >
>> >> Adding
things to make an engine more complex isn't upping the odds
>>
that
>> >> something is going to fail because to have
more stuff to fail? Cool!
>> >
>