Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 19:56:47 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
In-Reply-To: <008901c854af$31dc4bb0$6601a8c0@TOSHIBALAP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
No, that's exactly what I mean, only 27 wires in the main harness,
there are 104 pins, but we only have 27 wires running in/out of our
ECU box in the main harness. Simplicity baby.
It's also one of the reasons that we're now able to build our own
harnesses brand new, from scratch, brand new connectors, pins, and
wires, for this specific application.. the vanagon. We won't even be
re-routing brand new ford harnesses like we've been doing which is
already ahead of tearing down junkyard harnesses for use... we have
brand new, purpose built, diagrammed, nailboarded, never installed,
torn down, or re-routed wiring harnesses. We're the only ones that
have this capability now... and it isn't easy either... we've been
very busy beavers.
Jim Akiba
On 1/11/08, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> Hi jim,
> What do you mean by " We only have 27 wires in the main harness for either
> implementation"
>
> I don't think you mean there are only 27 wires on the Focus ecu. That
> wouldn't make sense.
> A subaru ecu has about 60 or so wires. Tdi roughly the same, maybe it's 45
> to 50..
> This soobie ecu next to me has 84 pins I think, but not all of them are
> used.
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> Jim Akiba
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: 1985 Vanagon - Ford Focus Engine alternative
>
> 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!
>
>
| 
