Re: IML: Lean Burned

[Christopher H <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the reply, Dave!

Without any further endorsement of Lean Burn (I am fortunate enough to have a super-low-mile car), I just want to clarify that, while ELB's sensors monitor many things, ELB does not make adjustments to all the things you list (obviously, it cannot adjust ambient temp or coolant temp, for example). It only adjusts timing and arguably mixture (though I believe the mixture is somewhat secondary, meaning the timing allows the carb itself to lean out the mixture, only more often than it could without such frequent adjustment of the timing by ELB, but this is splitting hairs, you are right).

Thanks for explaining how the timing caused the starter failures. Ouch! I've never encountered that even with inadvertently crossed spark plug wires!

Have a nice day, too! :)

Chris

-----Original Message-----
>From: sosmi@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Dec 1, 2006 9:19 AM
>To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: IML: Lean Burned
>
>Chris, We could ping-pong this subject, till pigs fly. The long and short of the ESC unit is, the ESC samples about 7 different sensors to adjust the timing, vacuum,knock sensor, coolant temp, O2, engine speed, carb throttle position,ambient temp, it also was involved with mixture control,( that little solenoid on the back of the carb) Any failure of any sensor,or system,ie cat converter, heat riser, egr,carb etc. had an affect on timing, remember: GARBAGE IN=GARBAGE OUT. As for the heat riser valve, look and see if yours has a small vacuum operated operator on it, the FSM shows it, and mine had it, as well as other cars I own(ed). The starter drive failure I had, was from the ESC advancing the timing, and caused the engine to miss fire, and KICK-BACK. This could happen whether the engine was hot, or cold. At that point, I had enough, and changed to standard electronic, among other things. I went from 9-11mpg to 12-15 mpg If yours works thats fine, I only share my experience, so if
> anyone else has problems this might help. Ya'll have a nice day, Dave.
>
>-------------- Original message -------------- 
>From: Christopher H <imperial67@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>Not trying to argue with y’all, but of the catalyst, carb, heat riser (Vacuum powered? I thought it was mechanically moved by a bi-metallic coil on the valve.) and EGR, none of these is part of the Lean Burn system. Only the timing adjustment is related to ELB, and how that actually “broke several starter drives� escapes me, but if your ELB is functioning and the other four are not, replacing the ELB unit (with a working one or some other device) still would not fix the other four.
>
>The reality is that emission controls required cars to monitor and adapt more of their operating parameters to driving conditions (such as cold vs warm operation, load vs coasting, and varying speeds and engine rpm), some permanently by design (such as using unleaded gasoline, or plumbing all exhaust through a cat), or on the fly while driving. Modern systems such as fuel injection, knock sensors and advanced engine management are more elaborate, more precise and more reliable, and able to make rapid adjustments of spark timing, mixture and air intake, and since they also have elaborate self-diagnosis capability (part of OBD and OBD-II, which stands for On-board Diagnosis and is a federal requirement, which is why cars now have “check engine� lights that store actual fault codes), they are somewhat easier to troubleshoot.
>
>I’m not saying ELB was without flaws, especially given its primitive design by modern standards. But you make my point as well as I did in showing that numerous factors affect these car’s performance, and in that regard they are a lot more “fussy� or temperamental than the simpler systems from the early 1970s and before. It takes more patience and more elaborate diagnosis to keep them running as they were intended to. Also, when one removes these systems and puts in simpler, earlier technology, it is unlikely the car will run with the low emissions it was able to originally, of critical importance in places that still smog-test cars. My car is evidence that a late-1970s luxo-boat with a giant V8 can be a relatively clean-running car even by modern standards, far cleaner than my 1972 Charger or 1967 Imperial with their original systems intact and operating to spec as well.
>
>Cheers,
>Chris in LA
>78 NYB Salon
>67 Crown
>
>
>On 11/30/06 11:55 AM, sosmi@xxxxxxxxxxx at sosmi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>It's most commendable to praise the ELB system,and I'm sure, some have had good experiance with the ELB system. However it's doubtful  the system was ever designed to work for 30yrs.My 78 NYB had issues at 67K in 83, the cat.converter was restricted, the carb, had its problems, and the vacuum powered power heat valve (heat riser valve), was stuck shut. Not to mention the EGR valve was slightly open, causing a lean condition most all the time. The control unit also would change timing , so that it broke several starter drives .All this junk went in the trash-can, and several mods were performed. That turned this vehicle, into one of the most MEMORABLE Chryslers I have ever owned, as an every day driver. Just thought I'd share that. Ya'll have a nice day. Dave
> 
>
>-------------- Original message -------------- 
>From: Tim Durrer <tdkd99@xxxxxxxxx> 
>
>> Great explanation Chris! 
>> 
>> I remember my days in the auto parts business that was 
>> exactly what happened. Mechanics would blame the ELB 
>> because they could not figure out what was wrong with 
>> the car. 
>> 
>> My Grandmother had a 78 Dodge Monaco 318 ELB that ran 
>> flawlessly for many years. I wonder what those 
>> mechanics are doing now with today's cars? 
>> 
>> Tim Durrer 
>> 73 LeBaron 
>> 
>> --- Christopher H wrote: 
>> 
>> > Not all Lean Burn cars have the label on the air 
>> > cleaner. Only 440s so 
>> > equipped have a ?pie pan? insert label proclaiming 
>> > ?ELECTRONIC LEAN BURN.? 
>> > However, all ELB cars do have a rectan gular ?box? 
>> > protruding from the side 
>> > of the air cleaner, and the box came with a silver 
>> > metal plate on top with 
>> > orange and black lettering reading ?Spark Control 
>> > Computer? or something to 
>> > that effect. If you have a plain round air cleaner 
>> > cover with only a snorkel 
>> > on it, you do not have ELB. 
>> > 
>> > ELB was a decent and fairly simple system and 
>> > allowed Chryslers to pass 
>> > emissions on regular gas through 1977 (all 1978 cars 
>> > use unleaded). I feel 
>> > it?s been unfairly maligned by mechanics too lazy to 
>> > figure out how it 
>> > should work, or who found it easiest to blame it for 
>> > every drivability 
>> > problem an owner encountered. It?s not really an 
>> > engine management computer 
>> > (in the modern sense) but really just an electronic 
>t; > substitution for the 
>> > timing advance mechanism common to most 
>> > distributors. It alters spark timing 
>> > (nothing else) based on input from various sensors 
>> > (I believe a total of 
>> > six) such as coolant temperature, engine rpm, etc., 
>> > and allows essentially 
>> > an infinite number of profiles to the spark advance 
>> > curves based on actual 
>> > driving conditions at the moment. A conventional 
>> > distributor only has one 
>> > curve (the curve is the shape of the graph when you 
>> > plot the number of 
>> > degrees of timing advance versus rpm), so it?s a 
>> > compromise. The ability to 
>> > adjust timing so precisely allows the engine to run 
>> > well on a leaner 
>> > carburetor mixture under certain circumstances than 
>> > would be possible with a 
>> > single timing curve. 
>> > 
>> > My ?78 NYB has its original system 100% intact and 
>> > it is 100% functional. 
>> > The car even passes California?s biennial Smog Check 
>> > like a new car, even 
>> > though the 400 V8 in my car was not available new in 
>> > CA because it failed to 
>> > meet emissions standards. I?m a believer. 
>> > 
>> > ELB was less common in Canada, but if the car was 
>> > born with it, removing it 
>> > is neither the only solution nor necessarily the 
>> > best solution. It?s most 
>> > often just an easy scapegoat for other problems or 
>> > just insufficient 
>> > diagnosis, which is spelled out very well in the 
>> > Electrical Section of the 
>> > FSM. 
>> > 
>> > Chris in LA 
>> > 78 NYB Salon 
>> > 67 Crown 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 11/29/06 2:41 PM, sosmi@xxxxxxxxxxx at 
>> > sos mi@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
>> > 
>> > > Andrew,A lean-burn motor has a engine management 
>> > computer, mounted on the air 
>> > > cleaner assembly, (with lots of wires) and 
>> > Chrysler Proudly announced it on 
>> > > the top of the filter housing.I think this GEM 
>> > came around 74-75. I had one on 
>> > > my 78 NYB. I removed it, and used a 74 NY engine 
>> > harness, distributor, and 
>> > > coil and ballast resistor. As far as headers go, I 
>> > would never put headers on 
>> > > something like an Imp, or NY'er. That's my 
>> > opinion, however the dual exhaust 
>> > > works great.You may find the manifold(s) are 
>> > cracked, about in the center, 
>> > > (been there had that), in which case headers are 
>> > an option Although I don't 
>> > > know what would fit, without the HEAT TO BEAT TO 
>> > FIT procedure.Ya'll have a 
>> > > nice day, Dave. 
>> > > 
>> > >> -------------- Original message -------------- 
>> > >> From: "Andrew A." 
>> > >> I'm not planning to touch the internals of my 
>> > engine for a while as it runs 
>> > >> super smooth, is low mileage, and I just have way 
>> > too many more pressing 
>> > >> projects to warrant having still another motor 
>> > sitting on an engine stand in 
>> > >> the garage...This winter it willl be bodywork and 
>> > paint which includes 
>> > >> redoing the vinyl top..I have to take the exhaust 
>> > manifolds off as it does 
>> > >> have a major exhaust gasket leak on the left side 
>> > and so am planning to go to 
>> > >> dual exhaust and flowmasters at the same time..I 
>> > figure I'm paying for the 
>> > >> gas so I wanna hear it burn! ;-)...Are there any 
>> > headers available for this 
>> > >> year or should I just leave the manifolds as they 
>> > are?.. 
>> > >> What exactly was a LEAN BURN car? how can you 
>> > tell? and how do you remove 
>> > >> it?...I have a Canadian car, so I don't know if 
>> > that was an option up here or 
>> > >> not 
>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > >>> From: sosmi@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>> > >>> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:22 AM 
>> > >>> Subject: Re: IML: 440 compression?? 
>> > >>> 
>> > >>> It sounds like you have a healthy engine, but as 
>> > far as raising compression, 
>> > >>> I think you can get the performance 
>> > improve ments, without messing with the 
>> > >>> engine too much.I'm not sure if you have 
>> > a"LEAN-BURN" motor, but if you do, 
>> > >>> that goes first. Next a dual exhaust system, I 
>> > had a78 NYB, I used 69 440 
>> > >>> RoadRunner mufflers with 21/4 inch tail 
>> > pipes.Then a little carb mods.We 
>> > >>> went 1 step further, and changed the rear axle 
>> > ratio to 3.55 .It wasn't a 
>> > >>> rocket-ship,but it sure ran good, and could 
>> > still get 13-15 mpg.Raising the 
>> > >>> compression on your engine won't help much, 
>> > unless you change the cam, carb, 
>> > >>> and do the above. Don't forget what your 
>> > driving.Ya'll have a nice day, 
>> > >>> Dave. 
>> > >>>> -------------- Original message -------------- 
>> > >>>> From: "Andrew A." 
>> > >>>> great thanks!..I figured it was about normal as 
>> > all cylinders are within 
>> > >>>> 5PSI of each other and the motor runs smooth as 
>> > silk but I just figured I 
>> > >>>> would check with those "in the know".....What 
>> > needs to be done to raise the 
>> > >>>> compresion to the level of the high perf. 
>> > 440's?..is it just the heads that 
>> > >>>> are different or are the pistons also different 
>> > from my 1975 as compared 
>> > >>>> to the late 60's 440's?....Also how much more 
>> > power should that give me?... 
>> > >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> > >>>>> From: DR CHALLENGER 
>> > 
>> > >>>>> To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> > >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:14 AM 
>> > >>>>> Subject: Re: IML: 440 compression?? 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> compession ratio was rated a 8.2 to 1, but its 
>> > more like 7.7 or so. 125 
>> > >>>>> PSI 
>> > >>>>> sounds normal. 
>> > >>>>> . 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>>> >From: "Andrew A." 
>> > >>>>>>> >>Just wondering if anyone knows off hand 
>> > what the normal good cylinder 
>> > >>>>>>> >>compression PSI is for a 1975 
>> > 440?...Usually I'm used to V8's being in 
>> > >>>>>>> the 
>> > >>>>>>> >>145-160 range, but all my cylinders in my 
>> > ; 1975 440 are between 
>> > >>>>>>> 122-128..I 
>> > >>>>>>> >>understand that these are low compression 
>> > engines but have no idea 
>> > >>>>>>> what is 
>> > >>>>>>> >>considered "low compression"...Is that 
>> > normal for these engines? 
>> > >>>>>> > 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > >>>>> ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com 
>> > >>>>> 
>> > ----------------- 
>> > >>>>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial 
>> > Mailing List. Please 
>> > >>>>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and 
>> > your response will be 
>> > gt;>>>> shared with ev eryone. Private messages (and 
>> > attachments) for the 
>> > >>>>> Administrators should be sent to 
>> > webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> > >>>>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to 
>> > http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm 
>> > 
>> === message truncated === 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________________________________________________ 
>> ____ 
>> Do you Yahoo!? 
>> Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. 
>> http://new.mail.yahoo.com 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- 
>> This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
>> reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
>> shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the 
>> Administrators should be sent to webmast er@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm 
>> 



-----------------  http://www.imperialclub.com  -----------------
This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please 
reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be 
shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the
Administrators should be sent to webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm