Zeitronix ECA for "true" Flex Fuel E85 tuning?

Zeitronix Ethanol Content Analyzer <<

http://www.zeitronix.com/images/ECA/ECA-red_180x131.gif http://www.zeitronix.com/images/ECA/...ue_180x131.gif

I saw this product a while back but forgot to mention it for discussion. It has a lot of potential for better accommodating the varying blends at the pump(s). A local DSM'er mentioned that his tune changed noticeably one day after he had filled his tank. This of course required adjustments in his Link, and that [to me] can become very inconvenient. In fact, it made me reconsider WMI again.

There are some "pros" and "cons" that I thought of, price aside. The good news is that piggyback users can also use the linear output, but I will not open that can of worms right now. One "bad" thing that stood out to me was the maximum flow rating listed for GM sensors - 200lph. There are also the input and output dimensions:

Quote:

---

Larger (outflow) tube: .37" and .5" at the flange.
Smaller (inflow) tube: .31" and .44" at the flange.

---

Basically, you would have to get a little creative in planning the installation.

What are your guys' thoughts?

Flow problem would be solved by putting it on the return side, IMHO. If it has a linear 0-5V output it can be adapted as a fuel trim for the AEM EMS, no way to use as a timing input with the current software (well maybe as a nitrous trigger to "bump" timing for E85 and then do a base tune on E70, but that would be a complicate circuit to trigger and build...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bboyalan

There are some "pros" and "cons" that I thought of, price aside. The good news is that piggyback users can also use the linear output, but I will not open that can of worms right now. One "bad" thing that stood out to me was the maximum flow rating listed for GM sensors - 200lph. There are also the input and output dimensions:

---

I discussed this with my tuner and he said most ppl using the GM sensor will just add a split/seperation in the fuel line and divert a small amount of fuel through the sensor. It doesn't need to see all the flow.

will be doing this, this year, the output of the sensor itself is digital, thankfully my ecu can deal with it and not need the massive cost of the 0-5v interpreter

All good input - thanks! Another member did mention the return side to me. My idea was to utilize an unused port on a AFPR for the sensor's inlet and plumb it back into the main return line. It might be easier "tapping" back at the tank depending on the line setup.

Most AFPR's with dual ports are dual in not dual out so that probably wouldn't work. If you ran a dual feed setup you could maybe put the sensor on one side. But then you run the risk of the sensor causing a restriction on one bank. Maybe the easiest way ios to just put a Y join on your fue lfeed and put the sensor on one side then rejoin the main line with another Y piece. If you use the same size lines ofr the 2 seperated lines then it won't cause a bottle neck because most of the flow would go through the non sensed side but the sensor would still get enough flow. Of cources that method only really works cost effectively if your already running a braided line/upgraded fuel feed.

just run a y piece off the return line and be done, pretty much how it was designed to be run anyway, seeing as it does not have a minimum or maximum flow requirement.

I have my FP gauge on the front rail, so that port on the regulator is what I had in mind. The feed idea is good too. I just need to plan this out underhood with the AN/hose barb fittings before making a decision.

-sent from my G2