OK Sven I did read up and on page II-94 Yamaha gives you the sensor values
at full open and closed positions...only the values are in ohms not volts
(and don't forget to turn the bike off and remove the connector). Did you do
this measurements when checking your old TPS? As for the graph on II-12 I
don't even know if that's of any use, can't even read the damn values.
Yamaha ought to be ashamed with the graphical condition of this hea so
called technical manual.
Also, did you check the sensor coming out the cat before you ordered the
TPS? It could also be a culprit.
That's all for now.
George
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Baglien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2000 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Medic !!!!
> First off, I'm absolutely not questioning your readings George - but I
find it
> really odd that the only chart in the service manual that indicates
voltages for
> the TPS shows at full closed, the TPS should give 0 volts (?)... at 45% -
2
> volts, at full open (125%) - 5 volts - linear results. This chart show
nothing
> about RPM. This chart is on page II-12.
>
> -Sven the broken TPS man.
>
> paramithas wrote:
>
> > Sven & the rest of the GTSers, here's the differences in part numbers
when
> > opening both the 93 and 94 ECU boxes to compare parts (i.e E-Prom). Whom
> > ever can make heads or tales on the specifics of these parts please
> > enlighten.
> >
> > 93 ECU
> > 112100-0040
> > 12V TBDF03 D
> > ND MG2530 (ND=DENSO the ECU manufacturer I assume)
> > 1N11B
> >
> > 94 ECU
> > 112100-0050
> > 12V TBDF04 E
> > D MG3840 (don't know which manufacturer D is)
> > 1R09B
> >
> > And now for the TPS voltage measurements at the 6 different RPMs between
> > which the dreaded surging occurs (BTW Sven your measured values are too
> > high). The ECU pots were all set at the 1:00 o'clock position and TPS
was
> > set close to the full clockwise setting. I will next try a different TPS
> > setting (I expect the voltage values to be different (lower) but the
voltage
> > delta between the 6 different RPMs to be approx. the same).
> >
> > 93 ECU
> > 0.811v @ 800RPM
> > 0.863v @ 1,000RPM
> > 0.898v @ 2,000RPM
> > 0.916v @ 3,000RPM
> > 0.957v @ 4,000RPM
> > 0.986v @ 5,000RPM
> >
> > 94 ECU
> > 0.815v @ 800RPM
> > 0.867v @ 1,000RPM
> > 0.925v @ 2,000RPM
> > 0.940v @ 3,000RPM
> > 0.982v @ 4,000RPM
> > 1.000v @ 5,000RPM
> >
> > After physically testing both ECUs on my bike I can say that the mileage
> > drops when using the 94 ECU by about 3-4MPG (93 ECU=40-43MPG, 94
ECU=37-40
> > max). And now for the seat-of-the-pants part of the test. The surging
> > behavior I estimate to be about the same or maybe a tad bit less with
the 94
> > but not worth the MPG penalty. The testing continues RSR...
> >
> > Guinea Pig George
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Why pay for something you could get for free?
> > NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
> > http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
>
>
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
