|
|
|
So I've been tracking down problems on my 83 245 with what I thought was a LH 2.0 system.
However, I just looked at the ecu and it is 511 ECU, which I believe is LH 2.2. So the PO replaced the ECU; however, the car has the 2.0 AMM with the metal housing. I imagine this would cause running problems since many components are different.
Should I convert my sensors and fuel system over to 2.2? or just plop in a 2.0 ECU?
|
|
-
|
|
Hi!
Ever since you first posted this thread I have been LUSTING and PINING for my very own electro-apocalypse. I figured the best thing to do was search Craigslist for cheap 240’s of the LH 2.2 era. I found one and I offered a flat price for a free for all, as without a buyer for the whole car the next stop was the scrapyard. I got the 541 ECU and boy is it neat!
I put the ECU in my 1983 B23F Fuel System Harness and it fired right up. WOW! What a choke out. Raw fuel stench and bad idle. Extreme rich running, if you could call it "running".
I believe that the AMM 002 is incorrect for the LH 2.2 and although it runs, it mirrors what Calvin is experiencing! I am going to repin the AMM harness tomorrow for the correct sensor (007) and check operation.
Are you still around Calvin?
Goatman
|
|
-
|
|
|
That 541 ECU is a Turbo ECU, so sadly the fuel mapping on that would be very different from my 511 ECU. I'm wondering what effect I am having running a single wire 02 sensor when the harness is obviously wired for a 3 pin heated sensor
|
|
-
|
|
|
This does sound a lot like what I am experiencing. So you changed the pinout on the harness for the 2.2 ECU but are using stock 2.0 sensors right?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hello,
The pinout is a direct fit for a 002 AMM. I was going to change the pins for the correct 007 AMM earlier, but something came up.
The Bosch 541 Intel 8049 microcontrolled ECU is compatible with NA. Are you sure you have a 511? I find no reference for that unit.
http://www.nuceng.ca/bill/volvo/database/ecu.htm
Goatman
|
|
-
|
|
|
I don't see my 511 on your list, but I'm pretty sure that it is a 2.2 ECU. Thanks for going to all that trouble to help me with my problem. This is like investigative work.
I'm a little at my wits end here though. I really need to get this car running well.
Calvin
|
|
-
|
|
I have a 1990 Bosch catalog showing a conversion from the 0-280-000-nnn numbers to CUnnX format, with car applications. Here's what I found for the ECUs mentioned in this thread so far:
503=CU91X
510=CU91X
• '83-'84 240 B23F
511=CU119X
544=CU119X
• '85-'87 240 B230F
• '85-'87 740 B230F
• '87 740T B230FT
541=CU134X
• '87 760T B230FT
--
Bruce Young, '93 940-NA (current), 240s (one V8), 140s, 122s, since '63.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Calvin,
You must wait for the report on switching air meters. Unfortunately, I destroyed four out of the five terminals in my AMM connector on which I practiced. I used a small Allen key.
The terminal removal tool will arrive soon.
Goatman
|
|
-
|
|
|
So I was finally able to get my car running smoothly. What was it you ask? Well I had tested the pressure on my fuel rail(30psi at idle and under throttle), but finally bit the bullet and swapped in a new FPR.
I think the combination of that and rewiring the IAC and AMM is what did it.
I have a 2.0 car running wonderfully with a 2.2 ECU and harness. I am running a single wire O2 sensor even though I have the plug for the 3wire heated one.
Thanks for all the help. I hope this helps people out too.
Calvin
|
|
-
|
|
|
Hello,
Do not change AMM without verifying the pinouts or you will damage components. The LH 2.2 harness must be modified to accept the LH 2.0 AMM and vise versa.
Goatman
|
|
-
|
|
|
Goatman,
Thanks for the heads up. I definitely want to make sure that I'm wired up properly for the 2.0 AMM. It looks like I have a 2.2 Harness and ECU with the pinouts for the AMM changed at the ECU. Look at my post below if you have any thoughts.
I'm trying to figure out what has been done exactly to this car.
|
|
-
|
|
I would get a 503 or 510 and start there. The 511 is pin compatible, best I can tell, so no damage seems imminent, unlike the LH2.0 and 2.2 AMMs. Can't tell you how the 511 should act in an 83, but whatever it is doing, you're probably best off starting with what Volvo intended.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
He often broke into song because he couldn't find the key.
|
|
-
|
|
|
Good sensible advice, I agree. In general though, Volvo red block ECU swapping is a fun science project experiment and often results in a "no detectible problem outcome" that can surprise. I think electro-apocalyptic predictions are overblown.
|
|
-
|
|
|
...ECU swapping is a fun science project ...
Yes, sir. The science I was taught emphasized a clear distinction of only one element between control and experiment, or the learning was wasted. This boils down to "change one thing at a time" for car-fixin' purposes, and it sure looks like Calvin has inherited someone else's electro-apocalypse. No telling how far into the 2.2 conversion his PO got before selling it to him.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts.
|
|
-
|
|
|
I like to take them elements off a working car too, just to be sure. Helps to have a few Volvos. Plus, I got a ton of spare elements in the garage!
|
|
-
|
|
|
This is a neat thread to investigate. First, I've been meaning to ask if the 511 is--or was--limited to the early 85 LH2.2 cars. I've never stumbled across one. 544 and 554 yes.
Some time back I came across a detailed thread on the board in which someone had converted their LH2.0 '83 to LH2.2. He included a link to some pinouts. I want to say it was for both the 503/510 LH2.0 ECUs and the later ECU he used for 2.2. I assumed, therefore, that something was different. He claimed that other than the AMM, the sensors did not need to be swapped. Art, the ECU pinout is not different from 2.0 to 2.2?
I'm upgrading a B23 to LH2.2 currently and as the whole car came apart (including the dash and interior) I didn't have any qualms about ripping out the old fuel pump power setup, coil sub-harness etc. I'm using the entire harness from an 87 including all the bits that handle the power, instruments, the works. I must say though, the idea of re-pinning an ECU plug, swapping an AMM and having LH2.2 on a car that's not destined to come apart is intriguing. I've never been happy with the idle on my 83 coupe, for example, and often considered upgrading it. But it came with an upgrade harness, so re-pinning is preferable to pulling the harness.
Maybe I'm wrong and the re-pin diagram the guy posted was for the AMM? I've looked often, but cannot seem to find the post.
DS
|
|
-
|
|
|
David,
I think that I found the post that you are talking about on turbobricks.
Look here: http://forums.turbobricks.com/archive/index.php/t-202499.html
I'm still trying to figure out what setup I have. I think that I have a lh2.2 harness with a 2.0 amm and 2.2 ecu
|
|
-
|
|
|
Wow, that could be it...good work. Blinders I guess. I was so sure that the post was on here, I only looked for this stuff on TB once if at all. Looks like it is indeed the AMM that needs to be re-pinned. I think I may just go that route and sell my 2.0 parts! Thanks very much. Now my only question is "Which is left side and which is right?!!"
I have to assume that the author has the actual terminal numbers correct if he took the trouble to list 6 to 1.
Excellent work on your part Calvin. I've pasted that stuff from TB into a document and saved it on the local drive.
DS
|
|
-
|
|
|
No problem. If you have any thoughts on my reply to Art's post please let me know. I'm trying to figure out what sort of conversion was made on my car.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The project engine, with 2.2 harness, is sitting on a stand in the garage. If I have a chance later today I'll take a look. The ECU plug is not difficult to open. Maybe I can get you a pinout--I know it's original. I've also got the old 2.0 harness and can verify the plug at the AMM on that.
DS
|
|
-
|
|
|
David, I've never owned an LH2.2 car. The stare and compare I can do on the wiring diagrams in the FI green books supports the notion the pins are used for the same purpose between the two ECU types. Couple minor difference I see, like the idle test point, but nothing that would make smoke.
However, the AMM pinout is not compatible, so that may be where the re-pinning was needed most.
As you've probably noticed, I have a bunch of drivers to maintain, and not so much into mods and custom upgrades as I might be if it was only my car to fool with.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Art,
Thanks for all your help. I know that I have a 2.0 AMM, but I think that I have a 2.2 Harness because my AMM harness pigtail has pins 6-1. But I'm not sure whether it is wired properly. I don't have the pinouts for either 2.2 or 2.0
Here is how my AMM is wired:
At the pigtail:
6 yellow
5 white/red
4 black
3 green/yellow
2 orange
1 grey
I believe that is the stock wiring for the LH 2.2 plug
At the ecu(I think):
Yellow 14
White/Red 7 (unlabeled on the ecu connector does this mean ground?)
Black 1(not sure about this one there are multiple blacks at the ecu)
Green/Yellow 6
Orange 3
Grey 8 (also unlabeled on ecu)
So it looks like the pinout at the ECU was changed by a mechanic or PO. Now I just need to figure out if its right. Is there a resource online that I can use to look up the various pinouts in case I decide to swap to a 2.2 AMM?
|
|
-
|
|
|
It doesn't look to me like your AMM is wired right, either. At first, I thought the person doing the mod was indifferent to the wire color convention, but the destinations still aren't correct for either AMM. The orange wire in 3 on the ECU isn't the same orange providing +12V to the AMM, it is the throttle switch.
Here are the 1-to-6 designations for LH2.0 and LH2.2 amm plugs as I know. The connector body on the LH2.0 harness side is embossed 1-6, not like the AMM side with the functional numbering. On the ECU, it is odd how 7-9 and 20-21 numbers are left off of the plug molding, but the pins are sequentially numbered despite the missing labels there. Also note, LH2.4 AMMs are pinned like LH2.2 except for the lack of the mixture adjustment function.
Pin (harness side) -- color/function/functional number LH2.0 -- color/function LH2.2
1 -- white, burn-off(8) -- black, power ground
2 -- black, power ground(6) -- green/yellow, signal ground
3 -- orange, power(9) -- white/red, output
4 -- green/yellow, signal ground(36) -- white, burn-off
5 -- white/red, output(7) -- orange, power
6 -- yellow, mixt adj(12) -- yellow, mixt adj (not used LH2.4)
Here are some reference pages. The LH2.0 map is legible beneath my mod scribbling.
That post by nx3xo looks good to me.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
|
|
-
|
|
|
My AMM is definitely not wired correctly. I've gone over the entire wiring harness and only the IAC and AMM seemed to be wired incorrectly.
Now for my newbie question:
Is there a way to rewire the AMM connector to keep the colors in tact? Or am I stuck cutting and swapping wiring the old fashioned way?
The same goes for the ECU plug. There has to be a way to get the plug to release the wiring. I tried poking in the side slots with a paperclip. Or do you just pull hard with pliers? I really don't want to mess anything up.
|
|
-
|
|
|
If you pull hard with a needlenose, you'll ruin the tab that keeps them in. The paper clip is the right approach, but it needs to be inserted from the business end of the plug, in the "T" slot to depress the tang, all the while jiggling or lightly tugging on the wire to pull it when it releases. Of course, there is a square cross-section tool you're supposed to use, and a jeweler's screwdriver is the most often grabbed substitute.
Here was an old pic from my LH2.0 days showing one result (corrosion) of a cracked boot on the AMM plug. Hope you can see how the tang works.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Perfect picture. Helped me figure it out perfectly. Now I am trying to rap my head around the wiring.
The turbobricks forum post has colors for what must be a later 2.2 harness with different colors.
My harness is the same as the one in the 85 diagram so I have the same color wires as the LH 2.0 Harness.
I've been going over the schematics and your table; and it is making my head swim a bit. I am trying to of course rewire my AMM plug for the 2.0 AMM. So it seems as simple as swapping the color wire(which looks to have the same function?) over to the appropriate spot on the plug as follows:
Pin 1: White
2: Black
3: Orange
4: Green/Yellow
5: White/Red
6: Yellow
That seems too simple?
|
|
-
|
|
|
Yes, that looks like a good plan to match up with an -002 (metal) AMM.
The turbobricks forum post has colors for what must be a later 2.2 harness with different colors.
LH2.2 colors didn't change over the 4 years, I'm fairly certain, in a 240. But on a 740 the colors are different.
Are you saying the PO did not monkey with the ECU plug when installing the -511? Or put an LH2.2 harness (single plastic relay) in? If not, then you have a pretty good baseline to get help troubleshooting, once you get that AMM wired right.
A good pre-run check of the AMM function is to measure the voltage on the red/white wire. It should be about a volt and a half or close, with key on and motor stalled. Waft some air toward the AMM inlet and you'll see the voltage rise accordingly.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
Anybody who doesn't know what soap tastes like never washed a dog. -Franklin P. Jones
|
|
-
|
|
|
Art,
Looks like a shop installed the 2.2 Harness and ECU for the PO.
The pump and main relays are still the double 2.0 metal style. I think this is why I was having trouble diagnosing the fuel pumps. If I pull my fuses 5 and 7 to get the car to stall to relieve fuel pressure, it keeps idling. I wonder what sort of problems the wiring is causing. Thanks for the heads up on the AMM test. I'll take a look today.
I really need to get this thing running well, even though I got screwed on the purchase. It's my daily driver right now. I might give a call to the guy that sold it to me today.
|
|
-
|
|
|
The advice to pull the fuses to relieve fuel pressure is bogus. There's no "fuel pump fuse" as such, just the 25A blade fuse under the hood, and pulling that, as you can imagine, stalls the car but doesn't do a thing for reducing residual pressure.
If you really want to stop the main pump, pull the plug under the back seat. Fuse 5 stops the tank pump.
Don't worry about the pressure. There's no accumulator, so you'll get max a teaspoon squirt when you unbuckle the rail, and that all from behind the FPR. Don't bother applying vac to the FPR either, it is a waste of time to reduce the pressure 6 pounds.
By daily driver, do you mean this car is being driven daily? I thought it was dead in the water... You must have something right if it drives at all.
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
"When something can be read without effort, great effort has gone into its writing." -Enricque Jardiel Poncela
|
|
-
|
|
|
Art,
It runs but not well at all. Running rich(10-15mg) under throttle. Hesitation occasionally. Idles rough.
Tested the AMM and it is reporting 1.35V on the W/R wire. Goes up .1-.15 V when I waft air towards it.
I feel like the Haynes manual that I have is just giving me bogus information on things like the fuel pump pressure relief. I know that I need to get my hands on a Bentley manual.
Calvin
|
|
-
|
|
|
Bentley is nice, but I think it perpetuates the same myth. If you do get one, search this site for the "Bentley Errata" so you can go through it with a red pen.
If it runs, but just richly, you might try some of the simpler mixture remedies before matching the AMM to the ECU, which is purportedly viable, according to that one TB poster. Rule out the temp sender by checking the voltage (warm) at ECU pin 2. This is the equivalent of the old "choke pull-off" fix you'd hear from Click and Clack in the old days. Rule out a stuck or torn fuel pressure regulator if you haven't already. Check all four plugs to be sure it is sooting them all equally.
That is all giving the benefit of the doubt to the AMM compatibility, regarding output curve, between LH2.0 and LH2.2. I can't tell you he's right about that, but would be pleasantly surprised to find out it is true. Yes the AMM is matched to the injector sizing, but there's an ECU with a fuel map in between!
--
Art Benstein near Baltimore
Remember what Cardinal Cooke once said:
"A man would do nothing if he waited until such time as no one would find fault with what he has done". - originally John Henry Cardinal Newman
|
|
-
|
|
|
I had an early 85 LH 2.2 that came with the 511.
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
