Is there anyway known to bypass the optispark and still feed a reference signal to the ECU?

I've found several crank-triger types but none ( i think) can feed the hi/lo signal needs of the ecu as I understand it.

I'd use a delteq system, or similar, and I wish to use my stock ecu if possible.

new sensor > ECU > coil > DIS

 

The Deltaq and LTCC will both (with the "premium" setup) get rid of the opti. Both units fool the ECU and supposedly work very well (though I have yet to decide which is best for my car). Check their sites, both are pretty decent. The level 1 setups use opti but improve ignition, where the top end use triggers and then use it's own components in the brainbox to send the ECU what it needs.

I'm staying away from FAST/DFI if I can.

 

The LTCC requires the optical sensor signals from the Opti.

The currently available Delteq version also requires the optical sensor signals from the Opti.

The "soon to be available" (3 months and waiting - or do you have evidence it is available?) version of the Delteq will eliminate the Opti altogether.

The Electromotive Opti-Eliminator/SDI system, available back in 1998/99 eliminated the Opti completely, but was 50/50 on its ability to correctly synch the sequential fuel injection to the crank rotation. It worked great on the batch fire 93's, fair on the 94/95 OBD-I's and not at all on the 96/97 OBD-II. My old unit is still floating around out there somehwere.

The optical sensor is a very accurate timing signal. If you remove the high voltage function from the case, the optical sensor appears to have an extended life. Mine has been running this way, with a MoTeC ECU and 8 LS1-style coils for about 4 years.

You might want to try a "search".... there are several threads on Advanced Tech dealing with Opti alternatives.

 

Thanks for the replies guys.

Yes both the LTCC and even the DELTEQ require a fully a functional opti mechanical section and sensor (at least) to get a signal, Ive emailed the LTCC inventor and he concurs with Injuneer and the "opti-less" LTCC is still in "planning". He did like my idea of using a 58 and 168 crank trigger system though. I have not heard from the DELTEQ guy as of late. His upgraded versions use a hall effect magnet, hopefully since Hall's are used on some crank triggers, it will work. (if he ever returns my email)

I'd like to have that system that's still floating around as I have a 94/95 vehicle and want... no, need an opti removal.

I tried searching but turned up very little, any good search phrases I might have missed?

-Bone-

 

^

Also, to add to the above. I am correct in thinking without the lo/hi reference signal to the ECU, the whole car shuts down as far as the emission/fuel/sensor/induction/monitoring systems go?

 

The stock PCM will function without the high resolution pulse. It will just default to the low resolution pulse, and you lose some ignition timing accuracy (spark scatter). If you don't have the low res pulse, the PCM shuts down the fuel pump and the injectors (and maybe the ignition??).

The Electromotive O-E/SDI used a "chip" to synthesize the Opti low and high resolution pulses from a crank wheel/sensor. Lacking any true cam position "reference", in could synch the low res pulse to the worng crank rotation, and get the injectors out of synch. Surprisingly, other than a tiny "hesitation" when the engine was cold (at startup), losing synch on the injectors didn't seem to have much in the way of SOTP affect.

My old E'motive O-E/SDI was sold to "Unstable Bob" Gable, who in turnh sold it to (I think) Ken Mook. The E'motive unit was designed by JC Hyde, who is also the "brains" behind the Delteq units.

My suggestion for a "hot new product" would be to develop a "chip" that used the cam reference signal from the MSD CPC "distributor stub" to synthesize the low res signal from the Opti. I don't think this would be a big problem at all, and I am convinced that with a little selective cutting under the cowl, you could insert and remove the distributor "stub" from a 4th Gen.