Abs!

[DarkoNova]

I've always wanted to try and implement ABS into my car, and I figure since I plan on getting the ATS spindles, it's the perfect opportunity. So basically, what would I need to do to get it working? Whenever I get the money, I'm going to get the spindles (obviously) and the 12.7" Touring Classics C5 brakes all from ATS.

Thanks,
Matt

[chicane67]

You will need to steal or beat the EBCM algorithms out of BOSCH...

You will also need to install wheel speed sensors on the rear axle that have the same resolution of the front wheel speed sensors.

Next, you will need the pump and accumulator, the motor and controller and the EBCM... and depending on what year of ABS controller you run... the BCM.

That will be all well and good right up to the point of needing the algorithm modifications for your chassis and wheel, weight and balance. If you have a friend at BOSCH... I suggest you put the screws to him.

[DarkoNova]

There has to be an easier way. I remember reading a few articles in magazines where people put abs on their cars. :hmm:

That just ruined my day. :(

Matt

[chicane67]

The mechanics are simple... the algorithms however, are not really test and tune. You have to pretty much adbide by the same PV ratios used in the system the controller came from. Meaning that you have to run the same lines size, the same master, the same caliper volume etc etc. The individual dynamics of wheel and tire, wheel base, weight distro and rotational weight differences are just attributes to the algorithms.

The articles in magazines are from like vehicles and not having too many years between donor and recipient. The Camaro (BOSCH 8.x) on the last years will require you to add reluctors to the axle shafts and then some simple brackets for the exciter. The only problem with that is the sensor is a little different in how it works (yes the end result is the same in theroy) but the resolution is somewhat different.

So the only way to really make the system work is to use the same Y-body wheel speed sensor in the rear. Which means adapting the bearing cartridge to the housing... which I have done, Im just waiting for a few other parts to get the housing completed. Now its just getting to the electronics.

You have your choice in using the two available Y-body units. Both are BOSCH 8.x and were made to work with the given sensors. Out of the three systems (97-98 / 99-04 / 05-07), one uses less inputs (97-98)... and will be eaiser to work with. You will however, loose the traction control (unless you run an LSx and ECU along with the BCM) and active controls... due to not using the yaw rate sensor. This by far will be the easiest to integrate. I will advise you to purchase the factory GM service body and drivetrain manuals as this will pretty much spell it out for you mechanically and electrically... just not algorithmically.

And that is where this project becomes a little more difficult. I will not discourage you from your efforts... infact, I say go for it. If I can help in any way let me know... I will share what I have, including the frustration with BOSCH and their proprietary algorithms and the fact that they wont go open source for the aftermarket.

[LowBuckX]

There was an ABS kit you could buy. It wasnt electronic though. It was 2 Bulbus things that mounted inline with your front and rear lines. Not sure how they worked but it obviuosly didnt catch on.

I think they just smoothed out pressure spikes like if you tryed to dynamite the brakes they would take the spike out and the pressure would apply over a longer controled time. Spring and piston inside maybe??

[shanekennedy]

there's always a complete vette rolling chasis on ebay. they usually include the brakes as well. buy youself a chasis & wrap a body around it. you might could even install a heads-up-display.

[EFI69Cam]

The mechanics are simple... the algorithms however, are not really test and tune. You have to pretty much adbide by the same PV ratios used in the system the controller came from. Meaning that you have to run the same lines size, the same master, the same caliper volume etc etc. The individual dynamics of wheel and tire, wheel base, weight distro and rotational weight differences are just attributes to the algorithms.

The articles in magazines are from like vehicles and not having too many years between donor and recipient. The Camaro (BOSCH 8.x) on the last years will require you to add reluctors to the axle shafts and then some simple brackets for the exciter. The only problem with that is the sensor is a little different in how it works (yes the end result is the same in theroy) but the resolution is somewhat different.

So the only way to really make the system work is to use the same Y-body wheel speed sensor in the rear. Which means adapting the bearing cartridge to the housing... which I have done, Im just waiting for a few other parts to get the housing completed. Now its just getting to the electronics.

You have your choice in using the two available Y-body units. Both are BOSCH 8.x and were made to work with the given sensors. Out of the three systems (97-98 / 99-04 / 05-07), one uses less inputs (97-98)... and will be eaiser to work with. You will however, loose the traction control (unless you run an LSx and ECU along with the BCM) and active controls... due to not using the yaw rate sensor. This by far will be the easiest to integrate. I will advise you to purchase the factory GM service body and drivetrain manuals as this will pretty much spell it out for you mechanically and electrically... just not algorithmically.

And that is where this project becomes a little more difficult. I will not discourage you from your efforts... infact, I say go for it. If I can help in any way let me know... I will share what I have, including the frustration with BOSCH and their proprietary algorithms and the fact that they wont go open source for the aftermarket.

What exactly do you mean by resolution? Are you talking about tooth count on the reluctor wheel? Just what is the difference between the late 4th gen front sensor and the c5 sensor?

[BonzoHansen]

I did read one article in one of the rags some years back. IIRC, a guy took an ABS setup out of a late model Caprice and put it in an early 80s Caprice. I don’t remember the details anymore, but I remember the owner’s comment: it worked, but it was not worth the effort.

[paul67]

What does the ABS work on , foot on brake as long as sensor sees the wheel moving does not kick pressure off pad wheel stops foot still on brake kicks pressure off pad, why would you need weight of car as long as its close to donor car due how would car know if you had 1 ,2,4,5 people in car and fully loaded with cases etc, wheel dia I think would not come into it, look at all with modified wheels ie bigger on cars with ABS.

[EFI69Cam]

What does the ABS work on , foot on brake as long as sensor sees the wheel moving does not kick pressure off pad wheel stops foot still on brake kicks pressure off pad, why would you need weight of car as long as its close to donor car due how would car know if you had 1 ,2,4,5 people in car and fully loaded with cases etc, wheel dia I think would not come into it, look at all with modified wheels ie bigger on cars with ABS.


I have made this argument. I think the vehicle stability functions are getting confused witht the ABS functions.

Each channel is monitored separately for spin during a braking event, if the wheel locks, pressure is modulated to induce spin.
The only time speed differentials between front and rear would matter would be in a traction control system where slip would be a difference in the front and rear sensors, but then again they might do it by looking for an improbable increase in speed.

[6'9"Witha69]

What does the ABS work on , foot on brake as long as sensor sees the wheel moving does not kick pressure off pad wheel stops foot still on brake kicks pressure off pad, why would you need weight of car as long as its close to donor car due how would car know if you had 1 ,2,4,5 people in car and fully loaded with cases etc, wheel dia I think would not come into it, look at all with modified wheels ie bigger on cars with ABS.Wheel diameter and weight do come into it. Test the brakes on a Silverado or other with stock 16" rims. Then step up to 20s or larger and notice that the ABS kicks in sooner with the larger rims. This was noticed by CHP when they had the Big Red or Red Dog truck build up a year or so ago. It has also been noticed by my friends and I. It is not terrible, but noticable under heavy braking that the ABS does kick in sooner.

[GMachineDartGT]

My buddy with the AMX that was in real street elimator last year has had ABS on his car for at least 10 yrs..Talk about ahead of his time. Mostly GM stuff if I remember.

[DarkoNova]

Yeah, I remember reading about someone implementing it onto a first gen Camaro a few years ago. It's definitely something I plan to do, but I have more pressing issues to deal with on the car, so this will probably be a long way off.

Thanks for all the info though guys. And Chicane, don't be surprised if you get a pm from me in a few months or so. :p

Matt

[matthimself456]

May I ask why? Is it for the use of the abs or just to technological coolness of installing it? Either one is a valid reason I'm just curious. My 87 Mercedes s-class had the best abs I have ever experienced. I don't think there was much, if any, computer control. On the other hand my dad's daily driver 2002 Grand Am just has annoying abs. In fact a wheel speed sensor went south about a year ago disabling the traction control and abs, turned out to be quite the upgrade. In my opinion abs is most useful in the winter and no PT car deserves that kind of punishment. If your desire is just to see if you can do it, however, then by all means go for it.

[EFI69Cam]

May I ask why? Is it for the use of the abs or just to technological coolness of installing it? Either one is a valid reason I'm just curious. My 87 Mercedes s-class had the best abs I have ever experienced. I don't think there was much, if any, computer control. On the other hand my dad's daily driver 2002 Grand Am just has annoying abs. In fact a wheel speed sensor went south about a year ago disabling the traction control and abs, turned out to be quite the upgrade. In my opinion abs is most useful in the winter and no PT car deserves that kind of punishment. If your desire is just to see if you can do it, however, then by all means go for it.

For me you hit the nail on the head. Its the mostly the challenge of installing it and making it work.

[chicane67]

1. What exactly do you mean by resolution?

2. Are you talking about tooth count on the reluctor wheel?

3. Just what is the difference between the late 4th gen front sensor and the c5 sensor?

Seriously... do we have to hash this out again ??

1. The degree of accuracy within a given bandwidth without inducing adverse effects.

2. No

3. A finite resloution bandwidth, which is less effected by voltage saturation on the upper end of the bandwidth.


...why would you need weight of car as long as its close to donor car due how would car know if you had 1 ,2,4,5 people in car and fully loaded with cases etc, wheel dia I think would not come into it, look at all with modified wheels ie bigger on cars with ABS.

It effects bias and proportioning. Afterall it is the resultant function of weight transfer. Wheel diameter and any change to the packaged weight (rotational mass/inertia) has a larger effect to system operation. A good explaination/observation was noted in an earlier post.

Trust me... if it were as easy as all of you make it out to be... there would be groves of older chassis with ABS. But... as we can plainly see there isnt. Sure I could throw some parts together and have a working system. But does that make it right? Does it make it safe? Maybe what most have not thought about yet is the liability behind the implimentation of a system not verified or tested for the application. I am sure Federal DOT would have some creative things to say about it. Repercussions are a bitch.

Afterall, if its worth doing... its worth doing right.

[DarkoNova]

May I ask why? Is it for the use of the abs or just to technological coolness of installing it? Either one is a valid reason I'm just curious. My 87 Mercedes s-class had the best abs I have ever experienced. I don't think there was much, if any, computer control. On the other hand my dad's daily driver 2002 Grand Am just has annoying abs. In fact a wheel speed sensor went south about a year ago disabling the traction control and abs, turned out to be quite the upgrade. In my opinion abs is most useful in the winter and no PT car deserves that kind of punishment. If your desire is just to see if you can do it, however, then by all means go for it.

Definitely the use. I live in Southern California, and we don't really have winters, so I drive my car year round. :)

Basically, I want this thing to stop the best that it possibly can. I plan on getting a Hydratech system, some 13" brakes up front, probably 12's out back, 245-255 front tires and 275-285 rears, and *hopefully* abs if I get to a point where I have nothing better to do. :p

Matt

[MonzaRacer]

Ok so basicly the fronts (with ATS spindles)are going to use hub bearings similar to vettes or ZQ Blazers right?
If so then you have the sensors on front. If you have a locker or a limited slip in back then you would want the type that reads off the ring gear for a pro touring(I figured this out as we put an LSD in a car with ABS and had to find a computer that came from factory LSD equiped car.
The pumps/modualtors I would use from say a lager body GM that is divorced from the master cylinder(ie parts matching,,, now you got me scratching my head and digging in catalogues) and thn it would simply be a matter of decrypting the EBCM from the car the pump/modulator is from and making it understand what you are working on.
Actually I may try something like this on my Monza hehe as I thing the 98 up ZQ Blazer has this type of differentail sooooo,,,,, hehehe Wuahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. Evil grin, Evil laugh.
Lee

[EFI69Cam]

Ok so basicly the fronts (with ATS spindles)are going to use hub bearings similar to vettes or ZQ Blazers right?
If so then you have the sensors on front. If you have a locker or a limited slip in back then you would want the type that reads off the ring gear for a pro touring(I figured this out as we put an LSD in a car with ABS and had to find a computer that came from factory LSD equiped car.
The pumps/modualtors I would use from say a lager body GM that is divorced from the master cylinder(ie parts matching,,, now you got me scratching my head and digging in catalogues) and thn it would simply be a matter of decrypting the EBCM from the car the pump/modulator is from and making it understand what you are working on.
Actually I may try something like this on my Monza hehe as I thing the 98 up ZQ Blazer has this type of differentail sooooo,,,,, hehehe Wuahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. Evil grin, Evil laugh.
Lee

Nooo what ever you do don't try this! It won't work and your car will literaly fly backwards when you apply the brakes.

[DarkoNova]

Nooo what ever you do don't try this! It won't work and your car will literaly fly backwards when you apply the brakes.

Huh??? :confused:

Matt

[EFI69Cam]

Huh??? :confused:

Matt

Just a comment on the nay sayers is all.

I'm not going to believe that 4th gen abs will not work on a 1st gen until my set up does not work.
The cars are similar in weight distribution, and there are dozens of 4th gens running around with 18" wheels and C5 front brakes. Loading up the trunk of your 4th gen does not render the abs useless.

I have not finished my car yet, but the 4th gen 4 channel module is plumbed and wired in, all tests with the tech 2 show that everything will work. I still have questions about the C5 and 4th gen sensors but the fact that the tech2 shows a resonable reading when I spin the front wheels tells me that everything will work.

[MonzaRacer]

THe big trick is getting the software programed(reprogramed ) to make sure it understands you have all 4 wheels running the same speed on the scanner.
For the most part a simple signal conditioner may be required similar to the DRAC (Digital Ratio Analog Control) that the older GM C/Ks used to have to make the speed sensor signal from trans make the lectronic speedo work properly, it basiclt turned a speed sensor signal to a squarewave (read cleaner signal as opposed to a sine waveform) for the dash cluster to read.
The big trick is to make sure the computer reads all 4 wheels the same going down the road.
A little work may also be required to tweak the software to understand that you have bigger tires, if the sizes are dropped or raised equally front/rear over the car the system came from your programming should be fine.
Im still working on some ideas for a universal system too.
Lee

[EFI69Cam]

THe big trick is getting the software programed(reprogramed ) to make sure it understands you have all 4 wheels running the same speed on the scanner.
For the most part a simple signal conditioner may be required similar to the DRAC (Digital Ratio Analog Control) that the older GM C/Ks used to have to make the speed sensor signal from trans make the lectronic speedo work properly, it basiclt turned a speed sensor signal to a squarewave (read cleaner signal as opposed to a sine waveform) for the dash cluster to read.
The big trick is to make sure the computer reads all 4 wheels the same going down the road.
A little work may also be required to tweak the software to understand that you have bigger tires, if the sizes are dropped or raised equally front/rear over the car the system came from your programming should be fine.
Im still working on some ideas for a universal system too.
Lee

If you match the reluctor wheel tooth counts of the sensors to the donor vehicle, there is no need to reprogram.

[calforniacuda]

If the reluctor wheel was used from the donor vehicle, than wheel diameters would need to be pretty close to stock or the computer would calculate cars speed incorrectly and abs is off a little bit.

Keep up the good work, great idea. Keep us posted. I have done mucho research and abs does stop vehicles faster on hard pavement. In snow it gets a little confused. Don't forget about proper brake proportioning between front and back, and sticky tires make a big difference, as well as lowering the car. The lower the car center of gravity, the less weight transfer moves to the front.

[MonzaRacer]

Well it works,sort of. The LSD equiped car made some wierd rearedn flucutaions but it stopped 45 ft shorter and this was with a hammer hard on the pedal.
What we used was a ZQ spindle on a Malibu (Gbody) and modded S10 4X diff. We hacked the Jbody EBCM and used the pump actuator from a Olds 98 and some rudementary sync boards.
It kind of kool it really worked and my scanner didnt hiccup when we scanned it.
We got so interesting mix and match but it worked!!!! Now we are reworking the software so it can be owner tuned for big and littles and different traction issues (re miss matched tires front and rear).
OK nuff fun I really need to work on my Monza.

[calforniacuda]

Is it possible to see a video?

[MonzaRacer]

Well we are reworking the EBCM (gotta love still having GM engineers phone numbers to help us decide on other EBCM as the Jbody drivers over heat with big car actuators.
Anyway no videos (yet) as we did this test at about 11 pm after finishing some sync boards (what we used to match wheel speeds.
EBCM reads 3 mph at rest but quite a few do that) but we hope to get it back out after his AirLocker comes in.
His LSD has some super over heated clutch plates so we took the springs out for now but the warp still preloads them.
He had driven the uber generic patched Jbody EBCM ( we put in some double duty generic power transitors and tied them to a PC heat sink/fan to keep them kool.
We are waiting on some chips for new EBCM so we can program(read this as weare gonna dump the Jbody controler but use the programing archetecture.
This turned int omuch more math than I like to dredge out of my dazed and weary mind (I am one class away from a Masters but too lazy to get it, besides I like working on cars).
Had to do some bias logs but it does work.
Dont get me wrong this isnt going to be traction or yaw control just wheel lock up control like most first/second generation ABS was.
too many factors for traction/yaw BUT we may be able to incorporate a parental anti burnout lock but that is still to be seen.
Maybe this weekend but if not it will be a couple weeks cause ,not this weekend but the next (18,19,20) is the first leg of the IBO triple crown Bow tournament in Bedford and I want to go meet some archery friends.
Well time for more math YUKKKKK!
Lee Abel
AFTERMARKET PERFORMANCE

[paul67]

monzaracer, did you ever do any further test of the abs and did it work.