Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Why not
| Re: [GMCnet] Why not [message #100987 is a reply to message #100982] |
Sat, 25 September 2010 18:05   |
Keith V
Messages: 2337
Registered: March 2008
Location: Mounds View,MN
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| Larry C wrote on Sat, 25 September 2010 15:52 |
It seems to me that it wouldn't be THAT hard to create a system using the two pumps, four to six solenoids, two relays and MODERN electronics. With better height sensors, you should be able to have manual _plus_ multiple settings (from low to high) highway, town, rough road and max clearance.
____________________________________________________
I agree.
I have a project diagram and wiring for changing over to a solenoid based system with electrical sensors at the rear wheels.
Time prevents be from attacking this one head on just yet and I still need to fine tune the elec sensors to a simple operation. The simpler it is, the less chance of it failing, I think...
I am in full agreement that the nice new OEM systems had to work wonderfully... but with the addition of a dozen or so extra fittings, ( PO ), it gets tougher to find.
But, there is always next year.......................
|
I am actually working on an open source controller for air suspension. It's called Megaride on Source Forge. It will use Cadillac, well any voltage based, sensor, and is designed to be simple, cheap and reliable. But the Cad sensors are a nice reliable non contact sensor that looks like a variable resister.
It is going to run on the MegaSquirt GPIO hardware and can control 4 corners, but just 2 corners would be simple.
I'm making it for my '29 dodge that has 4 corner air suspension. So it uses 8 relays, fill and dump for each corner, plus 1 for the compressor.
I've thought about if I would want to put it in the GMC, but my Power Level works perfectly, so why?
Keith Vasilakes
Mounds View. MN
75 ex Royale GMC
ask me about MicroLevel
Cell, 763-732-3419
My427v8@hotmail.com
|
|
|
|
 |
|
[GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: KRDietz on Sat, 18 September 2010 13:10 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Larry C on Sat, 25 September 2010 06:43 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: jimk on Sat, 25 September 2010 07:56 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: WD0AFQ on Sat, 25 September 2010 08:01 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Don A on Sat, 25 September 2010 11:17 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: jaholland on Sat, 25 September 2010 14:24 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Larry C on Sat, 25 September 2010 15:52 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Keith V on Sat, 25 September 2010 18:05 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Larry C on Sat, 25 September 2010 21:54 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Larry C on Sat, 25 September 2010 15:47 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: Larry C on Sat, 25 September 2010 21:32 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
By: rgogan on Sun, 17 September 2017 19:12 |
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
|
|
Re: [GMCnet] Why not
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 26 11:48:27 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 1.71896 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
