ABS Is it possible to add?

[tyoneal]

Hello:

Is ABS something that someone can add to their car? If so, how, and who sells the parts for it?

Thanks,

tyoneal

[Blown353]

It is possible; I know a certain vendor out there is working on a retrofit setup using a Bosch 8.X box as the centerpiece.

You'll need wheel speed sensors, etc. You could also try retrofitting a setup out of a 4th gen F-body (Bosch system) but I'm not sure about the lines of communications between the PCM and the ABS units. If you swap the complete powertrain it shouldn't be an issue, but I'm not sure about nor have I investigated the ability to use just the ABS box without the native PCM.

[MSchu]

If you feel like digging and doing a lot of reading, search over at corner-carvers.com. Its been done, albeit on a Fox-body Mustang. Very good tech as usual on corner-carvers and if I remember right pretty much a step-by-step install with pictures.

[Damn True]

Mungo retrofitted a Vette ABS system into his RSE winning AMX. From what I understand it is COMPLICATED.

[tyoneal]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I think if you put certain Corvette parts on the car, wheel sensors would come with them, right?

I'm old tech (unfortunitly) and trying to get up to speed, so I ask:

EFI needs a computer to work, Computer controlling a 4l80e is the hot set up, ABS also need a computer. This being said, Is there a primary computer that communicates with all of these or, is there one computer that will control all of these, or does it just depend on the car?

What computer technology is available for the 1st Gen Camaro's?

Sorry about these being so elementary.

Thanks,

tyoneal

[chicane]

If you leave it to just the ABS and not use the TCS/AH it can be done without any interaction with the PCM/ECU.

So far, the challenge has been wheel speed sensors. The front are a piece of cake..... and the rear will soon be as well.

[JETSET700]

We know why the front WS sensor is easy now. Sooooo whats coming
around to help the rear be easy as well.

[Bowtieracing]

It is possible; I know a certain vendor out there is working on a retrofit setup using a Bosch 8.X box as the centerpiece.



Could you tell us little bit more? I am really intrested. Would be easy for me because i have C4 bearings with abs rings all corners.

[Obsin71Ls1]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I think if you put certain Corvette parts on the car, wheel sensors would come with them, right?

I'm old tech (unfortunitly) and trying to get up to speed, so I ask:

EFI needs a computer to work, Computer controlling a 4l80e is the hot set up, ABS also need a computer. This being said, Is there a primary computer that communicates with all of these or, is there one computer that will control all of these, or does it just depend on the car?

What computer technology is available for the 1st Gen Camaro's?

Sorry about these being so elementary.

Thanks,

tyoneal


The physics behind ABS and ASR is simple, retrofitting it is another story. At the wheel there is a tone ring (ring with teeth) and sensor (permanent magnet and coil). As the teeth of the ring pass by the magnet, the magnetic field expands and collapses, generating an ac voltage in the coil. The coil sends the ac voltage to the EBCM which converts it to a digital signal from which it determines the wheel speed.

If the wheels lock up, the EBCM sense an abrupt change in the voltage and interferes with the braking. on the other hand if you loose traction, the computer sense an abrupt increase in voltage and interferes.

what makes it hard to retrofit ABS is getting the right tone ring and sensor that produce voltage within the range of the EBCM. Its also sucks that the parameters of most ABS computers cannot be changed.

[chicane]

What makes it hard to retrofit ABS is getting the right tone ring and sensor that produce voltage within the range of the EBCM.

Well, that is the easy part. 97 Y-body, Bosch 8.x EBCM with the 97-2006 wheel bearing cartridges.

Its also sucks that the parameters of most ABS computers cannot be changed.

Now there is lies the challenge. But it is possible..... especially if you have a Bosch Algorithm Engineer in your pocket. :yes:

[Obsin71Ls1]

Now there is lies the challenge. But it is possible.....

go on....


Chicane tell me what you think about this

I want to retrofit ABS and ASR into a 70-73 camaro and this is what I have so far

up front, I can use impala/caprice spindles that would allow me to use the hub with a tone ring on it. I would then use sensor from the same car.

Out back I would have a C4 dana 44 IRS already has an intergral tone ring.

For the brains, I would use a Bosch 5.3 EBCM from a 98+ F-body as well as a BCM from the same car. The engine would be a LS1 hence the ASR would be linked to the PCM.


The thing that I am most worried about is the tooth count on the tone rings. The impala ring has about 34 teeth while the C4 has somewhere btw 40-60.
I also don't know how well this would work with the Bosch 5.3. However, I know that the later C4s and impalas ran on Bosch 5.0 which is almost similar.

Do you think I am in dream land here?

[chicane]

I dont think you are in dreamland on this, but there are somethings that need to possibly be re-thought. The first problem I see is going to be the different wheel speed sensors being used on the front and rear.... the EBCM/EBTCM will have problems with that. I dont know if the algorithms will cover a tooth count spread of that nature... I would think that it would, but I can not say 'yes' to that right now.

Which year impala/caprice spindle are you talking about exaclty ?? I'll look into this.......

Considering that you are intertaining the use of a C4 IRS system, I would think that using the 96 EBCM would make your life much eaiser. Traction controll can always be added.... not to mention that a better TCS/ASR system could be utilized and tunable as well. I also think that the front spindle/tone ring issue would be eaiser to tune around, but your still going have a frequency issue. It gets difficult to tune the system (not to mention the saftey issues involved) when there are a bunch of missmatched parts used to put together a system. That is why it is always better to use a single, like system, and all of its components to build a cheaper, safer and more reliable end product.

If you use a 98+ EBTCM you should used the sensors from that system. If you use a 97 or 98+ EBCM you should use those sensors. Its kinda looking like the IRS idea may not be an answer to your chassis ideas. If it is something that you have decided that you have to, or want to have..... you'll need to adjust your ABS system requirements around that.

The easiest way to approach this would be to use the ATS tall spindle for the 70 F-body and the future Chicanewerks rear differential conversion (that I am working on as we speak), that uses the rear C5/C6 wheel speed sensors. That way you are using the same front and rear that already match a given ABS controller. From there you can utilize the Bosch 5.7 (or the 8.x from the 2001 which is the much improved and latest model 5.x system) from a 97 or 2001 Y-body.

Then have all the same sensors, EBTCM, BPMV, PCM and BCM..... and they all work together..... without any modifications other than nulling the sensor inputs that you are not going to use.

[93Polo]

I dont think you are in dreamland on this, but there are somethings that need to possibly be re-thought. The first problem I see is going to be the different wheel speed sensors being used on the front and rear.... the EBCM/EBTCM will have problems with that. I dont know if the algorithms will cover a tooth count spread of that nature... I would think that it would, but I can not say 'yes' to that right now.

Which year impala/caprice spindle are you talking about exaclty ?? I'll look into this.......

Considering that you are intertaining the use of a C4 IRS system, I would think that using the 96 EBCM would make your life much eaiser. Traction controll can always be added.... not to mention that a better TCS/ASR system could be utilized and tunable as well. I also think that the front spindle/tone ring issue would be eaiser to tune around, but your still going have a frequency issue. It gets difficult to tune the system (not to mention the saftey issues involved) when there are a bunch of missmatched parts used to put together a system. That is why it is always better to use a single, like system, and all of its components to build a cheaper, safer and more reliable end product.

If you use a 98+ EBTCM you should used the sensors from that system. If you use a 97 or 98+ EBCM you should use those sensors. Its kinda looking like the IRS idea may not be an answer to your chassis ideas. If it is something that you have decided that you have to, or want to have..... you'll need to adjust your ABS system requirements around that.

The easiest way to approach this would be to use the ATS tall spindle for the 70 F-body and the future Chicanewerks rear differential conversion (that I am working on as we speak), that uses the rear C5/C6 wheel speed sensors. That way you are using the same front and rear that already match a given ABS controller. From there you can utilize the Bosch 5.7 (or the 8.x from the 2001 which is the much improved and latest model 5.x system) from a 97 or 2001 Y-body.

Then have all the same sensors, EBTCM, BPMV, PCM and BCM..... and they all work together..... without any modifications other than nulling the sensor inputs that you are not going to use.
I have thought about this with ATS's new spindle and before that the b-body spindles. Does an Impala SS or F-body ABS system use the same signals as the C5/6 wheels speed sensor. The rear sensors should be fairly easy to add off a B or F body.

[chicane]

The problem with the B and/or F-body sensors is mounting the reluctor to the axle....

[Obsin71Ls1]

I dont think you are in dreamland on this, but there are somethings that need to possibly be re-thought. The first problem I see is going to be the different wheel speed sensors being used on the front and rear.... the EBCM/EBTCM will have problems with that. I dont know if the algorithms will cover a tooth count spread of that nature... I would think that it would, but I can not say 'yes' to that right now.

Which year impala/caprice spindle are you talking about exaclty ?? I'll look into this.......

Considering that you are intertaining the use of a C4 IRS system, I would think that using the 96 EBCM would make your life much eaiser. Traction controll can always be added.... not to mention that a better TCS/ASR system could be utilized and tunable as well. I also think that the front spindle/tone ring issue would be eaiser to tune around, but your still going have a frequency issue. It gets difficult to tune the system (not to mention the saftey issues involved) when there are a bunch of missmatched parts used to put together a system. That is why it is always better to use a single, like system, and all of its components to build a cheaper, safer and more reliable end product.

If you use a 98+ EBTCM you should used the sensors from that system. If you use a 97 or 98+ EBCM you should use those sensors. Its kinda looking like the IRS idea may not be an answer to your chassis ideas. If it is something that you have decided that you have to, or want to have..... you'll need to adjust your ABS system requirements around that.

The easiest way to approach this would be to use the ATS tall spindle for the 70 F-body and the future Chicanewerks rear differential conversion (that I am working on as we speak), that uses the rear C5/C6 wheel speed sensors. That way you are using the same front and rear that already match a given ABS controller. From there you can utilize the Bosch 5.7 (or the 8.x from the 2001 which is the much improved and latest model 5.x system) from a 97 or 2001 Y-body.

Then have all the same sensors, EBTCM, BPMV, PCM and BCM..... and they all work together..... without any modifications other than nulling the sensor inputs that you are not going to use.


hi Chicane,
thanks for the info. you are right about the different tone rings. the B-body tone ring would not work with the c4 rear. I have been doing tons of research on this and found that the tooth count on a c4 is the same as on a 4th gen F-body as well as a c5. my next challenge is finding a way to use c4 spindles up front.

as for the ABS/ASR system, one out of a c5 seems to be the best way to go. I still have alot more reading to do on this setup

[fatlife]

what do you need the ABS for? Are you going to be braking in the rain a lot or commuting?

[tyoneal]

1) With all the new aftermarket technology available, I was wondering if it was something one could add if they wanted to.

2) It didn't seem necessarily that ABS would be a big stretch since you can put on traction control to these cars.

3) Since I was starting from scratch with my car, if it was possible, I may want to plan for it just in case I want to add it someday.

4) I am investigating any new technology that would make the car easier to drive with very high horsepower. (last time I built a car, I was the only one who could drive it safely, and I thought if I went on a long trip, ie: Power Tour, I wouldn't be a wreck worrying about someone else doing some driveing if necessary)

5) It could be a cool thing to have

I guess those are the primary reasons.

tyoneal

[fatlife]

those are good well thought out reasons, but let me say take the energy that it is going to take to do ABS and put it towards building/finishing the car. ABS woudl be nice to have but IMO I would way rather be driving my car then sitting in the garage with a wiring schematic and a PCM trying to fool around getting it to work, and then having to trouble shoot something like this. I do enjoy building working on cars as much as driving, but something like this could be extremely time consuming, and the pay off IMO (again :) ) would not be worth the hassle. ABS only kicks in when you lock up the brakes. You should only be locking up the brakes in a panic stop or in the rain. In a performance driving enviroment brake lockup is preventable.

But then again this is just my opinion, not the ten commandments, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think you would be better off spending more attention on other aspects of the car. :cool:

[tyoneal]

Fatlife:

I agree, driving is what it is about.

tyoneal

[FASTRC5]

It's not just about the hardware, that's the easy part, changing the software is a bit harder, learning what to change the algorithm to is the really dificult part. You need a lot of data, and more data, and more data. The other problem in developing the algorithm is the mass distribution, chassis, tire, and powertrain diferences of a custom car. You might be able to aproximate something similar to a production cars safe mode without quite as much data. You certainly don't wan't your braking system to behave eraticly and you roll your car.

I could be all wet, let me know if there is progress in this area, some times it just takes someone not knowing it can't be done to do it.

[93Polo]

those are good well thought out reasons, but let me say take the energy that it is going to take to do ABS and put it towards building/finishing the car. ABS woudl be nice to have but IMO I would way rather be driving my car then sitting in the garage with a wiring schematic and a PCM trying to fool around getting it to work, and then having to trouble shoot something like this. I do enjoy building working on cars as much as driving, but something like this could be extremely time consuming, and the pay off IMO (again :) ) would not be worth the hassle. ABS only kicks in when you lock up the brakes. You should only be locking up the brakes in a panic stop or in the rain. In a performance driving enviroment brake lockup is preventable.

But then again this is just my opinion, not the ten commandments, so take it with a grain of salt. But I think you would be better off spending more attention on other aspects of the car. :cool:
ABS does kick in in other areas. I have had ABS kick in while driving my 93 Corvette (no active handling) on moutain runs while slowing down in sweepers especially if its decreasing radius. ABS can be a real life saver if it is properly added. Brake lock up is for the most part preventable but crap does happen.