Who's actually got this running on a 5 port???
Turbo Mini Forums

.

Edited by robert on 5th Sep, 2012.

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Yes About Graham, i believe he was pro the first to even do it wasn't he :)?

"Can you tell us what is "different" about your EFi? I thought it was just plagiarism of the SC setup."

I can't ever recall saying that my set up was any better or different to any one elses, all i said was we did it our selfs in a short time, come on Paul read the post :)

And TD stop talking BS

Best 1/4 mile 13.2 seconds @116 mph
First 5 port miniturbo to make over 200 bhp on a carb?
First 5 port miniturbo to make over 200 bhp on Injection?

http://www.mattwoodsphotography.com

What really bugs me about this whole thread - and a few similar ones previously - is that no-one who has gone (or is thinking of going down) the wet manifold injection route has paid that little bit extra to install a second wideband.

From Jimster's original post - normally aspirated - it's so dead easy and a tiny cost compared to that of the engine.

On a turbo it takes a little bit more work but the principle is sound and, those of us who have done it, have shown it works and posted the results.

Re. wet manifold EFi vs carb I agree entirely with Jean's answer to Jimster, a carb can theoretically be better because it runs uniform fuel to air which EFi doesn't. Jean has given the basic reasons why EFi may be worse and I totally agree with what he says.

But in most cases the "inferior" wet manifold EFi should out-perform any carb because no RR operator will be able to file the needle, get the dashpot oil/spring right, or sort out all the small SU hoses right when the people are used to typing numbers into VE tables or AE tables and everything else available to those of us who use a laptop to set an engine up instead of a hand file on a small bit of brass.

But all they will get right is the AVERAGE AFR, not the inner/outer ratio.

I would really like to know how much the inners/outer AFRs differ on an EFi wet manifold setup where the injection timing can't be altered, compared to what myself, Paul, and I wont name the others who are not all on this forum, can do with the siamese code on the MS2.


I can't replicate wet manifold with my setup because even if I set the injection timing symettrical, I don't have much wall wetting (no corners on port injection) and my pulse widths are tiny (20% or less because they are aimed at the valve opennings) so I have minimal charge mixing between cylinders.

The wet manifold EFi may not be as bad as us "siamese port injection" people assume, but, will someone PLEASE provide the AFR data between cylinders on a wet manifold setup and put an end to all this animosity ... Without the data this arguement will continue with no benefit to anyone.

JK had the oppertunity a while ago but chose to use EGTs instead of AFRs on an engine dyno.

That was a real shame as EGTs mean nothing on a 5 port siamese head and most of us have no access to an engine dyno. EGTs are mostly used by the 8 cylinder fraternity.

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

I think the answer to this thread lies in the first post really. If I had an engine of that specification I would be wanting to get the very best power from it with the fueling bang on, and while other set ups have been proven to work if it were me I would be experimenting with the siamese code to know that things are as good as they can be.

That said, I will be cheating with my next move by adding a k head to my engine so maybe my opinion doesn't count!

Also, presumably as this is a competition engine, it might just give you the edge over the guy next to you.

Edited by minimole23 on 5th Sep, 2012.

What ever root I go down I will be doing back to back tests with wide bands in each of the exhast ports.

I souls be ver interested in goin down the port injection root, but I don't have the time or skills to map it myself, and there doesn't seem to be any Dyno or rolling road operators out there willing to map ms with port injection, hence the first question in this post. I assumed there was no one running port injection who didnt know a crazy amount of efi a series info.

I can see that people are very passionate about their work, and well done o them, by when questions are asked its not automatically an attack on you.

Team www.sheepspeed.com Racing

.

Bikes moved very late to efi because of emissions

that's the other (over?) option.

bike carbs are cheap, easy to tune and will correct low throttle and progression of big chokes webber's without any loss in power. Definitely worth it, then you have it all!

Dazed and Confused....

There is a very good reason for this. You can do fook all about improving any imbalance. so no-one is going to go to all the expense and hassle of doing it to prove a point for someone else.

We all know that there is uneven fuelling, but as an engineering decision we have accepted this compromise. Proving it either way won't change it.

Fastest 998 mini in the world? 13.05 1/4 mile 106mph

www.twin-turbo.co.uk

It won't change the fact but it could change your opinion about the compromise being an acceptable one. As long as no one looks into, it's more or less a blind decision.

http://www.jbperf.com/

Attachments:

1.75mb

Schrödinger's cat - so which one am I ???

A great article - and the MPi data posted here previously expanded a little bit more on the details the article left out - especially that the injection point (that the two pulses grow either side of) shifts wrt RPM - from approx 50 degrees ATDC at 1500, to approx 30 degrees BTDC at 4500 rpm...

It doesn't say it makes more power - all it does state is "Essentially improved fuel economy, throttle response, drivability and emmisions."

The MPi did make more torque, but also had a different camshaft profile of course.

As regards Wil's comments of no-one bothering with wet manifold O2 sensors, I wonder if the injection point was allowed to vary per the MPi, what improvements could be seen...

Alternativly, I wonder what improvements could be seen if the injection point was fixed, but expanded backwards (advancing) as the pulse-width grew, instead of the conventional method of retarding about the injection point...
Perhaps that is already what Emerald and SC are doing and why something that shouldn't work that well, does...

I see your point, and I suppose that it might actually make the decision correct. One day we'll know.

Fastest 998 mini in the world? 13.05 1/4 mile 106mph

www.twin-turbo.co.uk

http://www.jbperf.com/

I don't think rover cares LOL...
If someone like Emerald or SC tried doing it exactly per the Rover patent, and Rover gave a sh1t, then perhaps it's time to call the lawyers. But there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it if they are not profiting or gaining any kind of advantage in so doing.

But the fact that Rover probably doesn't care right now, means everyone is safe...

I'd imagine in the late 90's maybe they might have got a bit annoyed.

I'd be interested to see the complexity of the latest fuel injection systems for next generation engines to keep the tree huggers happy.

The Patent could have been transfered to Rovers owners. Rmember that BMW stripped Rover of everything that was good, and cast aside everything that wasn't. That patent might still stand in BMW's name.

TBH I couldn't give a fuck, I have 8 ports, but it brings us back to an idea that more than one person had, that just so happens to be similarly identical. So whom 'stole' from Whom? this is another heated debate by the way, if you are not already aware of it. "It's OK to copy someone elses idea for yourself, but when someone copies your idea, its wrong" sort of thing

in Germany a patent last for 20 years starting with the day after application. don't know if this is differend in UK. so it may have just run out.

Colin,

Please don't try to imply that I copied the Rover patent. The implementation is different and in no way derived from it.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/