looking for information on d-jet 2056 conversion, calling all M.P.S. guys * need info.** |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
looking for information on d-jet 2056 conversion, calling all M.P.S. guys * need info.** |
orange914 |
Jan 17 2008, 08:31 PM
Post
#1
|
http://5starmediaworks.com/index.html Group: Members Posts: 3,371 Joined: 26-March 05 From: Ceres, California Member No.: 3,818 Region Association: Northern California |
i am setting up my d-jet to operate the new 2056, it origanally was 1.7. i need some experianced input on running either a "modified perameter" 1.7 or 2.0 m.p.s. which of these 2 combo.s would work the best?:
1) a modified 1.7 (max. re-calibrated setting for 2.0) with increased fuel press. (note) higher fuel pressure increases atomazation so this combo may have benifit over #2? PROS: i could re-calibrate/use my good 1.7 M.P.S., CONS: have to adjust a/f with increased fuel press. at regulator and set on a/f scope 2) a modified 2.0 (able to set to 2056 fuel requirements) PROS:? keep stock fuel pressure CONS: have to locate/buy or trade a good 2.0 m.p.s. for re-calibrate answers to the below questions will be helpful in desiding how to go i'm trying to understand if the m.p.s. operation, does it have a profound (dont know if thats exactly the word i'm looking for) effect on the e.c.m.'s output for the full range of f.i. operation? would programing a 1.7 to 2.0 a/f settings + raised fuel injection press. do the same (or better?) than a reprogrammed 2.0 m.p.s. set to 2056 a/f calibration? when you re-program the m.p.s. what data exactly does it input to the computor? manifold pressure and?? is it very basic data or does it relay more complex values and ranges? if i go route #2 DOES ANYONE HAVE A 2.0 M.P.S. 4 SALE OR PARTS SWAP? thanks, mike EDIT NOTE: new info. from p.m. so it's basic duty is the same as a modern map sensor. if i adjusted fuel pressure higher it could find the balance a/f ratio by 1) increased pulse width (max. setting,) plus- 2) incress fuel pressure to fine tune a/f ratio across the board since m.p.s. is handling the three parameters. |
JeffBowlsby |
Jan 17 2008, 09:18 PM
Post
#2
|
914 Wiring Harnesses Group: Members Posts: 8,533 Joined: 7-January 03 From: San Ramon CA Member No.: 104 Region Association: None |
You should probably review Brad Anders webpage Mike...
http://members.rennlist.com/pbanders/manif...sure_sensor.htm |
r_towle |
Jan 17 2008, 09:20 PM
Post
#3
|
Custom Member Group: Members Posts: 24,588 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Taxachusetts Member No.: 124 Region Association: North East States |
Use the 2.0 liter ECU and re-calibrate any MPS, 1.7 or 2.0 that you know is good.
Geoff in Seattle offers this service and he also has a 2056, so he will know exactly how to tune it, and will probably run it on his personal car with a A/F meter to set it up. Rich |
DanT |
Jan 17 2008, 09:23 PM
Post
#4
|
Going back to the Dark Side! Group: Members Posts: 4,300 Joined: 4-October 04 From: Auburn, CA Member No.: 2,880 Region Association: None |
Use the 2.0 liter ECU and re-calibrate any MPS, 1.7 or 2.0 that you know is good. Geoff in Seattle offers this service and he also has a 2056, so he will know exactly how to tune it, and will probably run it on his personal car with a A/F meter to set it up. Rich Screen Name Blyseng....he did mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) |
orange914 |
Jan 17 2008, 09:28 PM
Post
#5
|
http://5starmediaworks.com/index.html Group: Members Posts: 3,371 Joined: 26-March 05 From: Ceres, California Member No.: 3,818 Region Association: Northern California |
Use the 2.0 liter ECU and re-calibrate any MPS, 1.7 or 2.0 that you know is good. Geoff in Seattle offers this service and he also has a 2056, so he will know exactly how to tune it, and will probably run it on his personal car with a A/F meter to set it up. Rich according to the d-jet info my 73's ecu was used for both 1.7 and 2.0 (different m.p.s., cht with resister)so i think i'm good there do you know if geoff has been able to set a 1.7 to meet 2056 requirements? from what i know they wont adjust enough where a 2.0 (039) will. am i wrong? have others sucessfully done a 2056 off of a 1.7 m.p.s.? mike |
r_towle |
Jan 17 2008, 09:32 PM
Post
#6
|
Custom Member Group: Members Posts: 24,588 Joined: 9-January 03 From: Taxachusetts Member No.: 124 Region Association: North East States |
ASK GEOFF
|
orange914 |
Jan 17 2008, 09:34 PM
Post
#7
|
http://5starmediaworks.com/index.html Group: Members Posts: 3,371 Joined: 26-March 05 From: Ceres, California Member No.: 3,818 Region Association: Northern California |
Use the 2.0 liter ECU and re-calibrate any MPS, 1.7 or 2.0 that you know is good. Geoff in Seattle offers this service and he also has a 2056, so he will know exactly how to tune it, and will probably run it on his personal car with a A/F meter to set it up. Rich Screen Name Blyseng....he did mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) dan, which m.p.s. did you have set? what other items did you have to deal with? did you scope acual a/f through the ranges? mike |
orange914 |
Jan 17 2008, 09:36 PM
Post
#8
|
http://5starmediaworks.com/index.html Group: Members Posts: 3,371 Joined: 26-March 05 From: Ceres, California Member No.: 3,818 Region Association: Northern California |
|
DanT |
Jan 17 2008, 10:08 PM
Post
#9
|
Going back to the Dark Side! Group: Members Posts: 4,300 Joined: 4-October 04 From: Auburn, CA Member No.: 2,880 Region Association: None |
Use the 2.0 liter ECU and re-calibrate any MPS, 1.7 or 2.0 that you know is good. Geoff in Seattle offers this service and he also has a 2056, so he will know exactly how to tune it, and will probably run it on his personal car with a A/F meter to set it up. Rich Screen Name Blyseng....he did mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) dan, which m.p.s. did you have set? what other items did you have to deal with? did you scope acual a/f through the ranges? mike sent my original '74 2.0L mps to Geoff, he takes it apart, cleans things up a bit and then sets some stuff internally...static...then puts it on his car and makes the final adjustments....at least I believe that is the sequence. after I got it back put it on the motor and she started right up and has run without a glitch ever since. that was last April. ~10 AXs and 3 track days at Laguna. not one hiccup. Drove the car to several of the AXs at Candlestick and Marina... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Plus I drive it in town ~1x per week...weather permitting...no heater. |
Bleyseng |
Jan 17 2008, 10:14 PM
Post
#10
|
Aircooled Baby! Group: Members Posts: 13,035 Joined: 27-December 02 From: Seattle, Washington (for now) Member No.: 24 Region Association: Pacific Northwest |
Using a 73 1.7/2.0 ECU causes some problems tuning but I can do it IF I have the proper MPS with enough range to "tune" with. I actually like early 1.7 ones with a late style cover. These have the most range so I can get the AFR right from idle to WOT. Most MPS's can't get enough richness at WOT if you are running a 2056 w/a RAby 9550cam.
Look at the MPS pic in my Blog to see the cover insides.... The best MPS for a 2056 Raby Cam engine with a 73 ECU is of course the 037. Lots of range to tune with.... I have tested the idea of tuning with the FPR and you can tune it about .5 of richness meaning if you AFR is 14 to 1 you can tune to 13.5 to 1 upping the pressure to 36psi. You must use a LM meter to tune or you are wasting your time...especially on the MPS as very small turns of the inner screw can result in changes of 1 point. If you have a good diaphram I can make a MPS for a 2056. I just have very few good diaphrams left and I don't use those rebuilts available now. |
orange914 |
Jan 17 2008, 11:32 PM
Post
#11
|
http://5starmediaworks.com/index.html Group: Members Posts: 3,371 Joined: 26-March 05 From: Ceres, California Member No.: 3,818 Region Association: Northern California |
I actually like early 1.7 ones with a late style cover. Look at the MPS pic in my Blog to see the cover insides.... The best MPS for a 2056 Raby Cam engine with a 73 ECU is of course the 037. I have tested the idea of tuning with the FPR and you can tune it about .5 of richness You must use a LM meter to tune or you are wasting your time... i have the 73 ecu, i also have a 72 1.7 ecu in unknown condition (probably is useless here anyway). yes 2056/ raby 9550 cam. do you know of a 037 m.p.s. for sale or trade? i have a 72 m.p.s. also i'll research your blog, do you mean you use late 2.0 style covers with early? if it doesnt quit make 13.5:1, whats the worst you've experianced getting a 1.7 m.p.s. a/f ratio up to? (i.e. 15:1, 16:1?) have you experimented with higher f.p.? any benifit from better atomazation? thanks for all the info., mike |
Bleyseng |
Jan 18 2008, 12:16 AM
Post
#12
|
Aircooled Baby! Group: Members Posts: 13,035 Joined: 27-December 02 From: Seattle, Washington (for now) Member No.: 24 Region Association: Pacific Northwest |
I actually like early 1.7 ones with a late style cover. Look at the MPS pic in my Blog to see the cover insides.... The best MPS for a 2056 Raby Cam engine with a 73 ECU is of course the 037. I have tested the idea of tuning with the FPR and you can tune it about .5 of richness You must use a LM meter to tune or you are wasting your time... i have the 73 ecu, i also have a 72 1.7 ecu in unknown condition (probably is useless here anyway). yes 2056/ raby 9550 cam. do you know of a 037 m.p.s. for sale or trade? i have a 72 m.p.s. also i'll research your blog, do you mean you use late 2.0 style covers with early? if it doesnt quit make 13.5:1, whats the worst you've experianced getting a 1.7 m.p.s. a/f ratio up to? (i.e. 15:1, 16:1?) have you experimented with higher f.p.? any benifit from better atomazation? thanks for all the info., mike I haven't been able to make a 1.7L MPS work or adjust to work on a 2056 w/9550 cam. It did run at about 16 to1 way too lean and bucked when I drove with it. Max FP with these early 2.0L injectors is 36psi as the weak springs then cause them to shoot a stream instead of a cone spray...not too good for atomization. |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th June 2024 - 09:28 AM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |