MPS Tuning Analysis Options

[Not_A_Six]

EDIT: See post #17 for an update that contradicts some of the findings in this OP. See also post #29 for the final results.

I've recently gone down the rabbit hole of D-Jet and MPS tuning and wanted to post what I've learned in the hopes that it may help others. I also hope to start a discussion with some of the experts here in case I've missed something, or there are errors in my analysis.

Background:

With the increased displacement (2056cc) and non-stock cam (Webcam 73) in my engine, I was experiencing Air-Fuel Mixture (AFR) issues across the range of temperature, load, and rpm conditions.

This post concerns MPS tuning. At the moment, I'm also working on modifying component values inside the ECU to change the Volumetric Efficiency curve to better match the non-stock AFR vs RPM characteristics of my engine. If there is any interest in poking around that deep in the bowels of D-Jet, I'll start a thread when I finish. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Engine Configuration:

'73 2.0
Displacement: 2056cc
Cam: Webcam 73
ECU: Porsche nnn906021E (Bosch 280000037)
MPS: Porsche 022906051E (Bosch 0280100049) w/ Tangerine Racing tuning kit + spacer ring; tuned to emulate 0280100037
CHT: 0280130017 w/ 270-ohm ballast resistor and steel spacer
Vacuum Hoses routed per @JeffBowlsby (see link below)
Fuel Pressure: 35 psi (at the moment -- still tuning)
PCV: Modern PCV valve routed to plenum
Ignition: 123Ignition PORSCHE-4-R-V-IE, running profile "1" w/ Vac Advance
Timing: 27 degrees at 3500 rpm (w/o vacuum adv/ret)

Equipment used:
Generic handheld vacuum pump/gauge
misc hoses+fittings
AMPROBE LCR55A meter (on 20H scale)
Innovate Motorsports (3837) LM-2 (BASIC) Digital Air/Fuel Ratio Wideband Meter w/ Bosch LSU 4.9
Home-fabricated tailpipe "Stinger" w/ O2 Sensor Bung TIG welded on

Reference Info:
Vacuum Hose Routing
MPS Theory of Operation @pbanders
AFR vs Manifold Vacuum Issue @Demick


Analysis:



As you can see in the "Chart A" sketch above, the MPS Inner Screw (in isolation), Outer Screw+Inner Screw (together), and Stop Plug Screw can be used to tune the MPS's affect on the AFR (via its effect on the Fuel Injection pulse width) vs Manifold Vacuum. As shown, the Inner Screw affects the mixture over the whole vacuum range; the Inner+Outer Screw controls the onset pressure P' where the diaphragm begins to lift off the part-load stop; the Stop Plug Screw controls the final pressure P'' where the diaphragm comes to rest on the full-load stop. On this chart, "up" corresponds to a longer FI pulse; "down" to a shorter FI pulse. For details, see pbanders's excellent link, above.

I had previously thought that the effect of the Inner Screw was similar to that of changing the fuel pressure via the fuel pressure regulator. Namely:

Inner Screw CCW = Increase Fuel Pressure => Richer AFR across entire vacuum range
Inner Screw CW = Decrease Fuel Pressure => Leaner AFR across entire vacuum range

There appeared to be no way to change the slope of the MPS Response curve in the region from 15 In-Hg to P'. And, I was experiencing the same problem that Demick posted about years ago in the thread linked above. Namely, the AFR would become too lean under moderate-load conditions across all RPM's, like this (from Demick's post):

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-2-1096387565.jpg)

To fix the lean condition around 6-8 In-Hg, it's really necessary to change the slope of the MPS response curve, not just raise or lower the whole curve.

However, there appears to be hope. It seems that the MPS inductance is not simply linear WRT manifold pressure in the 15 In-Hg to P' region. I speculate that this may be due to non-linearity in the MPS Inductance across its range of movement and/or the effect of the MPS spring. The result is that the curve seems to look more like the "Chart B" sketch above. And, the effect of turning the MPS inner screw isn't really raising or lower the entire curve, but rather shifting the Chart B curve left/right. (Chart B is a really rough sketch, and may even have the convexity backwards. For a more quantitative look, see below.)

I measured the inductance of my MPS at two different inner-screw settings: The red curve is the MPS tuned to pbanders's values corrected for 700 Torr ambient pressure. The blue curve represents an attempt to richen the AFR by turning the inner screw CCW.



As you can see, the slope of the red curve is steeper than the blue curve in this region. Apparently, turning the inner screw CCW has the effect of reducing the slope by raising the right end, rather than raising the whole curve.

I'm surprised that the curves cross around 7 In-Hg and that the blue curve value is less than the red curve value at the left side of the chart. This may be due to the effect of the part-load stop coming into play near P', measurement error, or something else. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

The salient point, however, is that adjusting the inner screw affects the slope of the curve, whereas presumably adjusting the fuel pressure does not.

The opens the possibility of tuning the AFR vs Manifold pressure curve by trading off fuel pressure vs inner screw position:

Increase Fuel Pressure + Turn Inner Screw CW => Enrich 6-8 In-Hg region
Decrease Fuel Pressure + Turn Inner Screw CCW = Lean out 6-8 In-Hg region

I experienced the same problem that Demick did (too lean at 6-8 In-Hg across all RPM), and have largely solved the problem by adjusting the fuel pressure up (to 35 psi currently), then tuning the MPS to set the AFR across the entire range of manifold vacuum levels.

I hope this is helpful to somebody. Comments are welcome. If I've made any errors, please feel free to beat me over the head. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/splat.gif)

Cheers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Olympic 914]

The engine configuration I am running basically mirrors Jake Rabys 2056-120 motor

2056 D-jet (of course)
KB pistons 8.6-1 comp
Raby 9590 cam
Ham RS+ heads 42x36 valves (I think)
037 ECU (stock for the ’73)
043 MPS w/stock spacer – rebuilt with tangerine kit. Initial settings to 037 MPS and adjusted from there.
No Ballast resistor
SS HE’s and a Triad muffler,
Auto Meter Wideband AFR. The 02 sensor is in the muffler
Dakota Digital CHT and oil temp
My altitude is 1000 ft. so 760/733 = 1.0368 sea level correction

Tested with a Amprobe LCR55a and a Mityvac vacuum pump.

Now my MPS settings are much richer than the OP’s and Robs, I am NOT running a ballast resistor.
Robs set-up with the 043/044 ECU doesn’t require one and “Not a Six” has one installed. As I understand this resistor (and any resistor under 300 Ohms) richens the mixture but only during the warm-up phase.
The fuel pressure is around 30, not as high as the OP’s. But I will have to check and report exactly what it is since it is an important component.

Recently my MPS developed a leak and I have ordered a new diaphragm kit from Chris.

I ran this MPS (let’s call it “B”) for three years and about 8K miles. I felt it was a little lean, during a steady highway cruise I would see 13.8 – 14.7 AFR
Settings were

0 – 1.51
4 -- 1.34
15 - 0.85

Corrected to sea level

0 -- 1.56
4 -- 1.39
15 - 0.86

So these settings SEEM that they would be way to rich but were not.



I then installed one of my spare MPS units (“C”) and it did come up as too rich across the range.
Settings on “C” were

0 -- 1.51
4 -- 1.38
15 - 0.86

Corrected

0 -- 1.56
4 -- 1.43
15 - 0 89

So I retuned my third MPS “A” and installed it. Unfortunately at this time my Wide band AFR quit so I don’t have any real numbers for it. But it does FEEL better.
Settings on MPS “A” are

0 -- 1.50
4 -- 1.35
15 - 0.83

Corrected

0 -- 1.55
4 -- 1.40
15 - 0.86


When I set the full load stop on the first MPS “B” and Later on “A” it was adjusted it at 4 points from the fully released position. Possibly this contributed to the diaphragm failure of unit “B”.
I may have to look at adjusting it further in.
Also again I will have to check the fuel pressure.

[Not_A_Six]

The engine configuration I am running basically mirrors Jake Rabys 2056-120 motor

2056 D-jet (of course)
KB pistons 8.6-1 comp
Raby 9590 cam
Ham RS+ heads 42x36 valves (I think)
037 ECU (stock for the ’73)
043 MPS w/stock spacer – rebuilt with tangerine kit. Initial settings to 037 MPS and adjusted from there.
No Ballast resistor
SS HE’s and a Triad muffler,
Auto Meter Wideband AFR. The 02 sensor is in the muffler
Dakota Digital CHT and oil temp
My altitude is 1000 ft. so 760/733 = 1.0368 sea level correction

Tested with a Amprobe LCR55a and a Mityvac vacuum pump.

Now my MPS settings are much richer than the OP’s and Robs, I am NOT running a ballast resistor.
Robs set-up with the 043/044 ECU doesn’t require one and “Not a Six” has one installed. As I understand this resistor (and any resistor under 300 Ohms) richens the mixture but only during the warm-up phase.
The fuel pressure is around 30, not as high as the OP’s. But I will have to check and report exactly what it is since it is an important component.

Recently my MPS developed a leak and I have ordered a new diaphragm kit from Chris.

I ran this MPS (let’s call it “B”) for three years and about 8K miles. I felt it was a little lean, during a steady highway cruise I would see 13.8 – 14.7 AFR
Settings were

0 – 1.51
4 -- 1.34
15 - 0.85

Corrected to sea level

0 -- 1.56
4 -- 1.39
15 - 0.86

So these settings SEEM that they would be way to rich but were not.



I then installed one of my spare MPS units (“C”) and it did come up as too rich across the range.
Settings on “C” were

0 -- 1.51
4 -- 1.38
15 - 0.86

Corrected

0 -- 1.56
4 -- 1.43
15 - 0 89

So I retuned my third MPS “A” and installed it. Unfortunately at this time my Wide band AFR quit so I don’t have any real numbers for it. But it does FEEL better.
Settings on MPS “A” are

0 -- 1.50
4 -- 1.35
15 - 0.83

Corrected

0 -- 1.55
4 -- 1.40
15 - 0.86


When I set the full load stop on the first MPS “B” and Later on “A” it was adjusted it at 4 points from the fully released position. Possibly this contributed to the diaphragm failure of unit “B”.
I may have to look at adjusting it further in.
Also again I will have to check the fuel pressure.

Good data. Thanks.

It's amazing how small differences in the MPS Inductance readings affect the overall AFR and driveability. I think part of that reason is that the 4 In-Hg reading in particular is super sensitive. With the 4 In-Hg inductance, you're really trying to determine (or set) the pressure P' where the diaphragm begins to lift off the part-load stop. But, that 4 In-Hg measurement is a very indirect way of finding P'.

I currently have my fuel pressure at 35 psi. But after taking more data today (see post #17), I'm planning to try the other extreme (29 psi) and re-tune the MPS as an experiment.

The choice of CHT sensor and ballast resistor affects the warmup characteristics. As you probably know, the '73 2.0 was an odd case where Porsche apparently tried to adapt the older ECU designed for the smaller engine to work with the bigger displacement. Hence the odd MPS and ballast resistor for the '73 2.0. It looks like they finally got it sorted out in '74. Then all hell broke loose in '75 with emissions stuff.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Olympic 914]

The choice of CHT sensor and ballast resistor affects the warmup characteristics. As you probably know, the '73 2.0 was an odd case where Porsche apparently tried to adapt the older ECU designed for the smaller engine to work with the bigger displacement. Hence the odd MPS and ballast resistor for the '73 2.0. It looks like they finally got it sorted out in '74. Then all hell broke loose in '75 with emissions stuff.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

Yes on the '73 2.0 they used the same 037 ECU as on the 1.7 tuned the 037 MPS just for that engine and put a different CHT in.

The CHT used for the 2.0 is a 017 and is NLA the cold ohms for that was somewhere around 1600 whereas the 012 CHT used on the 1.7 had ~3200 Ohms resistance.

what may work, (and this is what I did on my 73 2.0 system with the 012 cht) is to add another resistor in parallel and connected to ground. I used a 2500 ohm. When cold this cuts the total resistance down to around 1200, and when it warms up and the CHT resistance goes to around 0, the extra parallel resistor had no effect any longer. Now if in your case the ECU does need to see the extra 270 Ohms of the original ballast resistor you could put it in series between the harness wire and the split of the CHT and the 2500 ohm in parallel.

Hope thats clear....



I also rigged up a 500 Ohm variable Pot to assist in tuning the warm up.

[Not_A_Six]

The choice of CHT sensor and ballast resistor affects the warmup characteristics. As you probably know, the '73 2.0 was an odd case where Porsche apparently tried to adapt the older ECU designed for the smaller engine to work with the bigger displacement. Hence the odd MPS and ballast resistor for the '73 2.0. It looks like they finally got it sorted out in '74. Then all hell broke loose in '75 with emissions stuff.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

Yes on the '73 2.0 they used the same 037 ECU as on the 1.7 tuned the 037 MPS just for that engine and put a different CHT in.

The CHT used for the 2.0 is a 017 and is NLA the cold ohms for that was somewhere around 1600 whereas the 012 CHT used on the 1.7 had ~3200 Ohms resistance.

what may work, (and this is what I did on my 73 2.0 system with the 012 cht) is to add another resistor in parallel and connected to ground. I used a 2500 ohm. When cold this cuts the total resistance down to around 1200, and when it warms up and the CHT resistance goes to around 0, the extra parallel resistor had no effect any longer. Now if in your case the ECU does need to see the extra 270 Ohms of the original ballast resistor you could put it in series between the harness wire and the split of the CHT and the 2500 ohm in parallel.

Hope thats clear....



I also rigged up a 500 Ohm variable Pot to assist in tuning the warm up.

I went down the road of rigging a parallel resistor with a 0280130003 CHT sensor. But, then I managed to find one of the last 0280130017 parts, and have that in the car at the moment.

If/when that -017 CHT finally dies, I think I'll end up with a setup just like yours.

I'm thinking about adding a warmup pot, too. But, I want to keep the cabin looking stock and haven't found a good place to mount it yet. I might pull off the heater light gizmo from the center console and put a pot there instead...