Home  |  Forums  |  914 Info  |  Blogs
 
914World.com - The fastest growing online 914 community!
 
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.
 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

> looking for information on d-jet 2056 conversion, calling all M.P.S. guys * need info.**
orange914
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Bleyseng
post Jan 17 2008, 10:14 PM
Post #2


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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
orange914
post Jan 17 2008, 11:32 PM
Post #3


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



QUOTE(Bleyseng @ Jan 17 2008, 08:14 PM) *

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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Bleyseng
post Jan 18 2008, 12:16 AM
Post #4


Aircooled Baby!
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,035
Joined: 27-December 02
From: Seattle, Washington (for now)
Member No.: 24
Region Association: Pacific Northwest



QUOTE(orange914 @ Jan 17 2008, 09:32 PM) *

QUOTE(Bleyseng @ Jan 17 2008, 08:14 PM) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



- Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 1st June 2024 - 08:49 AM