Gauging interest for PnP Megasquirt solution, MS anyone? Options

[underthetire]

The biggest PIA that I had with the MS2 install, was getting the new TPS on the old throttle body. It was difficult to get it sealed and orientated the correct way, with the shaft adapter and all. The 1.7 and 2.0 location is different as well, so that would need to be considered.

The TPS i used on my car had the same throttle shaft shape/size, i just used an old djet TPS as an adapter plate to attach it, i will have to find the part#. HOWEVER I think the aftermarket TPS will only be an option with any system i produce in order to keep a more stock appearance and easier install. Accel enrichment will use MAPdot rather then TPSdot.

That would work, but I think you could get a small GM style or whatever one under the stock TPS cover and just use 3 of the 4 pins on the connector. I find the MS a little more "snappy" using the TPS set up.

[JamesM]

PNP really doesn't exist...
Too many variables in operating conditions, fuel grade and fuel specifics and even differences in stock engines.

Tuning and fiddling will always be necessary.

I will agree with Jake, I am trying to install MS1 on a 1.7 ltr test engine. Tuning
and fiddling with it all the time I just can't get MS to hold a tune for me the VE
tables and timing tables have to be changed ever time I run the engine.

That is strange, I have not had that issue with my cars. could you give me more details on your setup?

I had a similar problem at first. Was the Baro set up in my case. Too much change day to day until I narrowed it down. High impedance injectors will also cause this till the transistors fail.

What code variant are you running? You should be getting baro correction on startup.

[JamesM]

The biggest PIA that I had with the MS2 install, was getting the new TPS on the old throttle body. It was difficult to get it sealed and orientated the correct way, with the shaft adapter and all. The 1.7 and 2.0 location is different as well, so that would need to be considered.

The TPS i used on my car had the same throttle shaft shape/size, i just used an old djet TPS as an adapter plate to attach it, i will have to find the part#. HOWEVER I think the aftermarket TPS will only be an option with any system i produce in order to keep a more stock appearance and easier install. Accel enrichment will use MAPdot rather then TPSdot.

That would work, but I think you could get a small GM style or whatever one under the stock TPS cover and just use 3 of the 4 pins on the connector. I find the MS a little more "snappy" using the TPS set up.

I used a bosch part, I could probably have fit it under the TPS cover but was not to worried about it at the time. This was wired through the stock harness as well. Honestly, the difference i have felt from running accel enrichment and NO enrichment on these cars has been minor. I was not able to tell a difference between TPSdot and MAPdot in terms of feel.

I do however really like having a TPS in the datalogs.

[Mark Henry]

My SDS TPS install
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-2-1065029624.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-2-1065029742.jpg)

[JamesM]

My SDS TPS install
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-2-1065029624.jpg)
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-2-1065029742.jpg)

That is very similar to how i set mine up, though i kept the stock d-jet connector on the adaptor plate in order to plug directly into the stock harness. Not exactly the easiest thing to produce. Still exploring options as far as the TPS goes.

[underthetire]

PNP really doesn't exist...
Too many variables in operating conditions, fuel grade and fuel specifics and even differences in stock engines.

Tuning and fiddling will always be necessary.

I will agree with Jake, I am trying to install MS1 on a 1.7 ltr test engine. Tuning
and fiddling with it all the time I just can't get MS to hold a tune for me the VE
tables and timing tables have to be changed ever time I run the engine.

That is strange, I have not had that issue with my cars. could you give me more details on your setup?

I had a similar problem at first. Was the Baro set up in my case. Too much change day to day until I narrowed it down. High impedance injectors will also cause this till the transistors fail.

What code variant are you running? You should be getting baro correction on startup.

2.88, and yes i do, it was just set for too much change. Knocked the amount down and it seems ok now, but don't know for sure. I notice the accel with the TPS, not major at all, but just seems snappier. I run a mix of accel between map and TPS, about 70% tps.

[zx-niner]

I see I'm still the only one voting in the "cost is no object" category. Let me clarify.

I am assuming this would be a full bolt-on replacement of carbs. With new carbs running, what, $750? it would be worth at least $1,000 maybe $1,500 to have a fully tuneable FI to accomodate my Raby engine. With Jake's alternative FI adding $4k to an already healthy investment I wasn't quite ready to make that leap when I got the engine. Maybe at the required 60,000 mile refreshening in 5 years.

But if a fully functioning, programmable option were available soon . . . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage. Unless McMark can work his magic on the carbs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

[904svo]

PNP really doesn't exist...
Too many variables in operating conditions, fuel grade and fuel specifics and even differences in stock engines.

Tuning and fiddling will always be necessary.

I will agree with Jake, I am trying to install MS1 on a 1.7 ltr test engine. Tuning
and fiddling with it all the time I just can't get MS to hold a tune for me the VE
tables and timing tables have to be changed ever time I run the engine.

That is strange, I have not had that issue with my cars. could you give me more details on your setup?

I,m running MS1 extra with wasted spark (VW Coil packs), Honda 900CBR throttle body's, 36-1 tooth wheel , added extra map sensor for barometer correction and O2 sensor.Here a picture of my setup.

[JamesM]

I see I'm still the only one voting in the "cost is no object" category. Let me clarify.

I am assuming this would be a full bolt-on replacement of carbs. With new carbs running, what, $750? it would be worth at least $1,000 maybe $1,500 to have a fully tuneable FI to accomodate my Raby engine. With Jake's alternative FI adding $4k to an already healthy investment I wasn't quite ready to make that leap when I got the engine. Maybe at the required 60,000 mile refreshening in 5 years.

But if a fully functioning, programmable option were available soon . . . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage. Unless McMark can work his magic on the carbs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

50 degrees? ouch, that is really not very cold at all to be having issues.

As i said earlier my initial idea was just as a d-jet upgrade and converting back from carbs is a bit more work. It is do able for sure though, and if money is not the issue, getting everything you need for well under 1000 bucks using the d-jet intake parts should not be a problem, just more work.

What size Raby motor are you running? What bolt pattern on your heads? My only concern with higher power motors is that i dont have any data as to how much the stock d-jet intakes can flow, or if it would choke the power of your motor. It is something i would like to find out though. Perhaps Jake has done testing along these lines? I am planning a 2056 at the moment for testing but that is going to be a little ways off.

Another issue you might come across with a Raby motor is the likely hood of Jake supporting this setup being rather low. I may be wrong, but i believe he had a bad experience in the past. I would love to work with him on it to get his support as i see a lot of potential for this type of setup but as he already has an FI setup that he endorses I am not sure what he interest in that would be, again i am guessing probably low.


I would definitely be down to figure something out for you though.

[rsrguy3]

I can speak to what james has elluded to as I had to scrounge all the vintage injection parts, a pain but it's great! It works, and uses the origional harness (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[JamesM]

PNP really doesn't exist...
Too many variables in operating conditions, fuel grade and fuel specifics and even differences in stock engines.

Tuning and fiddling will always be necessary.

I will agree with Jake, I am trying to install MS1 on a 1.7 ltr test engine. Tuning
and fiddling with it all the time I just can't get MS to hold a tune for me the VE
tables and timing tables have to be changed ever time I run the engine.

That is strange, I have not had that issue with my cars. could you give me more details on your setup?

I,m running MS1 extra with wasted spark (VW Coil packs), Honda 900CBR throttle body's, 36-1 tooth wheel , added extra map sensor for barometer correction and O2 sensor.Here a picture of my setup.

That is a pretty intense looking setup you have there. What do you mean by changed every time you run your engine? is the MS just not holding the data or is your engine wanting different values every time you run it?
Having to change your timing around every time you start the motor is pretty scary. I have not run a 36-1 wheel so i am not familiar with the settings involved with it but i would go over them again very carefully.

Changing the timing is going to affect what fuel the motor wants so the two issues could be related... or not. I have heard of people having a hard time tuning ITB setups using speed density due to the vacuum characteristics, so that could be an issue as well. Where are you pulling your MAP signal from? Where is your IAT sensor located? You have a lot of variables there that makes troubleshooting a bit more complicated. This is one of the reason i try to keep it as simple as possible,

If you could, i would go back to a stock dizzy setup just to make sure you can get it to fuel correctly with the intake setup you have. Hopefully narrow down where your problem is coming from.

[Thoward914]

Some thing like this would be right up my alley. I have a stock 2.0L with the stock FI system. I would be looking for a system that needs mininal modifications, other than replacing antiquated hard to find parts.

[Mark Henry]

I see I'm still the only one voting in the "cost is no object" category. Let me clarify.

I am assuming this would be a full bolt-on replacement of carbs. With new carbs running, what, $750? it would be worth at least $1,000 maybe $1,500 to have a fully tuneable FI to accomodate my Raby engine. With Jake's alternative FI adding $4k to an already healthy investment I wasn't quite ready to make that leap when I got the engine. Maybe at the required 60,000 mile refreshening in 5 years.

But if a fully functioning, programmable option were available soon . . . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage. Unless McMark can work his magic on the carbs (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

You have something wrong there....I have webers on the bus and although they may sneeze a few times they start flawlessly down to 0*F and a bit below that. No chokes, 2 pumps of gas and it fires right up. Hold it a little fast on idle for about 30sec and you're golden.
My mileage isn't great, but it's acceptable and I'm pushing a heavy bus.

[ChrisFoley]

. . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage.

I have more trouble starrting the SDS injected cars in my shop during cold weather than I do my own carbed cars. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
They don't have a high idle circuit for initial warmup, the cold start enrichment isn't enough by itself, and the stock type head temp sensor (thermistor) isn't accurate enough at low temps too provide the computer with good information.

[Mark Henry]

. . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage.

I have more trouble starrting the SDS injected cars in my shop during cold weather than I do my own carbed cars. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
They don't have a high idle circuit for initial warmup, the cold start enrichment isn't enough by itself, and the stock type head temp sensor (thermistor) isn't accurate enough at low temps too provide the computer with good information.

They probably didn't have the $100 fast idle option, I don't either but to me it's never been any worse than starting my weber carbed bus.

[JeffBowlsby]

As far as MS being experimental, I consider it experimental only due to the fact that you can experiment with it

Let me get this straight. I know you have the most noble intentions and I respect you for that. So on the original 35+ year old harness you plan to zip tie a couple extra wires - outside of the protective casing - here and there to provided extra needed circuitry? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

You are genuinely proposing to build and take to market and expect people to pay good money for a standardized PnP FI system (that is supposed to last for how long?), based on an experimental ECU with no warranty, that is not suitable for an engine bay open to the weather, mounting it in the open engine bay (in a gutted D-Jet case) using a kluged-up original harness with brittle wires, broken casing and corroded connections, and it is supposed to work on multiple variants of used engines with 0-1,000,000 miles? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

SDS is not experimental and even it has its issues.

You should also look for posts by Jeff Keyzer/McMark on their MS project, Dave up in Oregon on why he had to rebuild his Jake motor a couple times at huge expense and inconenience to not only himself but aslo to Jake and Len, all ultimately attributed to MS issues, and know that Jake does not allow MS on his engines to get a better feel for the cautions of MS.

With all due respect, all I can say is to be sure you transfer all your assets to into your wifes name and may god have mercy on your soul before you jump into this.

[JamesM]

As far as MS being experimental, I consider it experimental only due to the fact that you can experiment with it

Let me get this straight. I know you have the most noble intentions and I respect you for that. So on the original 35+ year old harness you plan to zip tie a couple extra wires - outside of the protective casing - here and there to provided extra needed circuitry? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

You are genuinely proposing to build and take to market and expect people to pay good money for a standardized PnP FI system (that is supposed to last for how long?), based on an experimental ECU with no warranty, that is not suitable for an engine bay open to the weather, mounting it in the open engine bay (in a gutted D-Jet case) using a kluged-up original harness with brittle wires, broken casing and corroded connections, and it is supposed to work on multiple variants of used engines with 0-1,000,000 miles? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/lol-2.gif)

SDS is not experimental and even it has its issues.

You should also look for posts by Jeff Keyzer/McMark on their MS project, Dave up in Oregon on why he had to rebuild his Jake motor a couple times at huge expense and inconenience to not only himself but aslo to Jake and Len, all ultimately attributed to MS issues, and know that Jake does not allow MS on his engines to get a better feel for the cautions of MS.

With all due respect, all I can say is to be sure you transfer all your assets to into your wifes name and may god have mercy on your soul before you jump into this.

Not plan to, I have already done it. All i can really say to that is I have been running mine for over 3 years, winning my autox class with it despite not being that great a driver, and have yet to replace my engine despite my best efforts to destroy it. Maybe i am just lucky?
I understand that some people have attempted to use megasquirt and failed, sometimes horribly, but then there are hundreds and hundreds of people that it worked just fine for. My goal is to simplify the process. whether i do that by pre building kits for people, or by just documenting step by step EXACTLY what they need to do to get it to work right is still up in the air. The fact of the matter is these cars are getting old, new parts are NLA and i dont think there is a single one of us that wants to give up driving them. As far as i am concerned carbs were never an option for me, a 4K aftermarket system that still comes with its own issues will most likely never be an option for me as well. MS was affordable, it retained a stock appearance for me, and it has already lasted through three autox seasons as well. Even if it died on me tomorrow for what it cost, i would say i have already got my moneys worth out of it...but its still running. The most likely failure i foresee is a burned out injector driver, and even that is a $5-$10 fix. I could replace my entire system if I had to 10X over and still be coming out ahead cost wise.

Yes, 30 year old harnesses could be an issue, but no more of an issue then they would be on a d-jet car. That is one of the reasons i stopped running a 30 year old harness even when I was running d-jet, and i am assuming the reason you build new harnesses. Lets look at what the MS is doing with the harness vs the d-jet setup. MS uses 2 temp sensors, in my setup these are the stock d-jet IAT and CHT sensors, these are just resistance measurements over a single line, same as d-jet, though MS in my experience is a lot less tempermental with these sensors. The other thing MS does is pass current to control the injectors, same as d-jet, i am even using the existing resistors in the d-jet ecu, the only difference is the ground wires are brought back to the ecu rather then the engine case. 2 sensors, 2 injectors banks, 3 more wires if you want to use a TPS and thats it. I am not seeing where there is an increased potential for problems over d-jet on the same harness. If anything i would say MS is a simpler system with less potential for problems over the same harness, d-jet has a lot more going on that depends on a good harness.

Your concern is duly noted though, and i would rather not get into a liability situation. However i would like to give people an option to keep their cars fuel injected for less then a 4k solution. Suppose i should look into a legal waiver of some sort if i decide to go through with this.

[underthetire]

. . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage.

I have more trouble starrting the SDS injected cars in my shop during cold weather than I do my own carbed cars. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
They don't have a high idle circuit for initial warmup, the cold start enrichment isn't enough by itself, and the stock type head temp sensor (thermistor) isn't accurate enough at low temps too provide the computer with good information.

I found with the MS,the stock sensor was actually better at low temps then high temps. My MS fires right up at any temp i've tried it. I do have to keep my foot in it a little for the first 30 seconds or so before it will idle on its own. I have the idle controlled throttle body for it, just haven't put it on yet. First tunning, cold start was a little PIA, but once it's figured out it works very well. Cold start timing advance will help a little if your running ignition off the MS, but i am not right now.

[JamesM]

. . I'm already tired of hard starts at 50 degrees and lousy mileage.

I have more trouble starrting the SDS injected cars in my shop during cold weather than I do my own carbed cars. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)
They don't have a high idle circuit for initial warmup, the cold start enrichment isn't enough by itself, and the stock type head temp sensor (thermistor) isn't accurate enough at low temps too provide the computer with good information.

I found with the MS,the stock sensor was actually better at low temps then high temps. My MS fires right up at any temp i've tried it. I do have to keep my foot in it a little for the first 30 seconds or so before it will idle on its own. I have the idle controlled throttle body for it, just haven't put it on yet. First tunning, cold start was a little PIA, but once it's figured out it works very well. Cold start timing advance will help a little if your running ignition off the MS, but i am not right now.

I use the stock d-jet aux air valve on mine with ms doing the enrichment, looks stock, works great, though my valve gets a little sticky at times. Again its the same thing you would see with d-jet being as it is a 30 year old d-jet part. I considered going with idle control but my car idles fine without it so i use the idle circuit for my ignition output.

[rsrguy3]

Jeff, Your tone is a bit acrid, and unapreciated, please tame it down. Were supposed to be friends here. James is doing market reserch, that is all, and I might add, he is doing so with class, and restraint. You're experiences are valid, and, needed in order to come up with a widely accepted solution. James has had posititive experiences with MS, and only wants to share. The worst case scenario here for you is that you sell more product, not so bad for you is it? Why don't you jump on the band wagon here, there is no reason this could'nt be a huge benifit for the whole comunity.