ECU/MPS Compatibility for 2056, D-Jet Experts? Options

[BeatNavy]

Anders published values are known to be lean.

Really? My experience so far on adjusting two of these (admittedly, I'm a bit of a newbie at this) is that I have no problem adjusting to 0 in, I can get kind of close to the 4 in setting, and not close at all on the 0 in.

For example, for the x043 I think he publishes:

15 in: .71 H
4 in: 1.18 H
0 in: 1.39 H

I get more like:

15 in: .71 H
4 in: 1.16 H
0 in: 1.30 H and no more, no matter what I do (e.g., full stop fully removed)

Any idea what I'm doing wrong?

And then, after all that, I seem to normally run rich. I think that's more because most of my driving is trips of 20 minutes or less, and the car may not be fully warm and more under the influence of CHT (and CHT spacer I have) than the MPS.

[JeffBowlsby]

We're those values adjusted for your local evation from sea level? If you are very rich, can you MPS hold vacuum?

[BeatNavy]

Jeff - I did not adjust for sea level, but I'm only at about 500 feet, so I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that at that level the difference would be minor.

One of these MPS's holds a vacuum nicely, the other not so much anymore. I've also noticed that if I loosen up the outer screw too much trying to reach those part load (4 in) values I lose my ability to hold a vacuum.

[914_teener]

Pic of the 2.0L spacer ring

Pic of many 2.0L spacer rings

These gonna be available on your web site Chris?

[pbanders]

I haven't got much to add, Bleyseng and Bowlsby know more about how to adjust MPS's than I do now! Only thing I'd say is that my LCR data should be used to just get an MPS initially set up, especially with modified engines. The gold standard should be to adjust the MPS while running the car on a dyno with a shop-quality gas analyzer measuring the AFM. Bowlsby and Bleyseng can comment, but my take is to do the main mixture adjustment under part-load at 2 or 3 engine speed settings (e.g. 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm) and set it to 13.7:1, and to do the full-load adjustment to 12:1. I do mine on the road with my less-than-shop-quality AFM and I've gotten good results.

[0396]

I haven't got much to add, Bleyseng and Bowlsby know more about how to adjust MPS's than I do now! Only thing I'd say is that my LCR data should be used to just get an MPS initially set up, especially with modified engines. The gold standard should be to adjust the MPS while running the car on a dyno with a shop-quality gas analyzer measuring the AFM. Bowlsby and Bleyseng can comment, but my take is to do the main mixture adjustment under part-load at 2 or 3 engine speed settings (e.g. 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm) and set it to 13.7:1, and to do the full-load adjustment to 12:1. I do mine on the road with my less-than-shop-quality AFM and I've gotten good results.

Great info, thanks for the education (IMG:style_emoticons/default/piratenanner.gif)

[914_teener]

This has been a great thread for my 2056 D-jet build.

The only thing I can add is that I have the 037 ECU which puts me back into the CHT sensor -017 availability issue. McMark sent me a while back a digital version with a separate ground that I am going to try out soon.

With the cam choice, and according to Jake and the Type IV store, the 9550 is no longer available but the replacement is made to work more with ethanol blends, so this is what I will go with.

I will also need the two rings that Chris is now making for the two 037 cores that I have.

Great to see you post Brad, your site has maintained a lot of interest in these systems, and at least for me...for ten years a great running FI system considering how old it is.

Thanks also to Jeff and Geoff and Chris Foley who I'm sure hasn't made a fortune on making these parts.

Thanks again to the OP for the thread.

[ChrisFoley]

Pic of the 2.0L spacer ring

Pic of many 2.0L spacer rings

These gonna be available on your web site Chris?

They will, but probably not for a few weeks. My laptop that I use for website work just crapped out.

[BeatNavy]

This has been a great thread for my 2056 D-jet build.
Great to see you post Brad, your site has maintained a lot of interest in these systems, and at least for me...for ten years a great running FI system considering how old it is.

Thanks also to Jeff and Geoff and Chris Foley who I'm sure hasn't made a fortune on making these parts.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Brad, I've relied on the information you've compiled more times than I care to count. Chris' products are awesome and he provides great support for them.

Tonight I managed to get my other x043 to hold a vacuum again. I managed to get the 0 in setting at 1.34, but that's about as high it will go. I think I'm getting the hang of this D-Jet stuff. Maybe there are career opportunities out there for me as a D-Jet engineer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[saigon71]

Great info...following this thread closely as I plan to get a spare MPS ready to go this winter, using one of Foley's rebuild kits.

[Olympic 914]

Chris - are you selling these now?

I will be within a few days.

Put me down for 1 Please ....

[Frank S]

As long as:
You have a stock grind cam with your 2056 the 044 ECU is fine.
The 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 no problem as it can be reset to the 043 specs.
The 007 can be adjusted too to run with the 2056 IIRC

If you have a nonstock cam like a Raby 9550 or a Web73 only the 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 because it doesn't have the inner cast stop ring in the cover which limits the amount of travel/adjustability for WOT

Make sure you have the correct 012 CHT!

I'm confused now.
I'm just about to put my new engine together.
2056 cc
9590 cam
8,5/1 CR
037 ECU
017 CHT plus Resistor
BUT 043 MPS which I thought can be calibrated like 037 MPS. Is that not possible?
Do I need to look out for a 037 or 049 MPS since the 043 can not be adjusted to that settings?

Thanks,
Frank

[Bleyseng]

As long as:
You have a stock grind cam with your 2056 the 044 ECU is fine.
The 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 no problem as it can be reset to the 043 specs.
The 007 can be adjusted too to run with the 2056 IIRC

If you have a nonstock cam like a Raby 9550 or a Web73 only the 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 because it doesn't have the inner cast stop ring in the cover which limits the amount of travel/adjustability for WOT

Make sure you have the correct 012 CHT!

I'm confused now.
I'm just about to put my new engine together.
2056 cc
9590 cam
8,5/1 CR
037 ECU
017 CHT plus Resistor
BUT 043 MPS which I thought can be calibrated like 037 MPS. Is that not possible?
Do I need to look out for a 037 or 049 MPS since the 043 can not be adjusted to that settings?

Thanks,
Frank

It's easier to adjust a MPS using a 044 ECU out of a 74 than a 037 ECU. You have to have enough room (richness) at the WOT and using a 037 barely has enough. Plus you must have the rare 017 CHT with resistor for the idle to work at all with the 037 ECU.

[Bleyseng]

I haven't got much to add, Bleyseng and Bowlsby know more about how to adjust MPS's than I do now! Only thing I'd say is that my LCR data should be used to just get an MPS initially set up, especially with modified engines. The gold standard should be to adjust the MPS while running the car on a dyno with a shop-quality gas analyzer measuring the AFM. Bowlsby and Bleyseng can comment, but my take is to do the main mixture adjustment under part-load at 2 or 3 engine speed settings (e.g. 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm) and set it to 13.7:1, and to do the full-load adjustment to 12:1. I do mine on the road with my less-than-shop-quality AFM and I've gotten good results.

yes, this is what I do to adjust a MPS...multiple runs to get it setup using a LM2 o2 sensor setup....

[Frank S]

As long as:
You have a stock grind cam with your 2056 the 044 ECU is fine.
The 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 no problem as it can be reset to the 043 specs.
The 007 can be adjusted too to run with the 2056 IIRC

If you have a nonstock cam like a Raby 9550 or a Web73 only the 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 because it doesn't have the inner cast stop ring in the cover which limits the amount of travel/adjustability for WOT

Make sure you have the correct 012 CHT!

I'm confused now.
I'm just about to put my new engine together.
2056 cc
9590 cam
8,5/1 CR
037 ECU
017 CHT plus Resistor
BUT 043 MPS which I thought can be calibrated like 037 MPS. Is that not possible?
Do I need to look out for a 037 or 049 MPS since the 043 can not be adjusted to that settings?

Thanks,
Frank

It's easier to adjust a MPS using a 044 ECU out of a 74 than a 037 ECU. You have to have enough room (richness) at the WOT and using a 037 barely has enough. Plus you must have the rare 017 CHT with resistor for the idle to work at all with the 037 ECU.

AArgh, I have two working 037 ECU's and always thought the problem is only the 017 CHT which is NLA. I have two NOS units of that...
That means I need to look for a 044 ECU now otherwise my engine will end up idling to rich and run to lean at WOT?
Thanks,
Frank

[worn]

I haven't got much to add, Bleyseng and Bowlsby know more about how to adjust MPS's than I do now! Only thing I'd say is that my LCR data should be used to just get an MPS initially set up, especially with modified engines. The gold standard should be to adjust the MPS while running the car on a dyno with a shop-quality gas analyzer measuring the AFM. Bowlsby and Bleyseng can comment, but my take is to do the main mixture adjustment under part-load at 2 or 3 engine speed settings (e.g. 2000 rpm and 3000 rpm) and set it to 13.7:1, and to do the full-load adjustment to 12:1. I do mine on the road with my less-than-shop-quality AFM and I've gotten good results.

It is wonderful to see a hero post this. Thanks so much for all you put together. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/pray.gif)

My $0.02 is that when I needed a replacement cam I decided to step up to a modified Webcam and increased the compression ratio. So easy to do while you are at it. I have no comparison data but I believe that made it harder to set the MPS for optimal running. I have to run rich to make it run cool.

I bought an inductance meter on ebay and found that a stock unit ran just as you said it would. My own MPS had lost the original settings during disassembly and I managed to tune it according to your graph, making multiple graphs from different units and after tuning on the car. The initial setting made the car turn over, but I had to tweet it after that with multiple trips around the block in between. I drilled the cap and made my own tools, but they are just what you can buy.

I wish I could log vacuum and my gauges so as to get A/F and CHT along with vacuum and RPM. I keep swerving off the road when I look at the many gauges added on.

Thanks again!

[worn]

[/quote]

It's easier to adjust a MPS using a 044 ECU out of a 74 than a 037 ECU. You have to have enough room (richness) at the WOT and using a 037 barely has enough. Plus you must have the rare 017 CHT with resistor for the idle to work at all with the 037 ECU.
[/quote]

I ran a potentiometer in series with the cht resistor so I can add or subtract from the cabin. It makes a difference, but I am not so sure it is worth it. My idea is that I could add resistance if the heads get too hot.

[BeatNavy]

I spent a lot of time futzing with my MPS's (I have two I use to compare) both with an inductance meter and during "road tests." Car has run really well, if somewhat rich based on my wideband readings. Being the slow learner that I am, I was focused too much and too long on getting inductance readings at or close to Anders' values rather than trusting my wideband and the car's actual performance. The pros were telling me this and I should have listened (but again, I'm a slow learner).

The other problems I have is just the variations in driving conditions (ambient temps, different loads, car not fully at operating temp, changing octane, etc.) would make it difficult for me to get reliable info. I need to control all the variables except one, right? That probably means finding a shop with a dyno nearby.

[Bleyseng]

As long as:
You have a stock grind cam with your 2056 the 044 ECU is fine.
The 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 no problem as it can be reset to the 043 specs.
The 007 can be adjusted too to run with the 2056 IIRC

If you have a nonstock cam like a Raby 9550 or a Web73 only the 049 can be adjusted to run with the 2056 because it doesn't have the inner cast stop ring in the cover which limits the amount of travel/adjustability for WOT

Make sure you have the correct 012 CHT!

I'm confused now.
I'm just about to put my new engine together.
2056 cc
9590 cam
8,5/1 CR
037 ECU
017 CHT plus Resistor
BUT 043 MPS which I thought can be calibrated like 037 MPS. Is that not possible?
Do I need to look out for a 037 or 049 MPS since the 043 can not be adjusted to that settings?

Thanks,
Frank

It's easier to adjust a MPS using a 044 ECU out of a 74 than a 037 ECU. You have to have enough room (richness) at the WOT and using a 037 barely has enough. Plus you must have the rare 017 CHT with resistor for the idle to work at all with the 037 ECU.

AArgh, I have two working 037 ECU's and always thought the problem is only the 017 CHT which is NLA. I have two NOS units of that...
That means I need to look for a 044 ECU now otherwise my engine will end up idling to rich and run to lean at WOT?
Thanks,
Frank

The 037 ECU was setup for the 72-73 1.7L and Porsche had to make it work for the 73 2.0L as Bosch didn't have enough time to make a 2.0L unit. Hence the 037 MPS and 017 Cht with resistor. Using a 037 ECU is just a lot harder to make work with a 2056cc engine with a Raby cam as it needs a richer mix. So starting with a ECU that already needs a way richer mix means you have little adjustment left on the MPS. Way easier to use a 044 ECU......and it runs and idles better believe me.

[DRPHIL914]

this might be slightly off topic but involves the d-jet and rebuilding MPS's, so im hoping to get some direction of how to go about tuning my 2 MPS i recently rebuilt from Chris Foley kits - i have a 75 2.0 d-jet, and one MPS that runs great - stock set up all the way around.
I recently rebuilt 2 mps - one with a torn diaphragm, one did not. One with torn diaphragm had never been opened and plug is unmolested- i opened it, put in new diaphragm, seal etc. pre-measured the inner and outer screws in the diaphragm to set the new one same as old one, hoping it would be close and run, but it does not -
#2 rebuild had been messed with before - so rebuilt and re-sealed, reassembled-
the car will not run with either of tthem - i will have to remove the plug now and the full load stop to adjust the screw to tune - at this point i don't know if its too lean or too rich - i will assume too lean? last time i tuned one to get it running, i had someone set the MSP with LCR to stock setting, it was way lean, and adjusted almost 2 full turns to get to where the idle, part-load setting @(13.5) and WOT were at the 12.7 Mr. Anders sited, so i will assume that is where i am with these 2 newly rebuilt ones I was hoping i wouldnot have to sent them to anyone but be able to get it to start, and then go from there with my A/f meter that is installed.
Any advice for me going forward from those that have done the MPS rebuild and getting the newly fixed and sealed MPS to run? - they hold vac perfectly and test with meter correctly at terminals -
thanks for the help d-jet experts.

Phil