Aftermarket FI options for Type 4 motors 2056 or larger, Who here has gone this route and is it worth it? What options do we have? Options

[Aerostatwv]

I thought there is a difference with injectors. The d-jet uses low impedance injectors vs. modern FI that use a high impedance injector?

[Superhawk996]

I work with early tbi (CFI in the ford world). It really is better than carbs by a long shot.

By what metric?

Emissions - Agreed. TBI was a response to inability to meet emissions regulations.

Lack of jets and small air passages to clog - sure. But now you add other sensors and actuators to system with their own associated failure modes.

Performance - no so much.

Long runners on modern engines are a function of them only having air flow in them and the fuel delivered at the intake port. Long runners of a 914 that are largely isolated from the engine will take much longer to warm up than an aluminum manifold bolted directly to heads nestled down in the valley of a V8. Not to mention the nasty, nearly 180 degree turn the air fuel mix has to make to enter the intake port of a 914. That turn is a recipe for fuel to fall out of suspension as it slams into the wall of the runner. Fuel has mass and it wants to travel in straight line rather than execute a 180 degree turn. Physics and all that.

Virtually all the performance gains of the last 30 years came from the benefits associated with port injection and direct ignition. Precision control over fuel and spark. TBI and an antique distributor isn’t optimal.

In my opinion, there is no point in taking the trip to get rid of D-jet / L-jet or even a set of well tuned carbs to land at TBI on a 914 T4 engine. Too much hassle for too little gain.

[Superhawk996]

seems keeping direct injection is best

Totally know what you meant.

Keeping fuel injection terminology clean, direct injection is yet another incarnation of fuel injection. But now with the fuel being injected directly into the combustion chamber at sky high pressures. 914’s don’t have direct injection.

Typical multi port injection is sub - 100 psi range.

Direct Injection is at several thousand psi.

[Superhawk996]

I thought there is a difference with injectors. The d-jet uses low impedance injectors vs. modern FI that use a high impedance injector?

True

There are resistor packs that can enable The use low low impedance injectors.

[Jack Standz]

I work with early tbi (CFI in the ford world). It really is better than carbs by a long shot. Poor fuel distribution is a manifold issue (just like carbs). Mpi is better of course but I wouldn't go bragging up our bank fire system. Runner length is still up in the air for me. Velocities are so high and engine heat eventually gets there as well. Obviously mpi would be better but I just don't by it as a show stopper. Modern mpi engines can have incredibly long runners.

+1

(not bragging about the bank fire system nor unfairly cricising an almost 60 year old system, but someday would like a better FI system that doesn't require gobs of $$, hours & hours of fabrication, and an intensive understanding of engineering and electronics to make it work right, just saying)

Maybe a dual TBI system with appropriate length intake manifolds would be an improvement over what many are running now? Maybe I'm dreaming, but the idea of bolting on a couple intake manifolds and throttle bodies & hooking up some sensors (OK, welding on a couple O2 sensor bungs) sounds really good to me right now especially after restoring, rebuilding and tuning a couple Dellorto carbs.

[Superhawk996]

What is with with the love of TBI?

Sure dual TBI on custom manifolds would be better than running a singular TBI through stock 914 manifolds.

But what have you gained?

Now you have a linkage that needs to be synchronized. Just like dual carbs. Just like dual ITB’s running multi port injection.

Now maybe need two TBI ECUs to manage two TBI’s? Now you have all the disadvantages of what has basically become an ITB setup with its issues of low and unstable vacuum signal to run a MAP sensor off of.

Dual TBI would need custom intake manifolds. At least current T4 ITB - multiport setup uses commercially available manifolds from Weber / Dellorto setup.

TBI is not some sort of magical fuel injection system that is inherently easier to tune than a multi port setup.

Am I missing something? I promise I don’t hate TBI but it is inferior to multi port injection. TBI was an emissions band-aid for a short window of time in automotive history. I’m not seeing how it makes life any easier when installed on a 914.

[rhodyguy]

A local member had a big T4 and I think he used the FI from a later model Mustang.

[rbzymek]

I worked at Ford in the engine controls department during the Carb/TBI/MAP Port Injection/Mas air Meter Port Injection time frame. Port injection is far superior to TBI for the reasons given by superhawk996. For a 2056 street car you can't beat an L-Jet system with a Vanagon throttle body. It uses a vane meter to measure airflow and can easily be adjusted to run slightly rich with an AFR meter.

[mihai914]

What is with with the love of TBI?

Sure dual TBI on custom manifolds would be better than running a singular TBI through stock 914 manifolds.

But what have you gained?

Now you have a linkage that needs to be synchronized. Just like dual carbs. Just like dual ITB’s running multi port injection.

Now maybe need two TBI ECUs to manage two TBI’s? Now you have all the disadvantages of what has basically become an ITB setup with its issues of low and unstable vacuum signal to run a MAP sensor off of.

Dual TBI would need custom intake manifolds. At least current T4 ITB - multiport setup uses commercially available manifolds from Weber / Dellorto setup.

TBI is not some sort of magical fuel injection system that is inherently easier to tune than a multi port setup.

Am I missing something? I promise I don’t hate TBI but it is inferior to multi port injection. TBI was an emissions band-aid for a short window of time in automotive history. I’m not seeing how it makes life any easier when installed on a 914.

I don't think it's a love of TBI necessarily, it's convenience and ease of execution. If you look at our use of technology in general, it's rarely the best technology available that prevails in the mass market.

Sniper EFI, FiTEch and all other similar products are appealing because they self tune, are mostly self-contained, are bolt-on in their specific applications and are not much more expensive vs. a equivalent performance carburetor.

I would be very surprised that racing teams, of all kinds, would use the above mentioned products, but for the common backyard mechanic, it does the job well.

Personally, when I look at the BugShop's offer, the kit looks well put together, but then you have to specify if you want help with tuning. I understand that the vendor can not sell a one for all type of system, and that he can't be profitable if he were to support every customer for free. It's just that at some point, you want to take something out of the box, bolt it to the car and go driving.

As for a SniperEFI type of thing, I get a nice screen and probably get to play with just enough parameters for my level of knowledge.

[JamesM]

Sniper EFI, FiTEch and all other similar products are appealing because they self tune, are mostly self-contained, are bolt-on in their specific applications and are not much more expensive vs. a equivalent performance carburetor.

I would be very surprised that racing teams, of all kinds, would use the above mentioned products, but for the common backyard mechanic, it does the job well.

Using the term "Self Tune" is along the lines of saying Teslas can "Self Drive" In fact I would probably say of the two that "Self Driving" requires a lot less human interaction.

Its a great sales pitch, but still requires setup and only works as well as the operator directing it.

[Superhawk996]

Using the term "Self Tune" is along the lines of saying Teslas can "Self Drive"

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

I get the appeal of self tune but it’s not there yet. Just go look at the number of people having issues with Sniper running too rich, stalling, having EMI type issues, etc. I get that having the ECU in the TBi package is nice - no dispute there. Sniper still needs a good vacuum signal to run and engine temp signal.

TunerStudio for MegaSquirt offers an “auto tune” functionality that will greatly help in tuning but it still isn’t full auto tuning.

The reality of EFI is that somehow, you are going to have to learn to “tune” what you have. No different than learning to tune carbs properly.

Even with all the power of AI and latest processors in ECU’s the OEM’s still employ calibration engineers to do the final tuning and much of it is done on road to get production calibrations.

Expecting a magic “self tune” capability out of a $1k product is going to leave you disappointed. Probably even more so when trying to apply it to the quirks of air cooled engines that run hotter than water pumpers and prefer to run on the rich side to keep the heads cool enough to not drop valve seats.

[Jack Standz]

What is with with the love of TBI?

Sure dual TBI on custom manifolds would be better than running a singular TBI through stock 914 manifolds.

But what have you gained?

Now you have a linkage that needs to be synchronized. Just like dual carbs. Just like dual ITB’s running multi port injection.

Now maybe need two TBI ECUs to manage two TBI’s? Now you have all the disadvantages of what has basically become an ITB setup with its issues of low and unstable vacuum signal to run a MAP sensor off of.

Dual TBI would need custom intake manifolds. At least current T4 ITB - multiport setup uses commercially available manifolds from Weber / Dellorto setup.

TBI is not some sort of magical fuel injection system that is inherently easier to tune than a multi port setup.

Am I missing something? I promise I don’t hate TBI but it is inferior to multi port injection. TBI was an emissions band-aid for a short window of time in automotive history. I’m not seeing how it makes life any easier when installed on a 914.

"Now you have a linkage that needs to be synchronized. Just like dual carbs. Just like dual ITB’s running multi port injection."

Why can't you run a drive by wire system? You know, to address the synchronization pblm?

"Dual TBI would need custom intake manifolds. At least current T4 ITB - multiport setup uses commercially available manifolds from Weber / Dellorto setup."

So? Doesn`t seem so difficult a fabrication problem for any vendor that I'd be willing to purchase Type IV manifolds from. As you point out, IDF manifolds require customization for MPFI anyway.

"TBI is not some sort of magical fuel injection system that is inherently easier to tune than a multi port setup."

Honestly, was hoping the self-learning modes of some of these systems could be incorporated to make installing and running such a system inherently easier. Of course a magical system might be even better (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif).

"I promise I don’t hate TBI but it is inferior to multi port injection."

I don't hate FI either. But, the point is maybe a slightly "inferior" system that is more reasonable in cost and less time consuming to install/run has a certain appeal to us non-enginneers and non-electronic gurus.

Best wishes for your next fuel delivery system and induction methodology.

[emerygt350]

What is with with the love of TBI?

Sure dual TBI on custom manifolds would be better than running a singular TBI through stock 914 manifolds.

But what have you gained?

Now you have a linkage that needs to be synchronized. Just like dual carbs. Just like dual ITB’s running multi port injection.

Now maybe need two TBI ECUs to manage two TBI’s? Now you have all the disadvantages of what has basically become an ITB setup with its issues of low and unstable vacuum signal to run a MAP sensor off of.

Dual TBI would need custom intake manifolds. At least current T4 ITB - multiport setup uses commercially available manifolds from Weber / Dellorto setup.

TBI is not some sort of magical fuel injection system that is inherently easier to tune than a multi port setup.

Am I missing something? I promise I don’t hate TBI but it is inferior to multi port injection. TBI was an emissions band-aid for a short window of time in automotive history. I’m not seeing how it makes life any easier when installed on a 914.

I don't think it's a love of TBI necessarily, it's convenience and ease of execution. If you look at our use of technology in general, it's rarely the best technology available that prevails in the mass market.

Sniper EFI, FiTEch and all other similar products are appealing because they self tune, are mostly self-contained, are bolt-on in their specific applications and are not much more expensive vs. a equivalent performance carburetor.

I would be very surprised that racing teams, of all kinds, would use the above mentioned products, but for the common backyard mechanic, it does the job well.

Personally, when I look at the BugShop's offer, the kit looks well put together, but then you have to specify if you want help with tuning. I understand that the vendor can not sell a one for all type of system, and that he can't be profitable if he were to support every customer for free. It's just that at some point, you want to take something out of the box, bolt it to the car and go driving.

As for a SniperEFI type of thing, I get a nice screen and probably get to play with just enough parameters for my level of knowledge.

Exactly.

Would I use tbi on a race engine? Possibly. Australian Ford made some impressive CFI race cars. Would I dismiss it because mpi, no, just as no one completely gives up on carbs because fi. It really is an elegant solution. Particularly when it is all self contained. Just a couple of 02 sensors and off you go.

[Superhawk996]

Fair points but let me address throttle by wire.

Drive by wire is but another level of complexity on top of EFI. It was about a decade of the OEMs running conventional cable operated throttles with EFI before they moved to throttle by wire.

The safety implications of moving to throttle by wire are staggering. Every prototype I’ve ever tested in has a huge red emergency stop button that kills all power - just in case anything goes haywire with throttle by wire.

Throttle by wire may seem like the “easy button” but it is anything but easy.

[mihai914]

Using the term "Self Tune" is along the lines of saying Teslas can "Self Drive"

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

I get the appeal of self tune but it’s not there yet. Just go look at the number of people having issues with Sniper running too rich, stalling, having EMI type issues, etc. I get that having the ECU in the TBi package is nice - no dispute there. Sniper still needs a good vacuum signal to run and engine temp signal.

TunerStudio for MegaSquirt offers an “auto tune” functionality that will greatly help in tuning but it still isn’t full auto tuning.

The reality of EFI is that somehow, you are going to have to learn to “tune” what you have. No different than learning to tune carbs properly.

Even with all the power of AI and latest processors in ECU’s the OEM’s still employ calibration engineers to do the final tuning and much of it is done on road to get production calibrations.

Expecting a magic “self tune” capability out of a $1k product is going to leave you disappointed. Probably even more so when trying to apply it to the quirks of air cooled engines that run hotter than water pumpers and prefer to run on the rich side to keep the heads cool enough to not drop valve seats.

Tough crowd (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

To quote myself:

As for a SniperEFI type of thing, I get a nice screen and probably get to play with just enough parameters for my level of knowledge.

I don't think any member here gobs the whole self tuning marketing, I take it as a starting point instead of loading a map downloaded somewhere.

Not all of us are engineers or want to play for hours with a laptop. Some of us are willing to leave some HP or torque on the table and just go driving.

What I would like as a potential customer, is for a vendor (with the help of an engineer preferably) to offer me a product that takes most of the guesswork out of the equation.

It's a great thread with a healthy debate and I hope we have vendors looking at it because it's a free focus group.

[GregAmy]

The safety implications of moving to throttle by wire are staggering. Every prototype I’ve ever tested in has a huge red emergency stop button that kills all power - just in case anything goes haywire with throttle by wire.

Ditto. I designed and installed an AEM DBW engine management system on our '08 Civic Si race car (using factory DBW components) and I made sure my kill switch is big and read and easily accessible by the monkey.

And while it removes the aggravation of possibly breaking a throttle cable and being stuck (how often does that happen?) it really doesn't offer much advantage*. I would not be comfy doing DBW in my 914. - GA

*I suspect, but certainly cannot prove, that the driving force for throttle DBW came from the mid-80s Audi "runaway" issue, and later a Toyota Camry(?), where drivers were insisting that they were smashing on the brakes but the cars kept going. It was ultimately suspected - but not proven - that the drivers were either actually pushing on the throttle instead, or more likely pushing on both, but not on the brakes as hard as they thought they were.

DBW fixed that: if you're on the throttle and brake for more than "x" seconds, even lightly, the throttle is brought back to idle.

My first experience with that was doing an HPDE in my new '00 Audi S4 while trying to left-foot-brake through the middle of the corner to balance the chassis and keep the turbos spooled; car kept going back to idle. Pissed me off royally... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Superhawk996]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer3.gif) The initial Audi unintended acceleration in the 80s led to brake / shifter interlock switches so that you could not put in Drive unless you 1st had your foot on the brake pedal.

Been there - lived that. Shift cable interlocks and clutch pedal switches suck.

Throttle by wire really came about for the following reasons:

1) Throttle by wire preempts driver control over the throttle blade. Example: when engine is running lean on highway cruise, the driver mashing the pedal to the floor no longer results in the throttle blade going wide open throttle resulting in further leaning out and a stumble and loss of power at the wrong instant. Throttle by wire opens the throttle for the driver in proportion to how quickly EFI can add fuel without resulting in the usual over rich mix that you get during hard accelerations by just dumping in lots of fuel open loop in response to an instant WOT by the driver.

Throttle by wire was a big aid to managing fuel economy, emissions, and catalyst temperatures. It was also very useful to help control what we used to call “Buck & Bobble” on manual transmissions where you get an unwanted feedback loop between an inexperienced drivers throttle control and the vehicle lurching due to poor clutch control.

2) Throttle by wire enables Electronic Stability Control (ESC) that was being mandated by NHTSA and EU on SUVs and high Cg vehicles. There were early attempts at ESC via spark and fuel control to cut and manage engine power but they didn’t have enough fidelity. When a stability control event occurs - stability control takes responsibility for throttle and brake commands. Cutting power too quickly can cause unwanted forward weight transfer leading to vehicle rollover. Too little power cut means the brakes are fighting driven axles.

[Superhawk996]

The Toyota unintended acceleration issue was a result of throttle by wire’s existence. Drivers claimed that the vehicle went Wide Open Throttle on them even though they were not pressing on the gas pedal.


Although that claim of throttle by wire running haywire was later dismissed, that is the sort of thing that I meant by staggering safety implications.

This Toyota case (and others) is among the primary reason we now have electronic data recorders (many with camera images captured) in modern vehicles. Basically a post crash black box to know exactly what you were doing in the final moments before you crashed. Think of it as a liability limiter for the OEMs and a great data set for the police to use against you if need be.

[mihai914]

Food for thought:

https://www.holley.com/blog/post/adapting_a...age_volkswagen/

[Superhawk996]

Food for thought:

https://www.holley.com/blog/post/adapting_a...age_volkswagen/

Encouraging but only proves the point that you’re going to be left to tune it.

“I think I changed just about every parameter in that EFI program to make it work. But I really like that the Sniper system self-tunes as long I provide it with the right targets and parameters for these engines, and keeps itself tuned.”

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) I’m just missing it. Self tunes - ummm OK.

But not to be dense, I get the desire to buy it from a guy like this that figures it out and then can offer it to customers with some expectation that it’s plug and play.

What gets lost in the noise is that for it to work plug and play, your engine will need to be very close in specification and in good health to have a chance of it working within the boundaries defined for that particular engine configuration.