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.

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.

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.

I have more trouble starrting the SDS injected cars in my shop during cold weather than I do my own carbed cars.
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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I work on everything I drive, from a ramjet blazer, 91 tb 350 suburban, 86 and 88 v6 fieros and vw and subaru projects. I will eventually learn ms because of the necessity of needing a common ecu that I will know how to customize for the different applications I have. My son programs his sti subaru and I have bought the stuff to reprogram my ramjet.

I say go for it. I will be wanting to try ms in the future just for my own knowledge base to see if it is viable for my more simple projects. I will have a good running 75 with all it's fi stuff still working to play with and this sounds interesting.

IMO, Jeff's tone is just fine, he didn't insult anyone and he brought up many legitimate systems engineering issues.

Maybe I missed something in the descriptions in this thread. How would a MS system be implemented as a PnP? Unless the system is going to mimic CIS, you need something to signal the ECU where the crank position is. Are you intending on having this system still rely on the FI points? That would be sad, after getting away from the rest of the antiquated old hardware. A crank trigger is the way to go, but adding a crank trigger is anything but PnP.

-Josh2

I think the end user could decide what engine harness he wants to use. I am very capable of making my own. Only if I determine someone can build a better one for within 100.00 bucks of what it will cost me in connectors would I want to get it done by someone else. I'm sure there are guys that will always want a pnp setup but I kinda like doing as much as I can on my on. I'm retired and my job description is planning supervisor and thats what I do most every day. A crank trigger has always been in the plan for me as thats the most efficient way I know about. I am very familiar with the suby sensors and the gm stuff that I have but if a better solution comes thats simplier to use, thats ok to.

I think Jeff brings up some valid points. I think using the term plug n play is probably a stretch, but for the advanced DIY'er it could feel like PnP. I think marketing the system with a base fuel map for 1.7 and 2.0 cars would sell a few kits as that would get the beginner MS user close to a working setup.

In fact you would probably be better off in my opinion selling your expertise in the base setups for stock engine configs and leave the hardware to the end user. Make recommendations, or show what worked for you hardware wise, then sell the mini-MS boards and base setup. I would be more inclined to go MS if I had a good basis to start from to reduce the risk of destroying my motor but like the idea of tinkering with programmable EFI.

I would think anyone using an original harness would be foolish to attempt to adapt it to MS. Jeff has seen more harnesses than most of us, and the few I have seen were thrashed. In fact I am amazed my 1.7 harness still works, gonna have to address that this year

I think the discussion is productive as a solution for djet cars is inevitable in my humble opinion as parts continue to become scarce and pricey.

Just my .02

Jim

How about this. James sets up one system that he thinks represents the basic system he is thinking of selling to the basic 914 diy'er, along with the proper harness. Sends it to one of us who presently has a running D-jet. We install and run it for a day or so, log any data for him and report how our seat of the pants dyno liked the performance of the system, and then send it on to the next guy on the list to do the same thing with. No need to remove our system, just unplug what needs to be, and plug in his harness. Then when we are done with the trial unplug his system and plug our systems back in. We could get a lot of info for him to refine his setup, and we could get a lot of input from 914er's interested in these systems.

A base map is just that. It won't be as good as it should be. It may not run as good as stock. It might run better but probably not in my opinion but I'll let James speak to that.

Perhaps "Bolt-on" would be a better term to use then plug n play. As with any aftermarket part it most likely will require tuning to get it at its best, but the same goes for carbs or any other FI setup. Nothing is perfect out of the box. The goal is to have it running and driving decently out of the box with minimal install effort and no fabrication.

Im not sure how i would feel about selling my expertise. I am fine with selling my time, but i have always been a big believer in free information so anything i know on the subject i will gladly share with the community, provided it does not eat up to much of time.

My initial idea behind this was not one of turning it into a business, but more of providing what i saw as a useful solution and covering the cost of the parts and my time involved in doing it. I had spare boards from a personal project that i did not want to go to waste. Interest in this has been way more then i expected though, my supply of "extra" boards wouldn't even cover half of the people that have already spoke up, and this poll has only been up for 2 days. That being said I might have to look at a more serious production/business venture. Though various liability and support issues have been brought up that warrant strong consideration. Either way though I plan on it being an open project with information shared freely.

the ECU gets its signal from the coil in most fuel only setups

I was thinking along similar lines of selecting one or more people to be involved with testing at some point. I think there would have to be some sort of deposit involved or possibly selling the system at discount in order to ensure that my hardware does not decide to disappear on me. That would be a bit off in the future though due to that fact that i want to thoroughly test this new board design before i hand it off to anyone else. Where as my standard MS 2.2 board has been kicking butt for over 3 years now, this is not a standard 2.2 board and i am not ready to sign off on it just yet.

I would like to hear from people interested in working with me on testing though.

Well, I can tell you that the map I have on my car runs better then the d-jet did for sure. My d-jet was not perfect though and the map that is on my car was made for my car so hardly qualifies as base in that case.
I did however use it as a base when we installed a system in rsrguy's car. Despite the fact that neither one of our motors was exactly stock and in completely different ways, once the wiring was sorted (the PO really jacked this car up wiring wise) it fired right up, drove around the block, and was running a lot better then the progressive carb we pulled off of it.

To put it in a little better perspective, my motor is a 2.0 with hydro lifters, stock 2.0 intake, and euro race headers. His motor is a 2.0 with unknown internals, stock 2.0 exhaust, and for the intake we hacked up a 2.0 bus FI manifold to fit his heads, and used 1.7 injectors. The ONLY thing i changed map wise was to scale the reqFule value for the smaller injectors. Totally drivable from the second it fired. It was running a little rich though i attribute that to either the flow difference caused by the different intake/exhaust, or me not scaling the injector flow rates perfectly. Either way, it led me to be pretty confident that a map from one stock 2L would be perfectly drivable on another stock 2L because that case would be even closer then what i had already done.

...and yes, i do have both a stock 2.0 and 1.7. I will use those rather then my autox car for building the base maps.

Thought I would through in a quick update on the MS/d-jet project. Due to the fact that I work 70 hour weeks and the added issue of all the random snow/sleet/hail/rain storms we have had here lately, I have not been able to test with the car as much as I would like. The latest board setup I made is working though, the install was pretty simple (MUCH cleaner then my install using the standard MS/Relay) and it fired right up with no fuss. The weather seems to be clearing up now so hopefully I will get some time with it out on the road. I have an autox in a couple weeks so that should be the first real world test of the new board. I have a temp probe setup to monitor the environment inside the ECU casing so I can get some idea where we are at temperature wise with the ECU mounted in the engine compartment.

With the idea of producing these things for other people now in my head I have been focusing my thoughts a lot more on simplifying the build process for both myself and anyone who might be installing it. One of the issues I was looking at is the time and effort required for me to build one of these. While I do prefer the install using the minims board rather then the standard megasquirt board, there are still some tedious assembly steps that I would like to simplify, the biggest one being soldering all the jumper wires directly to the ECU connector. This is an annoying task to say the least, and while I have been happy with the result of my work thus far, I would be a lot happier knowing the connector was soldered directly to a PCB rather then jumper wires. This line of thought has led me down the path of designing a simple PCB to mount the connector to and then jumpering from one board to the other in order to facilitate a cleaner/stronger install. For the moment this is going to increase my time and money involved in this project however in a production environment I think something along these lines is the way to go. My other thought along these lines involve integrating the d-jet connector into the actual PCB for the ECU and enlarging the PCB at the same time in order to mount the same way as the d-jet PCB did. This would greatly increase the speed of the build as I would basically be just swapping one PBC for another without a bunch of custom wiring. This however takes me out of the realm of just getting rid of my spare boards and more into a full production situation, so even though I would like to do it I am pushing it to the back burner for now. Plus I have not found any PCB design software that I like enough to take the time to do this yet.

Another exciting (at least I think it is) development. I have the sort of brain that does not like to shut down at night, so 3am comes around, lying in bed, and all of a sudden it hits me to see if I can modify a megasquirt board to send switched power to the injectors similar to the way that d-jet does rather then switched ground which is how MS normally works, thereby eliminating the need to add the return wires to the ECU with the wiring harness. The hardest part of the install right now from an end user point of view is determining which 2 of the 3 ground connections are the ones you need to use, this should eliminate that, as well as the extra wires all together. I may have just been delirious from it being 3am but I went and looked at one of the boards and I think it will be a pretty easy mod. I am not sure why I, or anyone else, never thought to do this before.

I am going to build another board tomorrow with that and a couple other mods I have thought up and see if it works out.



As much fun as this is I wish my brain would shut off once in a while; maybe I could get some sleep at night.

A couple other smaller issues i need to investigate , that maybe someone has some input on.

1. With the new board setup i am pulling all the power for the megasquirt through the stock harness, while this does make everything look nice an clean it has had the strange side effect of keeping power to the MS system for about 5 seconds after the key is shut off. not a deal breaker at this point but it is high on my priority list to sort out as it is annoying. I am not sure if this is due to a sticky main relay on the stock relay board, or perhaps something else. I have not had time to investigate this yet but maybe someone out there has some ideas?

2. The throttle position sensor setup. I have been thinking a lot about this as it is probably the biggest area I would like to find a development of some sort. Right now the options are
A. Eliminate it all together, which would allow a stock look but i do not like mainly due to losing the flood clear feature but also due to losing throttle position in datalogs.
B. Chop up a d-jet TPS to make an adaptor. While this enables everything to work the way it is supposed to i am not to happy with it because it involves sourcing a d-jet TPS, destroying a d-jet TPS, and on 2L motors does not look stock due to the fact that i have not found a decent TPS that fits completely inside the old one. Not really an issue on 1.7s as it is hidden under the throttle body. Also it is another PITA tedious thing to construct. It works fine, but i have a feeling a better soultion is out there. Looking for input here as well.

A few pics up for fun....


This is the box currently in my test car. The extra wires are to run things like my wideband 02 and ignition control. When stuffed behind the battery it looks stock. I have not got around to blasting and painting the exterior yet.




3/32 jack used for programing. I wired it up to use the cable from the LC-1 wideband, its a nice, small, hidden connector. next to that is the MAP port, and then all the wires to run the "extra" stuff i have on my car.



compairson of the MS2.2 system i pulled out to my new system that went in. I never intended the origianl system to say in as long as it did as it was pretty much hacked together for testing purposes. Still works great though.

I have nothing of importance to add to help your problem solving. I just wanted to add my encouragement.

I am ready to start negotiations with "she who must be obeyed" as soon as you have something ready to go.

I'm late to this thread, but finding it very interesting. My vote in the poll was "I'm interested" and "price is no object" because it wouldn't let me skip the price question.

I'm running a stock 2.0L engine with stock FI. Although upgrading to a Jeff Bowlsby harness has given me a system that is very reliable, it's really only a matter of time before there some component that goes out which cannot be obtained or replaced for any price. So yes I'm interested in a system made of modern components that I could install by simply unplugging what I'm got, then plug in the new system and have a running car that was ready to be optimized. I don't care if that's call "bolt-on" or "PnP".

I don't care if it reuses my existing harness (although it would be nice). What I care about is that gives me a way to easily remove what I consider to be the 914's Achilles heal - an aging FI system. So everyone involved in contributing ideas gets my support!

Looks great, James. I'm putting a MS3 system together right now - I'd stop and put one of yours together instead. I haven't found a TPS yet, so no help on that. I'd be willing to modify the existing one - it's not going to last forever anyway.

Bosch 0 280 122 001 might work for you.

Its used on a whole bunch of different cars. It has the correct shaft shape and can be mounted on the plate from the stock TPS at about a 45 deg angle if you space it out about half an inch.

Thats what i have been using for the last 3 years anyways. I would like to find a cleaner looking soultion though.

I have a schedule to have an engine running within 3 months and would love a modern digital FI system. Would one of yours be ready for me? I'm willing to be a Guinea Pig for your R & D ... at my expense.

if the price comes in at that $250 or so range I am definitely interested as it makes swapping nuked junkyard type 4s into my new lemons rig a breeze, and I have enough in my budget at this time to snap this up ahhh the joys of cheap cars with expensive parts inside would this eliminate the MPS as well?

It eliminates the MPS and all the other expensive NLA d-jet stuff.

Technically i could have one ready in a couple days. Idealy though I would really like to give it a serious stress test myself before i ship one out to anyone else. I am also still making changes to the system, the more i mess with it the more i find ways to improve it and until i have finalized all the changes i would like to keep it in house. I just built another board today with some modifications i wanted to test out however i feel that if all the modifications work as expected it will be pretty close to final. 3 months might be doable for guinea pig testing but i will have to see. I was considering some pretty specific criteria for anyone who wants to be involved in initial testing in order to simplify things for me, however that is still up in the air as well.

Give me the details on your car and motor so i can at least have it in my head to think about. For initial testing i was planning more on cars that are close to stock in order to eliminate variables however i am willing to consider anything.

Let me get up to speed on this awesome project. This is programmable EFI with ignition control together, correct?

I am interested in it. I will be building a 2056, ported heads, big cam/valves and custom exhaust.

There is still decision being made between ITBs or a custom single TB plenum intake (basically a four banger version of the Carrera 3.2 intake manifold).

Maybe the injection system will help make that decision.

Well James,

You know you have my 1.7 to test on If it wil save me fromt he nightmare of tunning this headache, and keep me from going to carbs. I'm In.

Plus being Local to SLC is always a bonus for testing.

The basic idea behind what i am doing is to simpliy the replacement of d-jet with megasquirt while remaining as close to stock apearance as possible. It is digital and fully programable so you will not be tied down to stock cams and displacement. Basically a good cheater system. My idea is to supply it in a fuel only configuration in order to keep the install as simple as possible for stock system replacement however being as that it is Megasquirt based and running the MSnS Extra code someone could add ignition control or a ton of other features if they were so inclined. I am running my autox car with ignotion control and a wideband O2 sensor with target AFR tables. Once you start geting into all the extra features though things can start getting complicated so i would rather just be supplying the base to build from and anying else people want to add is up to them. check out the MSnSe feature list, its pretty exciting.

As the part of my goal is retaining an appearance as close to stock as possible you might be more intrested in just doing your own megasquirt build. Things are a lot less complicated when you are not tied to the stock wiring harness and stuffing everything in the stock ecu. Yes, what i am building could be made to work with what you are planning, but if you are not concerned about looking stock with the ITB's or custom manifold I think it might be better to go with a custom wiring harness as well and not mess around with the d-jet one.

Your car looks so original i am almost afriad to touch it! That being said i still say it would be a crime to put carbs on it, so if the options are carbs or a stealth MS setup I am all for the MS setup. The Ms setup will probably be the easier swap too. Plus it will be a good test for fixing d-jet cars that are acting up.

I do want to take a good look at your car first though and see if we can sort out the d-jet, it was running so well...

Thanks for the response . As you said I am not tied to the stock 'look'. I was thinking yours was a 'new' EFI system.

So I will continue looking into the programmable EFIs out there. Choices are Electromotive, Haltech, MegaSquirt, SDS or even Motec depending on support structure, 'local' technician availability and first hand experience of 914 worlders.

Stock stroke and have options of 94 or 96mm pistons. CR in the range of stock... 8ish:1. Plan to use stock 2.0 intake system, injectors, ... SS heat exchangers w/ supertrapp ... "muffler"...

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.
[/quote]


A possible solution to your concerns about liability would be to use the same warranty that Jake gives on his engine kits.

"All sales are final, no refunds, exchanges or returns are allowed." pretty simple.

I am not up to speed on ms yet but I was reading the ms info on the version 3 board and it mentioned a run on condition in the fuel pump flyback clamp circuit and changing it to a zener diode to correct it if I remember correctly. This may or may not help.

Also I found this tps on ebay and it looks pretty adaptable. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAP...e=STRK:MEWAX:IT
Charlie

James,

What parts would need to be replaced in your bolt on kit?
I would assume it would all be in the box for me to bolt on.
Base map to get it running.

From there I can tune it.

I am ready now and I have a 1.7 I am about to pull out of my car for a 2.0 liter....
I will be happy to play with modified motors and your system
I will learn it on the 1.7 and then modify it.

When can I have one...no warranty needed...I suck at soldering.

Rich

I have been sort on time since my last post, but what i have found so far is that when you first turn the key off while the engine is running the circuit that energizes the stock 914 main relay still has about 4.5 volts on it until the engine spins down(alternator feedback i believe). This 4.5 volts is enough to keep the relay on and keep feeding 12V to the MS. As i am also currently running ignition control and using that signial for my switched +12V on my spark box as well, the engine does not shut down as both my fuel and ignition systems are getting power. My quick fix at the moment is just to pull the MS switched power from somewhere other then the main 914 relay.

I am not sure if the problem would present itself on a car running a stock ignition setup as i have not had time to investigate that yet. If ignition is cut with key off in a stock setup then this should not be a problem as far as keeping it a stealth install. I have a busy week comming up so i probably wont be able to get to it anytime soon, but i plan on investigating the stock d-jet/ignition setup closely to see how everything is handled.

Right now if you already have a d-jet system, its simply a matter of swapping the ECU and TPS though i am currently looking at ways to eliminate having to swap the TPS for stealth installs. If you dont mind doing the tuning you could even put which ever d-jet parts you like on any engine, ie. use 1.7 injection parts with drilled intake runners on a 2.0. We even did my buddys using the 2L bus intake due to the larger runners/plenum. If you are not worried about a stock look there are really a lot of options you could play around with.

As far as a time table goes right now its hard to tell as i have been pretty tight on free time. I sit in front of a computer for my day job, so i have plenty of time to solder boards, i just dont have much time to test the modifications i am working on in my cars. next week i should be able to test my latest changes and then i could proabably give you a better estimate on time.


As far as soldering goes, having a good adjustable temp soldering station and the right tip on the iron helps a lot.

The PO of my '75 2.0 removed all the components of the FI and replaced it with a Holly "Bug Spray" of all things. I would like to take it back to being a FI but am concerned about finding a complete 35 year old D-Jet system and getting it installed and running, to say nothing of the cost!! I would be very interested in more information/development of your system and possible use of my car as a test mule.

James,
I'm following this thread with interest as D-jet parts are really getting costly. Trigger points over $200.00 and they are one of the more simple items.
Keep up the good work you are doing. Also sending a PM.
Tom

If I remember correctly, we rounded up all the parts of my system for 1000$ or slightly less(including wide band), imo quite the coup. The sweet thing is, it ran like a top till I found the PO's hidden wiring issues, multiple melt spots in the harness, NOT FUN! James has none of these issues. I'm currently working a couple of other projects for $$$ flips, in order to get back to my beloved teener. So, If any of you guys want's to by my MS brain your welcomed to it 300$ for the brain and relay board, The 2l maps are all in it. Follow James instructions and you'll be a happy 14 camper.

I still can't vote. There is no Already have megasquirt and love it.

James,

I like your project a lot and believe the MS system is the right approach for 914. Why? Because most of us “like” to work on 914 and we are all facing a return-of-invest issue/challenge with the 914. I have been screening the aftermarket FI ECU for about a year. There are great products (Electromotive, AEM, MSD, ect) out there for a great price. MS offers a very flexible inexpensive package for the DIYer. Maybe it’s not perfect (I don’t see any show stopper yet) but it’s within reach.

I believe MS – even in a PNP setup – will always require some minor tuning. But that goes for all aftermarket FI ECU. A true PNP system will be to go to one of the 914 experts and have them install a ECU system and let them do all the work.

As of the MS warranty terms, they had to use that statement because it IS a DYI experimental system and every 2nd guys modifies the system to his specification – that is the purpose of a open platform! Even SDS’ webpage states that read their manual first and then buy the product if you believe you can do it.

To conclude, I believe that most of the available aftermarket ECUs are very well design systems and all have some pros/cons. It’s up to you/us to pick the system of your choice. My suggestion is to read a few ECO books (i.e Bosch FI & Engine Management, Design and tuning high-performance FI systems, ect) before you make up your mind.

I have made my choice, it is Megasquirt.

Keep up the great work!!

Dragan

PS: How did you install the trigger wheel? Std. GM or MS 36-1 trigger wheel at the crank?

Hi James!

Anything new about your PnP MegaSquirt solution? I have a '73 914-4 2.0L and I would be interested. Also, are you thinking of providing a solution that would allow to get rid of the distributor? I heard all this can be done electronically. And what about injectors, do you use stock injection valves, or do you recommend swapping them for modern ones?

Cheers!

JF

I am not using a trigger wheel in my setup at the moment. The installation of one is a bit more then what most people would consider plug and play.