here you go, right out of Steves Email ...

===============================================
Thanks for your interest in the Fuel Injection System.

This is a state of the art FI system.

It allows you to contrrol the fuel and timing with great precision.

It is very simple to program via Laptop

The system is comparable to the Motec system in Quality and features.

This system will give you from 20 to 30% increase in power over your existing fuel system FI or Carb.

This is due to the fuel being burned at the optimal point in the combustion process.

Stock FI or carbs are very crude in offering the optimal combustion of fuel to the engine and have no provision adjust the timing.

I am offering it in two packages to allow you to select the best setup for you needs.

The Basic package contains:

The EMS with mount tabs

Harness with 8 foot leads

Cable to interface laptop with EMS

Optical trigger

MAP Sensor 3 bar in case later on you want to turbo your engine.

Temp sensor.

CD with 50 Base maps to get you up and running.

Operating Manual .

The base package is for use with your stock Runners with Injectors and TB.

For engines 1679cc to 2056cc

This package is $1600



If you have a Larger Engine the following package will give you more power.

This package has the above items plus:

65mm TB on a modifided 2.0 Plenum with TPS sold as an exchange part

4- 24lbs fuel injectors.

Harness for 24 lbs injectors.

Fuel line runners for 24 lbs injectors.

Air Cleaner for 65mm TB.

This is $1950.

The stock 2.0 plenum and runners will work for displacments up to 2.8 liters.

Twin TB are not necessary for performance.

I have runners and plenums if you dont have any.

For more info on how this system works and the features use this link.

Take a look and you can see the benefits of this system.

Download the program to see how easy it is to program the system for your engine.

Future upgrades to the system are downloadable from the internet.

There is a Datalogger built in.



Thanks Steve

http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_m3dk.html







www.type4parts.com

949-650-7366 9am-5pm PST 7 Days a week
=============================================
Please read:
Note due to a high volume of email.
If you dont hear from me in a day or two write me again.
I get alot of email so I may not of gotten a chance to respond to yours yet.
Thank you Steve






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surf before you surf - http://www.surf.co.nz
===============================================

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 3 2005, 03:29 PM)

QUOTE (redshift @ May 3 2005, 04:11 PM) If it's not expensive enough, nobody's going to want it. M there is some truth to that...if the price is so dirt cheap compared to what is out there, it makes you wonder what the reason is.... my Link ECU so far seems to be about the lowest cost commercial* ECU if seen this year, and it's only a few hundred bucks less than everything else...... *megasquirt does not count, even a professional built/tested unit

Ben's favorite Perfect Power seems to be a bit cheaper than the Link. Their US distributor sells the PRT2 for $650. What surprised me when I looked is they claim it will do full sequential injection, and it also does wasted spark on a four-cylinder. I think that $650 also includes a harness, but not sensors.

I forgot about the Perfect Power units...is that price current or from a few years ago??

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 3 2005, 03:50 PM)

I forgot about the Perfect Power units...is that price current or from a few years ago??

PP US Distributor

$675, not $650. My mistake.

$1600 is pretty expensive. 20-30% power increase is bullshit. Motec quality is unlikely (Motec uses MIL-SPEC everything).

QUOTE (lapuwali @ May 3 2005, 04:54 PM)

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 3 2005, 03:50 PM) I forgot about the Perfect Power units...is that price current or from a few years ago?? PP US Distributor $675, not $650. My mistake. $1600 is pretty expensive. 20-30% power increase is bullshit. Motec quality is unlikely (Motec uses MIL-SPEC everything).

interesting...one of the perfect power dealers is Mike from Lo Customs (one of the early Megasquirt guys)

to be honest with you, I'm disappointed in Steves pricing...I was really hoping it would be in the sub $1000 range for a true bolt on solution......not really for me, but for others that only want to deal with a true or near plug and play solution....

I said it before and I'll say it again. Let's see dyno numbers on this stuff... when I asked for specifics for a motor he was trying to sell me on he never contacted be back. I understand these aren't small block Chevy's but why can Edlebrock tell you what HP to expect from their Performer Package but % of increase is an acceptable answer here. I want to see a dyno with carbs, stock FI, and then his FI put a little effort out there and you will get a huge response. I believe in business we call that ROI. Invest in taking one of each package you sell to a dyno and give us solid data.

QUOTE (914RSR @ May 3 2005, 03:39 PM)

here you go, right out of Steves Email ...

now was that so hard? he could have posted that last week. (in the vendor's section )

close to 1500 hits, that's pretty good advertising. that's better than the link i have below my signature.

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 3 2005, 04:04 PM)

...to be honest with you, I'm disappointed in Steves pricing...I was really hoping it would be in the sub $1000 range for a true bolt on solution......not really for me, but for others that only want to deal with a true or near plug and play solution....

So this system goes with the variety of other systems out there I've been looking at

QUOTE (lapuwali @ May 3 2005, 07:54 PM)

20-30% power increase is bullshit.

I agree 100%

The stock intake already works pretty good for a stock size engine.
Without adding a real good exhaust the engine efficiency won't change a whole lot.
The stock cam is a major limiting factor.
The heavy stock valves and weak springs limit rpm.
IMNSHO my Tangerine Super header is still the best bolt on power booster available for a stock 2 liter, 9% torque increase - dyno proven. You can't get that anywhere else without splitting the case.

QUOTE (914RSR @ May 3 2005, 03:39 PM)

65mm TB on a modifided 2.0 Plenum with TPS sold as an exchange part 4- 24lbs fuel injectors. Harness for 24 lbs injectors. Fuel line runners for 24 lbs injectors. Air Cleaner for 65mm TB. This is $1950. The stock 2.0 plenum and runners will work for displacments up to 2.8 liters. Twin TB are not necessary for performance.

But is it true that a EFI system with a central TB can be used for engines that large? Isn't there a problem with idle when using high duration and/or lift cam?

Louis

FI does not add HP, 19 to 28hp (20-30%) gain on a stock engine is total
Let's see the dyno results.

A 2.0 plenum is too small for a large cc engine.

A three bar MAP on a N/A engine will lose half the resolution.

The price is far from earth shattering.

QUOTE (Mark Henry @ May 4 2005, 08:59 AM)

A 2.0 plenum is too small for a large cc engine.

Steve didn't say it was the right size, just that it will work.
That only means the engine will run.
An optimized combination is going to be more expensive than simply throwing a few nifty parts together, but it will yield far more satisfying results and the cost will soon be forgotten. Money is hardly ever well spent if there isn't a well defined goal and a clear plan to achieve that goal.

QUOTE (Racer Chris @ May 4 2005, 09:10 AM)

QUOTE (Mark Henry @ May 4 2005, 08:59 AM) A 2.0 plenum is too small for a large cc engine. Steve didn't say it was the right size, just that it will work. That only means the engine will run.

I stand corrected....Yes, it will run.

QUOTE (Mark Henry @ May 4 2005, 04:59 AM)

A three bar MAP on a N/A engine will lose half the resolution.

In practice, this ends up not really being a problem.

The MS guys originally offered two MAP sensors, one up to 115kPa, one up to 250kPa. It was quickly discovered that the 250kPa unit was just fine on unboosted engines, so they dropped the 115 unit and just used the 250 for everyone. The A/D convertor is going to convert that into an 8-bit value, so with a 0-250kPa range, each "step" is a tad less than 1kPa, which is plenty of resolution. A 300kPa sensor loses some, but even 1.2kPa per step is pretty fine.

Even non-interpolating ECUs with 32x32 maps will end up with 3kPa per step 0-100kPa, and that seems to be more than sufficient for smooth operation.

A 300 KPa Map sensor could be a big deal depending on the equation used to calculate pulse width of the injectors. Speed density uses MAP (engine load) and RPM to select a bin on the fueling map to base the calculations on so if the MAP is misread that can introduce a problem. On top of that if the the pulsewidth is interpolated in the area between bins it is multiplied by the MAP again so the mistake can get significantly larger. Add that to the stock injectors which are grossly overrated and you cold have huge variations in the air/fuel ratio and real drivability problems. Having a dependable and steady MAP value is really important.

I've spent a bunch of time trying to meter the MAP signal on my 2.0l stock plenum car. Between 3000 and 4000 there is significant flucuation in the MAP signal on a 250 KPa sensor. I suspect that this is from turbulence in the plenum probably from the tunining of the plenum runner system. This really affects the way the car feels especially at cruise.

My solution has been to try more restriction in the vacuum hose to the sensor to slow down how quickly the sensor will respond to changes in the vacuum. This however means I need to add acceleration enrichment so the engine doesn't lean out.

Claims of increased HP on a stock engine are bunk. D-jet was really pretty well tuned so if it is in good shape you'll be hard pressed to beat it. I couldn't with an hour and a half of dyno time.

Plug and play for a completely stock engine that's in good shape will work. If the engine has any mods you are going to need to tune or you will leave power on the table. So you should budget for tuning. you might luck out and have one of the 50 preloaded programs work but, it's a gamble.

I know this sounds like a condemnation of Steve's system but it's really not. All systems are a compromise and the more the design targets universal application the more compromise has to be built in. I think it's great there is another player in this arena. Undoubtedly, it can be made to work, but if I were considering it I would expect that it would take some tinkering and tuning.

Here is an old datalog with a nasty MAP sensor imput. Notice the wild A/F ratio. This was not fun to drive.

Dave

i used to think 914's were cool
but now i'm learning there are a bunch of geeks driving around in them

All due respect Dave, but a higher resolution MAP signal wouldn't help your fluctuation. From the scale, it's bouncing from 20kPa to 80kPa.

When you're digitizing an analog signal, increasing the resolution only helps you in accurately detecting changes at the small end of the scale. With an 8-bit value, the 300kPa sensor resolves to 1.2kPa per step, and a 115kPa sensor resolves to 0.45kPa per step. At 20kPa, the maximum error for the 300kPa sensor is 6%, at 80kPa it's only 1.5%. The 115kPa sensor shows a 2.2% error at 20kPa, and a 0.5% error at 80kPa. The lower resolution sensor is NOT going to suddenly decide 20kPa is 80kPa. It will simply be uncertain about the difference between 20kPa and 21kPa.

The problem you're having is the MAP signal itself fluctuating from pulses in the intake tract OR noise in the MAP signal caused by some external influence. The former is more likely. These fluctuations may very well have been mechanically damped by the MPS. MAP signal fluctuations are always a problem for any speed-density system. Your plan of adding some restriction to the MAP line is a good one. It will, unfortunately, cause some loss of response, but that mostly means you're going to have to use a TPSdot acceleration map, rather than relying on a MAPdot acceleration map.

Using the gigantic D-Jet injectors is also a problem, unless you run very low fuel pressure. You could try running smaller injectors, or you could simply adjust the fuel pressure down to, say, 25psi. There's a formula in the Megamanual that relates fuel pressure to actual flow, using the rated flow (which is normally done at 42psi or thereabouts, it's in the manual). The stock 2.0 injectors at 42psi would be good enough for Jake's wildest fantasy engine.

QUOTE (glstrojan @ May 4 2005, 10:03 AM)

i used to think 914's were cool but now i'm learning there are a bunch of geeks driving around in them

Hey, what's it say below my name?

Geeks are kewl. We can BS better than anyone else...

This is turning into a really interesting thread.

I am building a MS system for an engine that people will say it will never run on. I have a 2270 with a Web 163/86b cam on 104deg lobe centers. I've heard everything from it won't idle, to it will never run right as I will have very little vaccuum...

2.0L injectors are HUGE. I might start off with some 1.7L ones and see how it works, or go to some Toyota injectors and make my own fuel rail. Big deal.

I think I can make it work...

Maybe I'm just crazy though...

Later,
Tom

QUOTE (Racer Chris @ May 4 2005, 12:12 AM)

QUOTE (lapuwali @ May 3 2005, 07:54 PM) 20-30% power increase is bullshit. I agree 100% The stock intake already works pretty good for a stock size engine. Without adding a real good exhaust the engine efficiency won't change a whole lot. The stock cam is a major limiting factor. The heavy stock valves and weak springs limit rpm. IMNSHO my Tangerine Super header is still the best bolt on power booster available for a stock 2 liter, 9% torque increase - dyno proven. You can't get that anywhere else without splitting the case.

I want to by the throttle bodies off of your engine.

That's what we should be doing here, parting out our own motors.



M

QUOTE (Tom Perso @ May 4 2005, 10:48 AM)

This is turning into a really interesting thread. I am building a MS system for an engine that people will say it will never run on. I have a 2270 with a Web 163/86b cam on 104deg lobe centers. I've heard everything from it won't idle, to it will never run right as I will have very little vaccuum... 2.0L injectors are HUGE. I might start off with some 1.7L ones and see how it works, or go to some Toyota injectors and make my own fuel rail. Big deal. I think I can make it work... Maybe I'm just crazy though... Later, Tom

Wild cams are the main reason why Alpha-N is still used at all. They can mess up MAP sensors, airflow sensors, and just about anything else that tries to do load sensing independent of the throttle position. Fortunately, MAP when only used for load sensing doesn't have to be particularly fast responding. You can "smooth" the MAP curve out considerably, either with restriction or in software (MS doesn't have this option, but adding it wouldn't be all that hard). As I understand it, the cams have to be pretty wild before anything serious is required, though.

Motorcycles have a pretty hard time with this, as they generally have VERY wild cams. To solve this, what many systems do is use BOTH Alpha-N and speed-density. They use alpha-N in the "bad" rev ranges (usually low end, but it can be up in the midrange on some engines), and use speed-density in the "good" rev ranges, and blend the two together in the transitions. The Electromotive ECU will do this out of the box, and I seem to remember there's some code for this in MS. The "extra" code has the kitchen sink in there, so I'd poke around in the MS forums (look in MSnS) and see if you can find a reference to it. If you can't, ask jmscortina if it can do it. He wrote the code, so he'll know if it's possible. This assumes you actually NEED this, of course. It may be possible to tune out the problems with the stock MS.

James...the ability to "blend" from TPS to MAP is one of the reasons i went with the Link ECU, the SDS system is one or the other, it cannot do both and with my individual throttle bodies and cam choice, I might have to use the blending feature.....

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 4 2005, 12:17 PM)

James...the ability to "blend" from TPS to MAP is one of the reasons i went with the Link ECU, the SDS system is one or the other, it cannot do both and with my individual throttle bodies and cam choice, I might have to use the blending feature.....

A clarification, there IS code for MS to do this, but only the newer MS-II system (new 16-bit processor, still basically in testing). It doesn't appear the 8-bit MS systems (including the confusingly named v2.2, which is NOT MS-II) won't do it.

SDS doesn't do it at all. They can to MAP or TPS, but it can't blend them.

James

That was the same conclusion I came to also. I guess I didn't phase it too well. The problem with my MAP signal in that log was noise and it was mechanical from the intake. I am essentially filtering it now with a restriction (1mm in dia. 5mm long with an expansion chamber that is a VW fuel filter. That has helped greatly. You are right that it slowed response and I need accelerration enrichment. I'm still tinkering with that.

I went to ~ 160 cc/min injectors that were used on BMW L-jet systems Bosch 0 280 150 151s. and that helped. Borg Warner makes a new replacement that is reasonable except that the fuel lines are not swedged onto the injectors. I found that out the hard way. FI clamps fixed that. The place I got them at was upset at me for pointing it out to them. They figured it was my fault for using them on a different application. I suggested they report it to Borg Warner as a potential serious problem and they asked me to leave.

I've got it running with the EDIS ignition. The coil is a real noisy SOB so I had to shield a bunch of stuff.

I'm getting real close now.

Dave

If I recall correctly,, the "MegaManual" suggest using a chambered device like a fuel filter plumbed into the MAP sensor vacuum line to dampen the fluctuations in vacuum that a wild cam would produce.

lapuwali,,, I thought the MS can do alpha N.

http://www.megasquirt.info/manual/mtune.htm
about 1/2 way down the page alpha N is mentioned.
EDIT,, I read previous posts a little more carefully and I am mistaken, MS doesn't blend the MAP and alpha N inputs. I missed the blend part


More MS info for others who might be interested,,

http://www.msefi.com/index.php

-Rob

Here is the answer to question the 2.0 plenum will not work with a big engine
.
CFM = CID x RPM x VE ÷ 3464

Here is the CFM required by a 105x80 2771cc 169 cid

CFM = 169 x 6500 x 0.95 ÷ 3464 = 301.26 CFM

A set of 2.0 runners and 2.0 plenum wit a 65mm TB will flow 330 cfm @10 in vac at 6500rpm.


As to those who say that the system will not give 20 to 30% more power.

Due to the very crude L jetronic fuel injection and point ingition that can not meter the fuel and spark nearly as precise a moden FI system.

With the ability to control the fuel and spark via the EMS that can vary the spark timing and fuel delivery to optimize the combustion this will give more power it is that simple.

I will site the 258 Jeep 6 cylinder as an example.

AMC's big six, a 258-cid OHV I-6 engine Carter BBD 2 barrel carb 115HP

The 258 was equipped with computer controled fuel injection and ignition to produced 173 hp

That is an increase of 58hp an increase of 50 % more horsepower

That is what happens when you control the fuel and spark.
to give the best burn.

Never thought of it!

How much for a complete drop in 258, with injection?




M

QUOTE (Type 4 @ May 4 2005, 02:48 PM)

Here is tha answer to question the 2.0 plenum will not work with a big engine . CFM = CID x RPM x VE ÷ 3464 Here is the CFM required by a 105x80 2771cc CFM = 169 x 6500 x 0.95 ÷ 3464 = 301.26 CFM A set of 2.0 runners and 2.0 plenum wit a 65mm TB will flow 330 cfm @10 in vac at 6500rpm. As to those who say that the system will not give 20 to 30% more power. Due to the very crude L jetronic fuel injection and point ingintion that can not meter the fuel and spark nearly as precise a moden FI system. With the ability to control the fuel and spark via the EMS that can vary the spark timing and fuel delivery to optimize the combustion this will give more power it is that simple. I will site the 258 Jeep 6 cylinder as an example. AMC's big six, a 258-cid with 258 ci (4.2L) OHV I-6 engine Carter BBD 2 barrel carb 115HP The 258 was equipped with computercontroled fuel injection and ignition to produced 173 hp That is an increase of 58hp an increase of 50 % That is what happens when you control the fuel and spark. to give the best burn.

And you have dyno results to back this claim up? I mean no offence, but a Jeep 6 cylinder is a pretty different engine from a TIV. Everything that I've read suggests that the major restriction in performance is in the exhaust side. Without dyno results, I don't think anybody will take your 20% - 30% claim seriously.

Why do you guys all say that the claim of 20-30 percent in horsepower is bullshit? Go to http://www.aircooledtechnology.com/Home_Page.htm, hit the "research and development" tab on the left, choose the "KitCarlson EMS 2056 "E"" tab on the right, and read the first sentence, which says "We've already told you how well the KitCarlson EMS works; just see below the phenomenal near 33% gain in HP and torque. " and is followed with a series of dyno graphs demonstrating the results. That gain is over an engine that was said to be "optimized" for carburetors, but hey, 30 percent is 30 percent. And there are graphs. LOTS of graphs.

Thanks Paul you beat me to it.

Lotus was able to get about 15 more horsepower for the Elise engine (same as the Celica GTS), by adding thieir own fuel management programming... about 7% or 8%

The internals were all the same.

Jet chips has also dyno'd the Stage II chip for my Dodge truck--18 hp and 24 FTLBs of TQ increase with just an optimized MODULE ,,,,,,NOT an entirley new FI sys.

People on this board can really get all out of kilter---

the claimed improvement should not be posted unless backed up by fact with a stock motor...Jakes numbers don't count.......

as for the improved numbers by Lotus, not that big of a deal, I'm sure Toyota could have squeezed the same numbers out of the engine if they felt they needed to tune the motor to the extreme....Lotus could have just changed the rpm limit, the advance curve or something that Toyota felt was within a safe and tolerable range/limit..

I'm not saying there will not be an improvement, the motor better run as good or better with a $1500 system installed on it if it was my money

personally, I think for 95% of us, we wouldn;t know the difference between a MoTec, Haltech, Megasquirt or the Emerald system once installed and tuned halfway properly.

A $5K system is not going to run any better than a $1000 system unless you need all of the options and inputs/outputs available........it's all in the tuning

On Jake's page, I saw two graphs (not "lots and lots"), and neither showed a before and after with and without the EMS. Nowhere in the text does it say that the 33% increase was from the EMS system by itself.

The Jet chip is essentially doing exactly what this $1600 "upgrade" is doing for you. Replace the non-programmable, non-"chippable" ECU with a programmable ECU that you could then tune to get more power. What is 18hp in terms of percentage increase? I'll bet it's a lot less than 20%, let alone 30%.

I have no doubt that it would be possible to get 5% more power with tuning. 10% may even be reachable. More than that, you need to change something else, too. Changing the cam alone can get you 15% or more. Changing the exhaust can get you close to 10%.

QUOTE (Mueller @ May 4 2005, 06:35 PM)

the claimed improvement should not be posted unless backed up by fact with a stock motor...Jakes numbers don't count....... as for the improved numbers by Lotus, not that big of a deal, I'm sure Toyota could have squeezed the same numbers out of the engine if they felt they needed to tune the motor to the extreme....Lotus could have just changed the rpm limit, the advance curve or something that Toyota felt was within a safe and tolerable range/limit.. I'm not saying there will not be an improvement, the motor better run as good or better with a $1500 system installed on it if it was my money personally, I think for 95% of us, we wouldn;t know the difference between a MoTec, Haltech, Megasquirt or the Emerald system once installed and tuned halfway properly. A $5K system is not going to run any better than a $1000 system unless you need all of the options and inputs/outputs available........it's all in the tuning

No, it is not all in the tuning, if by tuning you are referring to laptop connection and how you modulate ignition curve and pulse width.

Why would Jakes numbers not count???

I don't give a hoot about what "TYPE " of motor this is--it is still an air pump. Period.

With all of the plethoras of engines on the market from import to domestic--they all have one thing in common: They ALL respond to FI tuning parameters outside of the " BOX "

Yes, each and every one of those motors WILL make more power and TQ with a simple chip change--but if any of you ever pick up an import tuner rag and read along like skippy to see how others are tackling situations most of us as a community would be better off---again, I do not care about what type of motor this is---those of you that continue to preach about how this particular engine is so ungodly unholy different from every other airpump out there is just crap---you are impeding progress------

Why in the hell would so many of you be getting so damn caustic about " DYNO NUMBERS TO PROVE A GAIN "???? Do not a single solitary one of you own a modern automotive product??? Do you really not positivley see the benifit to going from an analog 30+ year old piece of shit FI to a modern full function digital one??? Have not a single one of you ever picked up a brochure about a particular automotive improvement or mag article explaining about how most strides in power production is done with upgrades to digital FI ???????????

You know, when I first came to this board--I was so relieved to find exploration and knowledge--but over the last few months I find only bitterness, outrage, pointing fingers, extremely bad advice, pent up rage, outwardly stupid ass people who I firmly believe are using this site to vent thier screwed up family life frustrations and GOD knows what else------I have enough problems with my life than to sit here and put up with this garbage---

Based on rhetoric and suggestions on this board, and with GREAT caution on my part, as well as educating myself on components I have not been around in about 15 years, I have come to the educated conclusion that I do not need most of all the stuff everybody " SWEARS BY "......

I am leaving and may never return--it will all be based on anything else I may or may not read----there is just too much crap here,in this land of tolerance I will no longer tolerate it---good luck to all of you

I have Djet, and I can tell you that my car get's a 100% perfomance gain by using it.


M

dooooood, chiiilllllllll... sounds like maybe you've got some pent up rage yourself.

less all get along....

QUOTE (Qarl @ May 4 2005, 03:15 PM)

Lotus was able to get about 15 more horsepower for the Elise engine (same as the Celica GTS), by adding thieir own fuel management programming... about 7% or 8% The internals were all the same.

Correction Lotus achieved a 10 hp increase over the Celicas Yamaha-designed 2ZZ-GE and its achieved at higher RPM. I hate to admit it, but I'm a bit of a Toyota nerd. The 2ZZ-GE also had intake and exhaust optimized by Lotus. So ECU tweeking did bring some power, but not much.

QUOTE (nebreitling @ May 4 2005, 04:08 PM)

dooooood, chiiilllllllll... sounds like maybe you've got some pent up rage yourself. less all get along....

"You know, when I first came to this board--I was so relieved to find exploration and knowledge--but over the last few months I find only bitterness, outrage, pointing fingers, extremely bad advice, pent up rage, outwardly stupid ass people who I firmly believe are using this site to vent thier screwed up family life frustrations and GOD knows what else------I have enough problems with my life than to sit here and put up with this garbage---"




Hmmm....sounds like someone needs a nap.....or a Valium....or possibly both.

QUOTE

Why in the hell would so many of you be getting so damn caustic about " DYNO NUMBERS TO PROVE A GAIN "????

We are not trying to bust Steves balls, but it's in an advertisement stating this as fact...some people that don't know better will believe it...do you believe the HP increase that companies claim by wrapping your fuel lines with magnets??? if not, why not?? it's been "proven" by somebody out there

QUOTE

No, it is not all in the tuning, if by tuning you are referring to laptop connection and how you modulate ignition curve and pulse width.

YES, it is ALL in the tuning....there is not a single fuel injection system out there that has artificial intelligence and can tune itself 100%

Go have a beer or two and maybe you'll feel better

The EMS comparison on my page was done with the same advance rate in Dave's direct fire arrangement as the engine had with a Mallory, 12 degrees of advance and grey sprngs set to 28 degrees full... I plotted them just for that purpose. we had an AFR of 13:1 with carbs and 13.5:1 if I remember correctly with the EFI- nuttin else was changed and the tests were done on the same day and yielded EGT within 3% as far as I can remember. I am still at the hospital with my dad now and have no access to those records.

That test was done incredibly with very like settings, as close as one could get from carbs to EFI undoubtedly...
The engine I tested was very universal in its arrangement, the cam could work well with carbs or FI and its a rare breed.

I saw the numbers just like dave did and 3 other people in my shop, we were all totally amazed.. BTW- The FI engine ran at least 50 degree cooler head temps, even with a leaner mixture- as much as 14:1!

QUOTE

" DYNO NUMBERS TO PROVE A GAIN "????

BECAUSE THEY ARE FACTS!!!!

Thought I should shout also Honestly no one would entertain this kind of silliness when building a full race engine so why for a street motor. I have ran motors on a dyno before, it's not that tough. Rent time, hook up exhaust, (you don't even need water here!), hook up fuel, give it juice, and start. From there it is a really simple process, obviously this is over simplified but hell it's close... That being said maybe some should look into Prozac

I gained 30% peak power between 1.8L engines for my race car without switching to FI! It's dyno proven.
All it took was a cam with .07 more lift, 20 deg. more duration, .5 more compression, many hours spent on the heads by Len Hoffman, assembly and optimization by Jake Raby, fully prepped carbs by Chris Foley, Evo exhaust by Tangerine, and a thousand more rpm. Piece of cake.

Steve Stromberg needs to put together an engine, install the EFI, drive a car to the local chassis dyno and show everyone first hand how good it is...
or find a guinea pig ready to spend $$ on an unproven combination. Maybe the system is so nice it won't matter whether the power is increased or not.
I'm sure that, regardless of the dyno results, it will feel good in the seat of the pants. Any smooth running 914 with more power than stock will.
I'm assembling an engine for William Harris' restoration. He wanted an improved FI system, and was going to pay for the Kit Carlson system once it was all figured out and available as a bolt on product. Time ran out though. I doubt you could convince him to lay out the $$ for the Emerald without proving it first, since he's paying someone else to put it together. We'll stick with the D-Jet and know it will run just fine as soon as it is installed. It won't cost anywhere near $1600 to tune, and he will have money left over for FI repairs in the future.

SDS makes a really nice standalone EFI system. I'm buying a SDS system for my turbo project on my Dastun. It is the easiest of all standalones to install and get working. No laptop is required baecause they give you a handheld device for that. It's ~$800 for a four cylinder system that does fuel only. I know they sell cylinder head temperature sensors for aircooled applications.

SDS EFI

I don’t know what the arguments are about. Or could be about. It seems implausible to me too, but Jake’s a respected engine builder, a pioneer of aircooled technologies, known to be honest and forthright, and he’s telling you, with charts, graphs and dyno results to prove it, that it’s possible to get a 30 percent horsepower gain with the only change being a switch to programmable fuel injection. No other change, Chris (and come to think if it, knowing this, why are you still running carbs?).

Of course your results may vary, and of course if you don’t have a dyno to help tune you’ll almost certainly get less, but where else are you going to get that kind of horsepower gain for fifteen hundred bucks? If you want to dump on Steve, fine, but don’t challenge his veracity because he indicated that 30 percent more HP is possible. That's not right.

QUOTE (Paul Illick @ May 5 2005, 06:45 AM)

Chris (and come to think if it, knowing this, why are you still running carbs?).

SCCA Production Car rules.....

QUOTE (Z Driver @ May 5 2005, 01:10 AM)

SDS makes a really nice standalone EFI system. I'm buying a SDS system for my turbo project on my Dastun. It is the easiest of all standalones to install and get working. No laptop is required baecause they give you a handheld device for that. It's ~$800 for a four cylinder system that does fuel only. I know they sell cylinder head temperatures for aircooled applications. SDS EFI

I just installed a SDS fuel only system on my car.
So far so good.
Starts good, idles good and drives good.
I still have some "experimenting" to do though.
I will be posting pics of the install in the next couple of weeks.

ya'll lost me WAY back, but it's fascinating... it's like hearing pilots talk, I have no idea what's going on, but it sounds cool...

and this thread helped me a lot... I KNOW I'm not going EFI until I have a friend close by that knows all of this shit...

challenging a person's voracity is completely acceptable if they outright lie to you. i'm pushing on the tredle to get the grinding wheel up to speed.

k

I chose SDS for the electronics portion of my EFI kits to be used on all future engines here at RAT. There were many reasons for this including the huge simplicity advantage that it has over all other systems. Simplicity is a must because most of my customers are not "wrenchs" in the engine department- those guys buy the parts from the store and do it them selves.

When I put together my FI kits (which are being tested as we speak against carbs on 9 different engines here at the shop) I wanted an engineered, compatible 100% complete system from the fuel pump to the pressure regulator and everything between.

I have also switched ALL of my personal cars to the same system so I can experience the same changes and tuning experiences that my customers will see and face- it will help me to further the development greatly.

Any product that has the important task of both feeding the engine with fuel and doing so with accuracy and easability had better be tested to an extent that never really ends. In this indistry so many things are just made to run on one engine (if that) and then sold to the market as being perfect... It sucks.

Development and testing costs and costs a lot- more than anything else involved with my shop undoubtedly, but it is a necessity. I will be sharing my EFI charts and comparative tests in a library on the site as we gather more results and gain more and more experience with the system. I have 7 engines to test with EFI in the next month or so and all of them will first be tested with carbs, the most exploratory will be my 3 liter... I am sure it will see huge gains because the engine needs the added air so badly!

If a product isn't tested, proven and if the seller cannot cough up data on demand it should not be sold- its not really a product.