Max flow. The idea is to know what the max those injectors are capable of. Everything in the software calculations is scaling down. So if you put in a lower number (50% duty cycle) then the scaling gets done twice, once by you and once by the software.

That seems to make sense but it is not well documented in the setup information I have. It is likely the one of those things that should be apparent but I missed it somehow.

Injector static flow rate is the value you are looking for.

What is the reason for running the pressure so high? Given you know the exact flow rate at 43.5 PSI and 270cc/min should support up to ~160hp at an 80% duty cycle. I would recommend setting the fuel pressure there (43.5 PSI) unless you are expecting more than 150-160 hp out of your 2056. Also 3 bar is where most injectors are designed to run, go to high or low from there and you can have unexpected fuel delivery problems. So...

Set fuel pressure to 43.5
Injector size=270cc/min
Req_fuel=12.8

If for some reason you cant adjust the pressure and you have to run it at 49psi than injector size=295cc/min and req_fuel=11.7, but i would adjust the fuel pressure down if at all possible.

I wouldn't tweak your VE table yet unless its required to get the car started after the change. It still needs to be tuned anyways.

Let us know when its idling after the adjustments...

Sorry typo. I am right at 40 PSI. 9 is too close to the 0!

Not always, it depends on how you are tuning. If you are tweaking things manually than closed loop will probably make things difficult you. If you are tuning your VE table via log analysis though having closed loop on while you are collecting your data will actually give the analyzer more data points to work with and speed up the process.

Doing things manually is a royal PITA given the number of data points we are working with. The autotune feature available in the paid version of Tunerstudio is worth WAY more than what they charge for it as is the log analyzer in MegaLogViewer. You will turn weeks of tuning into hours and get things a hell of a lot more accurate in the end. again SCIENCE!! If you are only going to pay for one get the registered version of Tunerstudio for the autotune feature. I like having both because i nerd out on data.

At 40PSI the calculated flow rate would be 259cc/min so req_fuel=13.3. Flow rate calculations are not 100% exact though. If you are obsessive like me and want to be exact run at 43.5 given you have the bench testing at that pressure.

Yes I agree. I have both full versions. Like you said there is just too much data too manage for the new person. While you can grasp the interrelation of the varies data points and the impacts your changes are suppose to have. I just find it frustrating when because of your own lack of knowledge you don't get the expected change. the end it is your fault because you had a setting incorrect but I guess that is just part of it all!

Hope I don't have weeks required to complete. Have to drive this to Okteenerfest!

I think the resolution is capable of adjusting to that. Will revise.

As long as you set the AFR targets correctly I don't see why this would be the case.

I agree that tuning open loop is usually a better approach (particularly if the AFR targets aren't configured correctly) but I've done it both ways. The key is to understand what is happening, you can usually see the influence of the closed loop control and decide if it's helping or hurting the tune.

I can see the logic of both approaches: focusing on the VE table first vs. the AFR table first.

If you're tuning the VE table, it seems to me, you should be open-loop. You then tune via whatever feedback you have available to you (WBO2, dyno, etc) to bring the VE table to 'perfection'. Then you can enable closed-loop, after populating the AFR table with the values you see while running your final tune.

--OR--

If you're tuning via the AFR table, you run closed-loop from the start and then tune via whatever feedback you have available to you (WBO2, dyno, etc) to bring the AFR table to 'perfection'. Then populate the VE table with the values you see while running your final tune.

But I feel like, from the other responses, that I might be missing something from the picture. James? Jeff? Can you correct or add to my understanding?

You set your AFR targets before using autotune or the log analyzer to adjust the VE table. The AFR targets are what tuning the VE table is attempting to achieve. With closed loop + AFR targets enabled extra data points are generated as the close loop functionality is varying the pulse width to try and hit the target. This generates data for multiple pulse widths under the same target bin. The amount of closed loop correction applied is being recorded in the log along with the resulting O2%. The analyzer/autotune then uses this data to correct your VE table to the most accurate result possible.

Look at it like this:
Say hypothetically you are running with closed loop off, cruising under steady load steady RPM (lets say 65 kpa 3500 rpm on your VE map) this would result in megasquirt looking up the value for that VE bin (call it 85%) and then calculating the injector pulse width for those operating conditions (lets say its a 12ms squirt) lets also say that this bin on the VE table is currently tuned too rich so this 12ms squirt occurring at 65kpa 3500rpm produces a burn of 11:1 AFR. You could drive like that for an hour but you would only wind up with a single data point for that bin.

That data point being:
"A 12ms squirt at 65kp 3500 RPM gives you 11:1 AFR"
You can drive forever like that and it will be the only datapoint the analyzer has to work with. The only conclusion the analyzer can make is "needs to be leaner" but there is no data to say by how much.

Now lets set proper AFR targets and turn closed loop on:
Car still holding at 65kpa 3500rpm Megasquirt does the lookup and produces a 12ms injector pulse that results in an 11:1 burn. That is data point #1 BUT now the closed loop algorithm looks at that output and determines the AFR target is not being hit (lets say the target is 13.5 for cruise) Depending on how you have your closed loop set up after a few misses its going to tweak the pulse width slightly so now we have a data point #2 of 65KP 3500RPM 85%VE with a 3% correction applied produces an 11.8ms pules that results in an 11.2:1 burn. Still not hitting the target, closed loop tweaks again and we get yet another data point in the log. After a short while of running like this we will have one of two results. Either A. Closed loop operation will have resulted in a data point that hits on exactly what we are looking for or B. If the VE bin is further out of tune than the closed loop settings allow for correction we will collect data points on all the run conditions up to that correction limit, but even then the slope of that correction data allows the analyzer to predict what the value should be. the analyzer then kicks you back a new generated table based on the data.

Autotune basically does the same thing just with a slower correction rate than closed loop algorithms are usually set to.

With a single data point you just have to keep guessing at how much to adjust which is fine if you don't mind spending weeks manually dialing in your map. I find data collection and automated processing a way more enjoyable way to do it, not to mention faster and more accurate.


If you change your AFR targets after tuning your VE table you should go back and re-tune your VE table to hit those targets otherwise you are constantly depending on closed loop operation to hit them which is slower and not as accurate as a properly tuned VE table. It puts you at risk of being outside your closed loop limits and should your O2 sensor crap out you will be running out of tune. Basically the goal is to get your VE table to a point that the closed loop algorithm never has to do anything. You know your tune is dialed in when you can run a datalog through the analyzer and have it make minimal to no changes based on the data provided.

Thanks to some very sound advice and guidance above and beyond my wildest expectations. I got to drive the car! Still have a few bugs to work out but overall proforem very well. I think there is more to fix and tune but i can say that even in this less than perfect state this systems performs better than the stock system.

Got to recheck for vac leaks, get the idle control valve set, and revise the AFR and VE tables to fill in a few gaps.

Seems to be wandering just a bit on the AFR at times and i have a few values in the current table that just don't work. Going to try and import a table James provided. Thank you sir!

Congratulations, Mike! Just in time for Okteenerfest. I know it's been a long haul, so I'm glad you're almost there. I'm following behind you at some point on the Microsquirt path, but I'm having someone else do most of the hard work. Still, I followed this with great interest. Enjoy!

very cool... and congrats on the milestone!

congratulations ARE in order

And thx to James for posting again. I always enjoyed reading your posts James. Even if it doesn't apply to what I'm running. I'm an info freak.

Congrats!

Enjoy the ride

Just glad I could help get another 914 successfully squirted. There is so much to learn with the system and steep learning curve to boot that many get frustrated some to the point of throwing in the towel. I hate to see that happen because if you can make it through the install its always worth it in the end!

The VE table will still need a lot of work especially in the upper range. The change I made to the RPM bins should make that a little easier. I didnt touch the tune, just the scale.

The idle wandering you you may be able to work out just by spending more time on that area, if not a trick I like to do to control idle better is to bracket the RPM bins around your target idle speed. Say you want to set your idle to 950 RPM you can set one of the RPM columns to 800 and the next one at 1200, then set the VE values in both columns the same. What this does is ensure there is a constant VE value for the entire range the car idles in. Otherwise you can experience sort of a runwaway condition at idle. The area between two VE bins is interpolated so if that interpolation creates a slope your idle can be somewhat unpredictable. Bracketing the RPM range with the same values ensures there is no slope for the idle to climb up.

Now you get to the fun part, the never ending quest for a perfect VE table!

Given your timing control is mechanical you will probably find you will be unable to get 100% consistant results with the VE table. Timing affects fuel needs and there will always be some variance as to when the advance is coming on. Just as long as your "close" is landing somewhere between 12.5-13.5 AFR in the mid rpm range you should be good. Of course I know you want to go to full ignition control somewhere down the line as that is where the extra power is hiding!

James

Incorporated your changes and I have a car that seems to run quite well. An amazing difference! Need to back out the timing a few degres but ran great on a 10 mile drive tonight.

Can't wait to add ignition control!

Hi Mike, congratulation for making your megasquirt run well after a long patience!
Sorry if I have to hijack your thread, I've been wanting to ask your help or members help on this thread since it is related but I just waited till your issue is fix before asking some help.
Is there a way you can help us make a 71 1.7 megasquirt run after engine rebuilt?Actually it was running before the engine rebuild and after installing back the engine and the megasquirt II system, we are able to run it on idle but hesitation when we tried to rev it. We thought the megasquirt need some tuning since the engine has been rebuilt. Well, we (Bob-new owner) called Diyautotune and they suggested Bob to buy the updated software, so he did bought it and after installing the software to his laptop and hooked it to the car, a new project was requested and now the old project or old program was deleted. Now totally car won't run. Customer support from diyautotune is not helping at all. Just a little history of the car. I bought the car running 3 years ago except with broken rear suspension console. and after fixing the suspension, Bob bought it from me and he drove it for a few months until it needed engine rebuild. So basically we have no idea how the megasquirt system installed. The good thing only is that I acquired the car with running megasquirt.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

"...i can say that even in this less than perfect state this systems performs better than the stock system"

How so? Specifically.

uh oh, here we go...

Please do not misunderstand my question, I am an inquisitive person and only seek accurate information, not to start a heated debate. The question is purely rational and not subjective. When a bold claim like that is made it requires justification otherwise the myth that D-Jet is somehow problematic/flawed/inefficient/etc. continues without justification. I have always run D-Jet cars and find them to have no issues and terrific. No doubt other FI systems have their benefits. We have street cars here, not high performance, highly sensitive machines requiring the minutia to be exactly perfect.

From my perspective, any quality made, appropriate to the engine, properly adjusted FI system is as good as another in terms of how the engine performs and functions. With that understanding no FI system will perform significantly better/worse/differently than another, will not be more responsive/give more power/better mileage etc. The best FI system just feeds the engine what it needs and as long as it does that well, whats the difference?

Show us the justification of the above claim or qualify/recant the broad generalization. Its a fair question.

2 quick benefits over the stock Djet setup would be the ability of having sequential vs batch injection. This would help for a smoother idle, perhaps a lower stable idle. The other benefit is readily available and cheap replacement parts.

Would be happy to help however I can!

Very valid.

First, I think you read too much into my statement. I never claimed better 0 to 60 times, more power, or a higher top speed. My performance reference is to the fuel system not the car.

The D-Jet is neither perfect or seriously flawed. But it is limited in what it can control and the changes it can make. When it comes to keeping an engine within the most desirable operational parameters, modern systems are more flexible, capable of monitoring and controlling more parameters, and have a more realistic capacity to perform better at operating the fuel system over all conditions than the D-Jet even on a stock engine. Additionally, the improvements in modern sensors, the accuracy of the sensors, their durability, and the ability of the ECU to make decisions based on more data results in a very real step up in the performance level of the modern fuel system over the D-Jet.

First as we all know, the stock system lacks sufficient feedback to accurately determine the impact of changes the ECU made had on the engine. If the parameters called for a specific condition the D-Jet blindly supplies fuel for that condition regardless of how it impacts the engine. Regardless of loving or hating the stock system adding an O2 sensor that provides actual feedback to the ECU allowing it to determine the impacts of changes made is a step up in performance of the fuel system.

Next, being able to accurately adjust the various ECU parameters to meet your specific engine requirements directly results in better performance. You very accurately acknowledged it is essential for any fuel control system to be properly adjusted to the engine. I have 96mm pistons, big valve heads, performance exhaust, matched injectors, and electronic ignition. Each of these required adjustment to the D-jet system to account for the change. My ability to adjust the old system to account for these changes was limited and very difficult to accomplish. Adjusting a MPS to account for a engine modification requires a Zen like level of commitment.

I removed a functioning D-Jet system from this car. It is in a box and I will keep it. It worked and performed well. But it was clear based on AFR readings, that there were times and conditions because of my settings and my engine modifications, where it was documented that the fuel system was not performing well. Under certain conditions it was extremely rich (in the 10's) and other times it would be way too lean. Regardless of adjustments made to the stock system it was very difficult for me to reach a state where I had reasonably consistency across the range of engine conditions. I simply had to settle for a level of adjustment that worked reasonably well. It is my opinion that settling did not allow me to take full advantage of my modifications.

With the stock system I struggled to control AFR, cylinder head temperatures, timing, start-up, and other issues. While it has been a bit of a pain, with the new system I can adjust it so well that I can have all of my parameters in the ranges I want under the conditions that I want to specify.

For those few reasons above I think my bold statement about the performance of the fuel system is supportable. I am sure there are some numbers out there from Dyno testing and such that may be able to support higher HP or faster 0 to 60 times but that was never part of my statement.

Will be looking at your system closely. Would like to put something similar on my Raby 2056 in place of the carbs.

I think that adding FI and ignition control would really make your engine more drivable.

I have mine set up so that it is linked by Bluetooth to a tablet. Using MS Droid I have real-time display of parameters and I can change parameters relatively easily and have multiple tunes available.

I totally understand as I am very data driven person myself. Much like the carbs vs d-jet discussions the Megasquirt vs anything discussions have a tendency to devolve hence my response and my reluctance to even post on the subject anymore.

That being said, and not having been the one to have made the statement here I can only comment on what I know about. I do know that the particular motor in question was not stock so I am going to assume the rest of the statement should have been "performs better than the stock system on my motor."

To be clear, I love a well running d-jet system on a bone stock motor. I have both a d-jet 1.7 and a d-jet 2.0 that amaze me every time i turn the key, they start on the first compression stroke and I am in awe that these 45 year old parts still perform so well.

My appreciation of Megasquirt has to do with it being a technical advancement that allows optimization and precision not possible with d-jet. Added bonus is that is is also tune-able to any modification you make to the motor.



I do not believe this is an accurate assumption. If it were why are all Porsches today not running D-jet? Technological improvements have been made that result in real world benefits. At the most basic level, putting aside the massive feature set of Megasquirt and the documented shortcomings of D-jet wiring connectors and just comparing the two systems from a fueling standpoint there are still advantages to Megasquirt. Specifically I am referring to the accuracy of supplying fuel based on an analog curve vs a digital programmable fuel map. Yes under some conditions (specifically the points in the curve the d-jet system has been tuned to) the fueling of the two systems will be identical however outside of those very specific points the curve approximating fuel needs is just that, an approximation. It may be close, but a digital map will be closer if not dead on. In addition, the needs of an engine are not always on a perfect curve. The engine in my autocross car for example once the fuel map was completely dialed in for whatever reason has a noticeable dip in fuel needs at WOT around 3200-3600 rpm so looking at it on paper the fuel curve at WOT is not a curve but looks more like a 2 humped camel. A d-jet setup on this motor could be tuned to produce a perfect mixture at couple specific points but because of the shape of the fuel requirements it would always hit a rich spot around 3200 RPM at WOT unless it was tuned to be dead on at 3200 RPM in which case it would be lean everywhere else. Would it be noticed from the drivers seat? Who knows, but it can be seen in the data.

Add to that O2 closed loop operation and you just increase the real world accuracy of the system even more.

And that is just fueling. Megasquirt has a complete engine management feature set and the advantages that the accuracy of a digital system provides are multiplied as soon as you add ignition control which is really where i feel the most gains are. You can visibly see the difference with a timing light between a car running a stock distributor and one running a 36-1 tooth wheel with wasted spark. You can also again tune the ignition table in ways that are just not possible with analog advance weights and vacuum canisters.

I can go more in-depth but the bottom line is always accuracy improves performance and efficiency and Megasquirt can be tuned to a higher level of accuracy across all running conditions than d-jet, even on a stock motor. Nothing "wrong" with d-jet, its just the nature of the two systems. Points that can be made to the advantages of d-jet over carbs are similar to the ones that can be made about Megasquirt over d-jet. Its further refinement and less compromises.

Thanks for the detailed follow-up James. We basically agree on everything important. MS and others can be excellent FI solutions for those willing to pay the price.

100% disagree with the comment on the D-Jet terminals. Lets forget this myth it has no substance. Greenwood promotes a beyond-extremist perspective if that is your source, he has provided nothing to back up his claims. Perhaps on paper, in a lab setting under forensic evaluation they are not the most optimal engineering solution and 100% agree that L-Jet style hardware is a significant technical improvement towards connectivity, but that does not make the D-Jet terminals fatally flawed. No 914s or other D-Jet cars have burned to the ground because of this terminal. How many D-Jet cars still have their original harnesses using those 45 year old terminals? Every 914 I have ever owned has its original harness and several of those cars I drove daily for many years with never a related fault. VWs, MBs, Volvo's - a significant number of cars used D-Jet around the world and continue to use it and its hardware to this day without issue.

AS you mention, our D-Jets on stock engines are perfectly suitable solutions for what they are, I would argue that they were not designed to provide the level of precision that newer digital based FI systems are capable of, nor do our stock engines demand that level of precision. So the higher precisoin is more of a novelty only, where it is not essential to the needs of the engine. Because they can be so sophisticated to set-up, custom fit and calibrate, it is disheartening to see some that attempt the conversion not be successful or not successful without extreme dedication and sacrifice - the effort and cost needed can be a significant price to pay. The conversions can be and are done, but at what cost in time and materials? The most expensive part of the D-Jet is the MPS and rebuilts are available for $300. and its a bolt in solution. If folks want to go to the trouble of an FI conversion, or need to because of engine mods, they just need to be aware of the full impacts of that decision - either way they have my full support as long as they are fully informed.

Great read guys, for I am one with a Djet and original harness.

Well all is running with just a few minor issues. Most of them self inflicted wounds!

Still working with the idle adjustments and I am seeing some higher CHT temps than I want. Playing with the timing a bit to see if I can get them down. May just wind up adding some more fuel in to cool things off more at cruising speeds.

The one thing I was wondering is because I am not controlling timing yet should I be using the tooth wheel setting? It pulls some adjustment for timing based on rpm from a table which I have set up to mimic the factory timing.

Not sure it makes much difference but I have been struggling with the timing for the CHT temps and not met with much success. Running at above 350 most of the time and it heats up rapidly on hill climbs. In fact I reduces it to about 23 degrees and the temps were worse. So I was wondering if the timing of the fuel injection could be part of this?

Hoping for the best on the trip and because I have the ECU set up with Bluetooth connection and I am running MSDROID on a tablet I should be able to make fuel corrections as need on the trip to Okteenerfest.

Your post is contradictory. In one line you are changing timing to help CHT. In the next section you are fuel-only and not controlling timing.

If you are running timing through the distributor then changes to the timing curve will not make any difference to your tune. They are just parameters that go nowhere and have no function.

If you want to run with a more lean AFR (lean burn) you generally have to advance the timing to match. This is usually done on low throttle cruise bins. However, if you are not controlling timing then you are at the mercy of the timing generated by your dizzy curve.

Glad that the car is running well. Continue to tune. During the trip you can change the target AFR, adjust the fuel trim and find the balance of power, fuel mileage and CHT.

I am not controlling time with the Microsquirt. I definitely could be wrong but I understood that the when using the tooth wheel set up you can select use table for timing. I don't know if this table impacts the firing of the injectors. I think it would not be related as you suggest but just wanted to confirm I was not missing something.

There should be a fuel injection timing table which controls either the start or end of the injection cycle. What is yours set at?

In my experience, injection timing doesn't really have a huge effect on overall engine performance unless it is wayyyyy off and all you're doing is pooling in the manifold. It can subtly change throttle response, making transients a bit better, and also has a slight effect on torque, but I've only seen that on an engine dyno after many hours of tuning. Your AFR can also be a little weird if its way off and you're sending gas right out the exhaust port as IV/EV timing overlaps. Again, this is pretty subtle, nothing like the changes even a few degrees of ignition timing might make.

This is what I have for my timing settings.

Click to view attachment

This is base don information from McMark.

Click to view attachment

So I am assuming the ECU knows when TDC occurs and fires the injector based on that.

Is there another setting for the injector timing?

Injector timing is fixed. There is a setting for it, but I'm not advanced enough to know how big of an impact it can have. My intuition says that it's not very relevant at low levels of tuning. Much like sequential injection doesn't seem to have a large impact on rough tuned engines.

Mike, is your distributors mechanical advanced locked out? You have two options with the distributor/ignition.
1. Lock the MicroSquirt ignition (top left of your image, change the Fixed Advance setting from Use Table to Fixed Timing).
2. Lock the distributor (glue the weights, or otherwise stop the mechanical advance) and use the MicroSquirt timing table to control advance.

If you're distributor isn't locked and your setting are like the image you posted, you have two systems fiddling with timing. The results will be unpredictable.

Not sure I see the potential for the systems to compete. The ECU has no control over actual timing. It is only firing the injectors based on the signal coming from the tooth wheel.

Ahhh, that's right. Now I remember how your ignition is set up. Yeah, there's no overlap.

Look under Basic Settings -> Engine and Sequential Settings.

Sequential Injection setting is probably set to Untimed. You can set it to Semi-sequential to specify the crank angle. I would search for a good reason to do it before switching. I doubt it's going to magically solve any problems.

OK. Clear now. Your original post about timing was referring to injector timing relative to crank angle. This will have almost no effect on CHT unless you are overheating at idle or very low rpm. ONce you above about 1500rpm the injectors are spraying fast enough (and in batch mode) that you will see almost no difference.

If you were running sequential or some variant then you would see a greater effect where the fuel can puddle on the topside of the intake valve if the timing was VERY wrong.

high CHT could be running lean or wrong IGNITION timing. Have you verified your ignition advance curve with a timing light? Is the timing too advanced?

Well I got a few hundred miles on the car at Okteenerfest. With a few minor adjustments here and there I was able to keep my head temps in reasonable ranges and enjoyed a pretty good power range. Admidittly it took a few atttemps to get dialed in but using MSdroid on my tablet made the MicroSquirt changes so easy but using a old school timing light to make slight changes in timing was more difficult.

Extremely happy with the performance and the ease of adjustment. Ran pretty much flawlessly the whole weekend and performed well enough in all areas of the power band to all me to keep up with some pretty good cars. Not any faster but certainly more consistent performance across a much wider area.

I think once I switch the timing control it will be even better.

Again thanks to everyone for you help. you will likely see a similar thread when i start converting the timing.

My experience would say you're trying to achieve too lean of AFR especially on WOT or load. I can do 14:1 with my car because it has nickies, but every iron cylinder car I've tested/tuned 13.5:1 is the big load (hill) max, trying to lean it out further has always resulted in skyrocketing head temps. this often is combined with little or no recovery on the downside of the hill.
Frankly once you get beyond a certain head temp heat soak sets in and it will never recover.

You have to totally ignore the results for water cooled cars, they have way more control over head temps and can do the lean burn trick. You have to remember that the aircooled engine is based on a 1930's design. Some say aircooled, some say air/oil cooled, really it's air/oil and fuel charge cooled.
You have to run a bit rich, you have to run at minimum 3K RPM because leaning out and lugging an aircooled will kill the engine PDQ.

I get into arguments about aircooled AFR all the time, least I used too, guys basically saying I'm an idiot and "what does he know".
Then in short order I'll hear thru the grapevine the same person who wouldn't listen to me has dropped a valve seat, etc.

Well to add to your wise insight I had a discussion with a man I respect imesenly. Lewis Broyles and he pointed out that it did not matter what your past experience told you or what any gauge said. The air cooled engine needs more fuel to run cool. I added that fuel and have been enjoying the benefits the whole Okteenerfest weekend. Still have a few rough points to refine but what a blast the car was to drive this weekend.

Ran with a few big dogs. Admittedly a few steps behind but still in the mix. Certainly a driver with more skill than i have could have done more. But damn that was fun! Never had such predictable performance with the D-jet. Could be just due to my lack of understanding with the D-jet but stil it was beyond epic!

We're lucky to have James in our back yard.

We have one amazing stock d-jet system in Jim's car but, I'm biting my nails every time he turns the key. These systems are old and having a perfect, running system these days is like finding a needle in a haystack. So is find parts for them.

We also have one amazing custom 2270 MicroSquirt system in Scott's car. It is absolutely "jaw dropping" (there's a technical phrase you can write a white paper on) in how it performs. Imagine how a brand new Type 4 motor would perform today with modern FI from a 2017 Macan as an "example" (but totally open sourced). To watch James sit in the passengers seat and fine tune this motor while you're doing 3rd gear pulls from 1,000 rpm will bring a tear to any 914 owners eye.

Cam? Any cam you want.
AFR? Any AFR you want at any RPM or altitude.
Advance? You guessed it.

Congrats Mike! Sounds like you're well on your way to having a killer motor.

Just went through configuring a MicroSquirt brain running MS2E firmware and the trigger offset (Trigger #1 Angle) settings are calculated differently between the two firmwares.

MicroSquirt 3.83 firmware would end up being around 290° as mentioned above.

but...
Mike is running the MS2E firmware and the angle for that is around 60°.

Was just looking through a couple of options for coils and saw this using a VW coil.

Click to view attachment

Seems to be too simple? Would fire in essentially 2 banks?

Any thoughts? The coil is only $18!

Been looking through the information and i still have no idea how firing order and such is set?

Will be using the EFI Quadspark and Tower 4 coil. But just have not grasped the setup and how to specify firing order.

Once I get the hardware in I will start an ignition thread.

Ignition is simple.

The coil you pictured (and most like it) have two ignitors built in, which controlled by the blue wires in the above picture. The ECU triggers each wire separately, every 180degrees. The spark plug outlet/wire connections are paired. So the coil pictured above the top two connections fire simultaneously (pair A), and the bottom two fire simultaneously (pair B). This means that each cylinder fires twice per cycle, this is not like the stock setup.

The ECU is hardcoded to trigger IGNOUT 1 as cylinder #1.
So cylinders #1 and #3 get connected to the coil controlled by IGNOUT 1, and cylinders #2 and #4 connect to the coil controlled by IGNOUT 2.

The firing order is set by your spark plug connections.

This is Wasted Spark. If it's still confusing, research Wasted Spark because I bet that will clarify things.

But there's not software setting for firing order. You just have to hook it up right, which really is just like a standard distributor. You can screw up your firing order on a stock engine just by swapping two wires. Same thing with the coil you pictured. You can screw it up (or make it right) just by moving the spark plug wires. NOTE: Some coils come with cylinder numbers embossed/scribed into the body of the coil, THIS MAY NOT BE CORRECT FOR YOUR ENGINE. Those numbers are to guide/help people installing that coil into the car it was designed for. You're not doing that, so those numbers (if they exist) aren't for you. Sand them off or just ignore them.

tl;dr -- Firing order is set simply by hooking the spark plug wires to the correct spots, and that's all.