No Motec, you used a Megasquirt? More info please!

I didn't use Megasquirt,. He has made it work out though

Yes, I used MS3X. Aside from some injector driver issues, it's worked fairly well for me. It's full sequential, 2 O2 sensors, knock sensors, etc. I have no experience with other ECUs, but MS works great and is easy to understand/use.

FWIW, William calls it a Commodore 64. Hahahaha... and I get that, but until I can swing, and have the patience to install, Motec M130 or EcuMaster Black, Megasquirt will have to do.

Joe - I get the Commodore 64 joke, but I don't really get it. These ECUs all take inputs, compare to tables, and give outputs to manage fuel injection (and also spark), don't they? Don't they all interpolate between points on a matrix? How much better is a larger matrix? Are things happening in our engines (not F1 stuff) so fast that ECU speed matters that much? Especially if the tune is a special one, like for WOT operation, where you don't care about cruise/part throttle, MPG, even idle, etc?

Exactly, Walt. What's the baud rate of a factory Motronic ecu? 8000 or so? And they're still running fine today. And before that, Bosch used *gasp* analog computers and rotary switches for throttle position!

It's a joke. Megasquirt comes from a long history of DIY, build-your-own-board, etc, history that, to me, gives it a certain stigma. I also understand that not all ECUs are created equal in the math and the hardware. I've had some issues with the hardware having to replace injector drivers because the drivers that came in the MS3X were not reliable enough to drive a Toyota smart coil. I found a few posts where others had experienced the same thing and ended up soldering in new drivers. Problem solved. But, because of this, I too question the reliability of Megasquirt. Beyond this hardware issue, it's been fine.

The other aspect is simply the math/programming. Not all algorithms are created equal, either. Some are simply programmed better than other using PID vs PI and using different control schemes versus other schemes. I'm not an EE and I'm not a programmer, but I know enough about both to discern the difference.

For me, MS3X has been perfect. Tunerstudio is great to work with (intuitive and easy to use/understand). Megalog viewer is great to work with. The wiring, setup, amount of control, features, etc, are all great, to me. I am a DIYer and love the process of learning, doing, and redoing in an attempt to make things better/perfect so it's a match made in heaven. I have rewired my engine 3 times now improving the craftsmanship, adding features that I didn't think I would need/want, etc. And I am at it again - engine out, adding a second O2, adding a CHT, and a few other nick/nacks.

If I were building professional cars, racing professionally, or looking at this from any other lens than the one I use, I would heavily consider Motec, Haltech, ECUMaster, or some other, more reputable, ECU to install that has the backing and resources to develop them to a higher standard than my perception of Megasquirt.

All said, Megasquirt is hard to beat in terms of value, features, install base, forum support, tech support, etc. For a beginner, I would choose to use MS3X every time.

It would be interesting to understand the true architectural and design differences between MS and Motec. My own experience, which is very limited, is that the likely failure cases of the design are probably more important than the differences in processing speed.

My friend's MS3 developed two very frustrating failures that were likely due to MS design or ECU hardware degradation. The first was consistent stumbles at various RPMs with no logged indications of the cause. The second failure caused a complete, random stall when driving at highway speeds, with no warning and again no logging of any indications of reason.

We spent a lot of effort and time to try to diagnose these 2 issues, even though one was repeatable and reproducible, and the other random and frankly pretty scary to reproduce: drive around at highway speed until the car stalled.

Both were (finally) fixed by applying firmware updates to Megasquirt.

This is just a single anecdote and I have no interest in maligning MS (I much prefer TunerStudio and MS tuning maps over say the older Motec M84 ECU Manager), but this was a disturbing failure case. Perhaps this was an edge case that very rarely occurs, or time will tell that it is a failing piece of hardware. I couldn't say.

I would love to know if this is a MS-specific design / hardware issue or not. Perhaps someone has insight.

I don't know if or how often other ECUs have similar failures. Personally, the ECU relying on firmware updates to continue to function safely left me with some concern. YMMV

Either more displacement or forced induction will provide more torque lower in the RPM band.

As others said, you should probably check ignition advance and/or fuel enrichment - an SC should be fairly peppy/responsive low/mid-range. I still run SC cams in my 930, even though they're all done by 5500 RPM - purely because I think the low/mid-range response is more useful than slightly more maximum power at the expense of mid-range. Lower rotating (clutch, flywheel) and/or reciprocating (rods/pistons) mass doesn't hurt.

You'd probably need quite a lot of extra displacement for it to help appreciably. Like a 3.6 swap. Not generally noted as a cheap approach.

On the other other hand,.a full-size turbo good for 400+ HP (K27/HF - fairly trick 30 years ago) makes 6 PSI around 2500 RPM, and opens a stock (0.8 bar) wastegate by 3000-3200 depending on gear (eg "load"). Makes ~80% of peak torque around 3000 RPM. Kind of a difficult trick for an N/A motor, without variable cam timing and/or induction lengths.

A smaller turbo (eg low-boost setup) will spool faster. More efficient/modern designs (ball bearing, better compressor wheels, split volute, variable impeller vanes) don't hurt spool either.

This could be done relatively cheaply/easily (J pipe, turbo, MAP sensor, BOV, wastegate, muffler). If you stayed down around 75-100HP, it wouldn't seem especially unrealistic/unreasonable (at least, not to me, YMMV) to ignore (or defer until convenient) clutch, transmission, brakes, suspension, oil pump, cooler etc upgrades. Not like you're full-chat down the Mulsanne straight.

You already have precise fuel/spark control; big help right there. If you use active knock detection/mitigation, you might be surprised as to how much boost you can actually run.

"Adding power makes you faster on the straights, subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere” - Colin Chapman

It's obviously impractical to get an SC down anywhere near a Lotus 7. Caterham 7 620 makes 310HP weighing in @ 1342 lbs. Don't drag one of those for pinks...

On the other hand, extra 100HP (with near-linear power delivery) would certainly help with soccer moms in minivans wanting a point-by. Adding 250HP gets you comparable power-to-weight to 20 year old Ducatis, Gen 1 Dodge Vipers, lesser Ferraris and the like.

Just sayin'.

Saw a pic of a supercharger on a newer 911 engine and the numbers from that impressed the hell out of me. Owned a couple of GM cars with 3.8's & superchargers in them and when you hit the go peddle, it went. Still more stuff to consider

Supercharger installs were quite popular back in the day apparently, the perceived advantages being linear power delivery, and boost from idle (eg no wait for turbo spool). Although against that last is overcoming parasitic drag to drive the compressor (meaning you might not break even until higher in the rev range). Supercharger tech has likely similarly advanced in the intervening 40 years or so...

I think many consider DIY install packaging pretty simple with a turbo. Mount the turbo on a bracket where the hot side won't melt everything, connect some pipes - job done. In comparison, hallmarks of a supercharger install tend to be a substantial mount and a honking belt drive - some of the older units are pretty bulky.

Even old turbo designs spool faster and are much more linear than mismatched early 70's units. Folk lore(?) says the 3DLZ was originally intended for a big diesel truck, being all that was available to the factory off-the-shelf in 1974 - and hence the infamous/atrocious turbo lag. It's (more or less) "free" to drive them, given that you had no other plans to do anything useful with the exhaust gas...