The next big thing....3.0 EFI/ITB w/Rasant engine management

[al lkosmal]

Originally Posted by Ferrino

Awesome - it looks like some sort of medieval torture device.

The torture never stops..................

[sithot]

The HD leveling casters work well.

McMaster-Carr

[evan9eleven]

Great looking build Al. After getting your pricelist and seeing this I'm thinking that we are looking at a great path to a reasonable and robust EFI/ITB setup. I was already sold on Rasant but your kit puts ITBs in reach as well. I have a couple questions I'll post here in case that also can help others:

-You mentioned that the start-up file was good. In my case a dyno is a day's drive away for the fine tuning. Andrew feels that the initial file will be just fine for driving the car somewhere for dyno tuning, would you agree? Also, it sounds like the software is straightforward enough that An experienced tuner should have no problem dialling it in?

-I'm looking at doing my project in two stages; the first of which is to just change the induction on my exisiting 3.0 which is a stock US '81 with the small ports but Euro 9.8:1 p/c's. Stock cams, SSIs. A rebuild is the second stage, configuration TBD. From all accounts I should expect a decent boost in response and performance with this setup on my old 3.0, yes?

-With regard to my future rebuild, Can you comment on your customer's decision to go with a 3.0 and better cam for this build as opposed to going to a 3.2SS?

[al lkosmal]

Thanks for the kind words regarding the 3.0 build. I will try to answer your questions below.


-You mentioned that the start-up file was good. In my case a dyno is a day's drive away for the fine tuning. Andrew feels that the initial file will be just fine for driving the car somewhere for dyno tuning, would you agree? Also, it sounds like the software is straightforward enough that An experienced tuner should have no problem dialling it in?

The start up file was provided by Andrew and really worked very well on my test stand, but Andrew is also using this file...or later, improved versions in his 911....so I expect that the file works well for driving to the dyno. Also, with or without a dyno, you can datalog and make changes to the tune. I found the user interface and software to be easy to use....however, I have quite a few years of experience at tuning EFI/ITB systems using various systems. I expect that anyone that will spend a little time to read the manual and gain a basic understanding of the terms used and the methodology used to obtain a good tune...will do well and yes...an experienced tuner will have no trouble dialing it in.

-I'm looking at doing my project in two stages; the first of which is to just change the induction on my exisiting 3.0 which is a stock US '81 with the small ports but Euro 9.8:1 p/c's. Stock cams, SSIs. A rebuild is the second stage, configuration TBD. From all accounts I should expect a decent boost in response and performance with this setup on my old 3.0, yes?

With no other changes made, just changing the induction from the stock CIS system to independent throttle bodies modern injection control (ECU) you will experience gains in HP and TQ....and throttle response...i.E. you will feel the difference. (the DZUG boys posted a before and after Dyno run....this was for their 3.2 SS with 964 cams and CIS....no changes other than swapping the CIS for my EFI/ITB kit and they realized significant HP and TQ increases........see below...

-With regard to my future rebuild, Can you comment on your customer's decision to go with a 3.0 and better cam for this build as opposed to going to a 3.2SS?

Here are my comments (not my customers) regarding going with a hot 3.0 vs. 3.2SS. It is different strokes for different folks and really depends on what type of driving you want to do and also the HP/fun/$ relationship...... lots of variable to consider here.....so these can now be considered broad generalizations......You can build a great running, dependable EFI/ITB 220HP/220TQ (at the wheels) 3.0 canyon carver that is great bang for the buck. Or you can build a great 3.2SS with 250HP/225TQ (wheels). also a great engine. Nice increase in HP, but not a significant increase in torque.............However, the 3.2SS can be a more expensive way to go with costs for that build approaching 3.6 conversion territory. Lot's of reading to be had by researching the Pelican forums for 3.2SS info.................

As I said...lot's of variables and personal preferences to consider regarding the characteristics of the engines, where the power/torque comes on, etc.......I.E. do you want a street rod/canyon carver or a track car...or?

that's just me...I could be wrong.

regards,
al



Watch this............

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaj0FyEmc68

[RSBob]

Al, the vid was a tree leeter?

[al lkosmal]

rick,
No...I hope that wasn't confusing....but that vid happened to be the DZUG 3.2SS.....after changing it from CIS to EFI/ITB. I included it....not to promote the 3.2SS configuration of the build, but to underscore the fact that just making the change in intake/control system resulted in significant gains. Gains that will happen regardless of starting with a 3.0 or 3.2SS.

Here's a vid of the 3.0 RS-ish engine i built .................for a good example of that configuration.

I have my preferences pertaining to HP/$....but ....and it's a big butt......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hMuR3DUArM

[David Borden]

Originally Posted by evan9eleven

-You mentioned that the start-up file was good. In my case a dyno is a day's drive away for the fine tuning. Andrew feels that the initial file will be just fine for driving the car somewhere for dyno tuning, would you agree? Also, it sounds like the software is straightforward enough that An experienced tuner should have no problem dialing it in??

To add to what Al answered... The nice thing about AEM, is that it can correct your AF real time even if its off 20+% in either direction. Im going to assume that Andrews base map is well within that. As long as you get your displacement right, you will probably be pretty close even without correction.

Also, most of the stuff that is different between ECU companies is how they are setup. Meaning, how do you characterize the injectors, setup sensors etc. Honestly, thats the most time consuming portion of these systems and the nice thing about a system that is a combo of Al and Andrews disciplines, they have literally done 90% of the heavy lifting.

As far as I know, the VE tables are pretty standard and anyone that has had time tuning these systems will be able to run with it almost immediately. If they have questions, AEM and Im sure Andrew as well have great support, so I wouldnt let any of that distract you.

Honestly, if you are somewhat technical, and can get around windows software reasonably well, you should give tuning it a shot yourself. Its pretty easy to creep up to the more sensitive parts of the MAP like WOT to prevent any engine damage. Also, AEM has some great engine protection strategies which I think are one of the best features of the ECU.

David

[evan9eleven]

Thanks for the responses everyone-- this looks great. Hoping I can squeeze in the conversion this winter since the motor will be out anyway while the gearbox gets rebuilt. Keep the updates coming Al if you do more of these, I'll drop you an email soon!

[al lkosmal]

evan,

I've got this one going...as we speak. Need to complete some wiring, but should be on the test stand today/tomorrow.

2.7RS+ build......stay tuned.....

40mm TWM/Borla ITBs
9.5:1 JEs
E-cams
etc.........

Using the MegaSquirt-III EMS System with MS3X Expansion V3.57. This ECU has tons of capability and I'm anxious to get tuning with it.




This 2.7 is sold....but I have a 69E engine headed my way. I've just started to plan how to build this very cool, early engine....but for sure it will be EFI/ITB, higher comp, etc. If anyone is interested in this engine, please contact me and we can discuss.

[pampadori]

In regards to the AEM Infinity EMS - I'm about 95% done accumulating all of the parts that I need to do my ITB/EFI conversion. I ended up using some sensors that were not exactly like for like to what AEM suggests and probably different from what Andrew and Al have used too. So i think one hurdle that I'll have in the beginning will be to calibrate the ECU to these sensors. I need to tell the aem what input from all the sensors will be at XX degrees or with XXpsi of pressure or vacuum etc. But hopefully that won't be too tedious.

After that, I plan to use a shared base map or let the AEM get me a VE table setup and go from that. I've heard that just letting the ecu create your basemap gets you pretty close to a nice drivable map. Then fine tune on a dyno. Probably let a buddy drive the car while i commit changes from the pass seat with the laptop on the street some too.
But one really big benefit is the failsafe rules you can write with the AEM. You can have it limit RPM if you are over XXX degrees cyl head temp or if oil pressure drops below XX psi you can have it go into a limp mode so you can get pulled over to access the issue. Pretty much any sensor and limit can be configured so that makes it potentially a very reliable setup that even the most hamfisted driver has a much harder time wasting a motor or burning a ring land.

I'm getting very excited though! Its going to be a long few days in the hot as hell garage getting everything installed and setup but i've got my eyes set on the end result - a more powerful, modern EFI setup that I can flog and not worry about!

[David Borden]

Originally Posted by al lkosmal

VE load table is MAP based and seems to work very well. However, TPS sensor cal is loaded and TPS/Alpha N is supported by this ECU for those that want it.

regards,
al

Just a data point here. A good friend just switch from MAP to TPS based load and timing but lambda is based on MAP on his AEM Infinity system. He did this experiment to see how well the car would run in this mode in preparation for ITBs. This is is after his MAP based VE table was nearly perfect.

I just got a text from him tonight saying the car runs much better and is smoother off idle and part throttle. He mentioned he is never going back...

Many say throttle based load is not good but I think the AEM handles it a bit differently. One of the lead engineers at AEM told me that given a choice for our Coyote project he would go with throttle based load vs MAP, and this was on a virtually stock engine. He said they both work great though. We went with MAP because the base tune we were provided was based on it.

Based on my buddies feedback, Im guessing that the AEM system will do great with ITBs running TPS based load.

David

[tirwin]

Originally Posted by darud35

Regarding the TPS vs MAP debate I've used both methods on my ITB's and haven't noticed significant improvements with either. I believe this comes down to tuner preference. The key for me was updating the "Wall Wetting" table within the Infinity Software. This is used for fuel enrichment/cut with RPM on the Y-axis and rate of change of throttle position on the X-axis.

I have been catching up on this thread again. Sorry for dragging up such an old post, but when you refer to Wall Wetting, are you talking about tau?

[David Borden]

Originally Posted by tirwin

I have been catching up on this thread again. Sorry for dragging up such an old post, but when you refer to Wall Wetting, are you talking about tau?

Think of it like an accelerator pump on a Carb. It adds fuel during throttle application and is very flexible from a tuning perspective.

BTW, how is the project going for the owner of the car?

['76 911S 3.0]

Also, if anyone is interested, I am willing to provide my calibration file from my Infinity 506. 3.2 Carrera intake manifold, 3.2SS, 964 cams... I am using TPS as my load, not MAP so should work quite well on an ITB engine.

[tirwin]

Originally Posted by David Borden

Think of it like an accelerator pump on a Carb. It adds fuel during throttle application and is very flexible from a tuning perspective.

BTW, how is the project going for the owner of the car?

My question is more basic than that. I just finished a book on EFI and it referred to tau as the residual fuel spray on the wall of the intake. I was just trying to understand if this is the same concept or something else.

['76 911S 3.0]

Originally Posted by tirwin

My question is more basic than that. I just finished a book on EFI and it referred to tau as the residual fuel spray on the wall of the intake. I was just trying to understand if this is the same concept or something else.

These are fundamentally the same concept. There is a very good explanation of this concept on the MS site found here:

MegaSquirt-II X-Tau

[Tippy]

X-Tau is a black art.....

[tirwin]

Originally Posted by Tippy

X-Tau is a black art.....

I can see that. How would you even know how to estimate X? Tau I guess I can see. If you know how the area of the 'puddle' and know an evaporation rate then you can figure it out.

What % of the fuel volume of an injection are we usually talking about for X? The link above says it should not exceed 47%. I am a little surprised it would be that high but then again, I have no experience. If almost half of the injection pulse isn't making it into the cylinder at first then I can see where that matters. Especially under tip-in when you need it.

Sorry for derailing this excellent thread.

Thanks for clarifying 76 911!

[Tippy]

Originally Posted by tirwin

I can see that. How would you even know how to estimate X? Tau I guess I can see. If you know how the area of the 'puddle' and know an evaporation rate then you can figure it out.

What % of the fuel volume of an injection are we usually talking about for X? The link above says it should not exceed 47%. I am a little surprised it would be that high but then again, I have no experience. If almost half of the injection pulse isn't making it into the cylinder at first then I can see where that matters. Especially under tip-in when you need it.

Sorry for derailing this excellent thread.

Thanks for clarifying 76 911!

There are default values to try out. I had it nailed one time except for WOT/boost.

My AFR's stayed dead on stoch and off the throttle. Engine ran "right"!

Just couldn't get it dialed in for hammering throttle where I really need extra fuel.

Then I lost my settings and can never figure out again.

[onboost]

Originally Posted by '76 911S 3.0

Also, if anyone is interested, I am willing to provide my calibration file from my Infinity 506. 3.2 Carrera intake manifold, 3.2SS, 964 cams... I am using TPS as my load, not MAP so should work quite well on an ITB engine.

Rich, I've been following the thread and would be interested in that file if you don't mind. Thank you.

I've been working through a number of projects (as time allows) for myself and several others.. this includes researching, collecting parts, and building.. I'm finally getting around to my stuff (pulling hoarded parts closets etc.. )

- So a couple of questions for both you Al;

The motor you reference above is 3.0/3.2SS with Carrera intake? Just curious.

I've looked through the thread with regard to TB size/sizing and either have missed it, or there is not much talk around this. So are you typically running 40s or 46s TB with these builds.. lets say on 3.2 SS specifically?
Also, with regard to cam choice, the 964 cam seems to come-up often. Have you built using other grinds thus far, and again with what size TB, compression etc..

Thanks guys.. and looking forward to picking-up one of these systems in the near future