Why so little interest in Paul S fuel injection testing?
Turbo Mini Forums

This is showing one thing - that there is clearly an interest in units that folks will have to do minimal tinkering on... And that means business opportunities for those willing to provide such products...

I'm glad I started this thread. Some interesting feedback and it's nice to see that there are interested people.

As for providing a product, I'll look at the electronics side of it but that's just part of the whole package. The intake and exhaust manifolds will have to be the other part to even think of having a setup that won't require the same type of experimenting that Paul had to go through.

Of course we'll know more once there is another engine running which should be Rod's in a few months hopefully.

Jean

http://www.jbperf.com/

Jean we are all very interested don't panic, I think when Paul gets the turbo on and sets things up and we see it in all it's glory we will get very excited!

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

Not meaning to get argumentative or contentious, but an interesting observation in my opinion.

Most the K headed turbos at the rolling road were starting to tale off after 7500 rpm:


Power curve from EFIMinis - hope you dont mind.

Peak torques were all below 5000 rpm except the Don with it's bigger turbo coming on song later up the rev range. The Don just likes to be different.

My question is: what is the real difference in performance potential between the turbo 16v and the turbo 5 port?

Is the advantage purely due to better air flow or engine management?

I'm sure that there is more to come from the turbo 16v, particularly once they start using some custom cam grinds rather than the standard bike cams.

Edited by Paul S on 24th Mar, 2009.

Saul Bellow - "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
Stephen Hawking - "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Problem is if you want a road usable mini like yours you don't want a turbo thats peaking above 7500rpm. I might be getting it all wrong but i thought you get one or the other, a turbo that comes in high up in the rev range for big bhp or a more "road usable" turbo that comes on boost at lower rpms and tails off at higher rpms

a lot of that impression comes from boost control anomalies ,everyone was unable to run the boost they really wanted ,and most boost fell off more than was wanted.maintaining boost may have created higher rpm pks ..

i think that matts ,with more boost and clutch ,will rpm pk higher yet , but yes its a comb of more airflowPOTENTIAL ,and control that should create a lot more power ,its all still in its infancy ,really you should be comparing the k head engines with the a series after a year of development .when most people were happy to hit 150 bhp back in the day .

im sure those in this graph ,would be the first to tell you they are not at thier full potential ,and i would agree with them ,once airflow, cam design and turbo matching is coupled with a transmission capability to match ,things should escalate dramatically ,i foresee that some boost control to keep below 250 lbs ft may be necessary ,eg the old 4 to 7 psi type of thing from the mtro days ,but cutting from 25 to 20 then back to 25 sort of thing to cut the top off pk torque .

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

sturgeo , i think thats right,up to a point ,
if you design for a 2500 power band , then you will get more pk power than a 4k power band ,so for example matt woods works well from 4k to 65k ish ,and makes most power ,or you could design a band of 4kish say like mine from 25 to 68, you get more power under the curve per psi ,but less pk per psi .

so one could make a design that creates power in at 32,then it goes on to nearly 8k and have a bit less pk ,but drivable ,

or you could do a design comes in at 45 and out at 75 and its less drivable but has more pk ,..

filling in the bottom of the curve ,and keeping it revving at the top ,is where the design refinement is .

whether you think that 3500 is too high a rpm for it all to come alive is a subjective judgement we all make ,but the ferocity it comes in with ,and the duration of the power band is a designable thing ,and can be varied ,particularly with cam design .

Medusa + injection = too much torque for the dyno ..https://youtu.be/qg5o0_tJxYM

going a bit off topic, I belive there is a lot more to come from the 16v twincam turbo, but I personally will not be taking mine much further.

I did my conversion back in 2006, at the time injecting the 5 port was a long way off, and way over my head. I aimed for 250 banana's, and have a car which pulled well from below 3k. I've proven that I've acheived that with a less boost than I planned to run. Maybe next time I'm on the strip I'll wind the boost up so more too see what times I can do.

Maybe on a drag strip 300bhp will be usefull, but I have not built my car for that, and plan to use it for the track.

I don't belive a 300bhp a series engine could be driven any quicker around most uk tracks quicker than a 250bhp.
I have some clever data logging software, and I can simulate lap times etc on the data from my car, and tweak car settings to see how much quicker the car would get with 50hp more and these figures backup my own thoughts.

Also I don't think you could build a 300hp a series engine and drive it HARD around a track for 20 laps and stop it from blowing up. Someone proof my wrong, flat out track action, and not point and squirt stuff!



Having said all that. I really like the idea of building a 5 port efi engine. pleae help!



Jimbo Ligths touchpaper and runs.....

Team Racing

it really does go well above my own brain strain-abilty,.. but both my computer tuning gurus have been watching with great interest & have many varied opinions on what`s going on,,, i just keep feeding them burbons & listen & nod with agreement on occasion.

There is obviously way more to be done with regards to all the computerised minis,,,(5port, 8 port & T/Cams) even tho it`s all come a long way since the first batch fire crap in very the early days.

I`m affraid It will end somewhere tho,,, there is only so much you can do with a 5 port,,, not bagging them mind you, i love 5 ports as much as anyone, Horses for courses & everything,,, computers & maps & codes & blah blah blah it`s all a bit beyond me,,, thank fark i have some friends who know what`s goin on

edit--> Well done tho guys,,, my guys reckon you`re onto a good thing

Edited by MadMatt on 24th Mar, 2009.

www.miniman.com.au

"""LazyGoodForNothingSmartArseKnowItAllBackYardMiniMechanic"""

I've tried reading that thread a few times. There is too much tech-speak and I find it hard to follow.

I can't wait till Megasquirt EFI is available for our a-series motors. I'm just not smart enough in this area to help make it happen.

61 Austin Seven; building a 1275 'over the clutch' turbo, R5 T2'd, custom intercooled, megajolt electrified, canyon carver

www.motorlust.com - The Online Magazine for Car Guys Like Us