Wiring spi mini to turbo
Turbo Mini Forums

Bud 666 has told me that i just have to reconnect everything and run a 12V feed from the fusebox for the coil/dizzy. My question is can i just bypass the standard spi ecu or will this need to be plumbed in?

Edited by JA1987 on 16th Jan, 2007.

hi mate, im in the same boat converting my spi to turbo, ive bin led to believe that if i leave the ecu in and just not connect the injection plugs, (making sure the engine temp sensor goes back on) and run the 12v feed to the coil, this should work??? hoping so anyway

'always keep a spare shot for a stray bird'

buds right bypass the ecu.just run a fused 12v (that is only live whilst the ignition is on and live while cranking to) straight to the + side of the coil.

why not try and get a carb type loom. its going to be messy under the bonnet with all that extra unused wiring

no longer a series, but still 1.3 turbo.

with the ecu tho this connects to engine temp, taco and whatever else thats why you mite aswell leave it in and just leave off the injection wires?

'always keep a spare shot for a stray bird'

i want to rip the injection out of mine. spoke to calver about a year ago, he reccons u should leave the ecu in. what does it control? ignition, alarm? surely there muct be an easy way to get rid of the ecu all together. my brother bought a converted spi, that was tidy with the ecu removed.

In an SPi the alarm has nothing to do with the ECU. MPIs tie the ECU to the alarm.

If your not uing the ECU take it out

A;ex

AlexF

Nope, the late 94 onwards SPI ECU requires a signal from the alarm ECU

The alarm will work without the engine ECU but the engine ECU will not work without the alarm ECU. Hence, an engine imobiliser. The pair of ECU's are matched.

I also say rip out the ecu, its no use for a turbo and just be using up space.

As for converted SPi cars, you WILL find it a right bastard to get it past the emissions tests. That is unless you know a dodgey MOT center or a mate that will pass it because "its a mini and they are all like that". Doesn't make it right!

And you will have to be very persistant to get them to test it on anything other than what the compter tells them.

Make sure you keep them original turbo engine numbers and nail them back on the block

Edited by Sprocket on 18th Jan, 2007.

Sprocket is certainly right about the MOT, you might even find that you need to get the DVLA involved to re-classify the vehicle for emmissions .... good luck with that one!!!

There is one glimmer of hope and that is that if the car has not been run through an MOT since the computerised system has been in place the MOT tester AT FIRST PRESENTATION ONLY can ammend the details of the car within reason. I have had to get this done to several vehicles that have been rebuilt since their last test to different specifications .... be warned though it requires a co-operative tester (as it's extra work they don't get paid for!!!) and is a once only oppertunity!!

Every day is a school day ...........

How fast and how expensive ...... the same question...

when did the computerised system take effect from? and will it adversly effect all future turbo conversions.

p.s. sorry for hi jacking the thread

2005 IIRC.

What it is likely to mean is that a friendly MOT man isn't going to be ablt to be as friendly ....

It has always been the case that if you fit an engine older than that originally fitted to your car you have to make it go through what ever emmissions standards applied to your car. Now this isn't normally a problem as most people fit a more modern / more efficient engine anyway. The only people who have struggled in the past are those that have tried to run a super lair cam in a carb'd motor built into a competition car .... or those trying to sneak another year out of a smoker!!

How it will effect future turbo build is simple, until their is some decent fuel injection capability for the siemesed ports do't choose an injected base car for the build.
Having said that the biggest problem will be that you will have to retain the cat (anything post august 92) which may or may not limit the instalation possibilities a little.

Every day is a school day ...........

How fast and how expensive ...... the same question...

I was under the impression that the emmision test went off the age of the engine and not the car????

Not as far as I am aware, both for production cars, modifieds or kits!

I have had a couple of disagreements with testers on other people's behalf that a Q plate kit is effectively a '72 for MOT. With modified production cars I think it is a clear cut thing ... age of the car.

I will check on that but I am 95% sure.

Every day is a school day ...........

How fast and how expensive ...... the same question...

I was always told it was the engine age and not the car age.

It is the age of the engine, if it is older than the car, IE if the car is a 95 and you fit an 86 engine, the engine should be tested to the older limits. This is documented in the MOT testers manual.

Its the computer that fucks everything up as it uses the reg as a refference for the age. If you fit an older engine, you provide proof of its age, the MOT tester should change the test to suit. Most of the time they wont because they dont know how, not only that, but they now dont think for them selves, leaving decission making up to the computer. A monkey can do that!!!

Its in the MOT testers manual!

http://www.motuk.co.uk/manual_730.htm

Firstly a great link ....

Secondly I stand corrected!!!

Proving the age of the engine could be a little tricky though. The only thing that could be used is the original engine number along with manufactures notes on how to get the date of manufacture from the number. It's not really on to expect the tester to buy something like "must be a pre 91 engine as they stopped putting the A series in Metros after that ......" with out expecting the reply .... "looks like a 90's engine with a turbo on to me mate!".

Just think how much fun you will have trying to convince the tester that a BMW K headed turbo'd lump should be tested on visual only in a really old shell.....!!

It is really a mater of forming a good friendly relationship with your test station I guess.

Edited by RogerM on 19th Jan, 2007.

Every day is a school day ...........

How fast and how expensive ...... the same question...

i wonder how much these people are on to sit there and make up rules all day long? before long they will try and put in car speed cams in new cars:S

so your saying if i stick a turbo on my 1991 spi then it will fail the MOT, ive already removed the cat and it flew through the mot?? so what difference should the turbo make?
excuse me if im being dumb!!!!!!

'always keep a spare shot for a stray bird'

Well saying that, i was speaking to a bloke just before xmas, his L reg Mini failed on emissions. The engine is a carb engine from the factory and is backed up with the engine numbers refferenced to the Rover workshop manuals with a max CO of 1.5% yet the computer said that it was a max of 0.3%. The information was there for them to see that the computer was rong, yet they stuck to the computers decision like flys round shit. It wasnt untill VOSSA were involved that the situation changed.

There is a thing called ' The MOT testers best judgement' clearly not what they used.

If yours is indeed a 1991 SPi???????? then that may be the case that the regulations were introduced in 1992.

There is always cross over periods yours apears to fall into this catagory as does the 94 L and 95 M carbs (believe me there are some). These will always be a bastard to pass because of the computer and lack of MOT testers best judgement. Like I said, Monkeys.

This topic is never straight forward, and for those who never have a problem, they never know how hard it can be. Trust me, there is an issue for some. I know, because I have experienced it first hand with the wifes L reg Carb. One reason we got rid, it failed the emissions every time untill after a usualy heated debate. Our best bet was getting it MOT'd at a Rover dealer, but then that posed other problems for us that I wont go into as that would make a long winded post even longer.

Edited by Sprocket on 19th Jan, 2007.