Port injection on big log manifold

Derangedfords90

Well-known member
So I'm back messing with the 200 i-6. Been having fun messing with MegaSquirt on the turbo 351w that took place of the turbo 200 in my Fairmont written up here.... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=75863&hilit=Derangedfords90#p584092

I'm wondering if anyone has successfully converted a stock small 6 head/intake (WITHOUT milling the log off) to port injection. I'm thinking use some universal steel bungs in the runners, and either braze, tig, or force-fit them in.

I'll go update the other thread with my findings on the engine.
 
sounds like the thread I started.
Got some top notch help on it a coupla weeks ago.
If U find it those who posted to it will pop up again.
I think MrMuller hada few suggestions, bubbs showed up...
Can't find it now.

This might B one:

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=77780
 
Yes. Welcome back, Soldier!

Nick, aka XFlow_Fairlane.

memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=224


Iron injector bosses with a 3.8 V6 EFi throttle body where the 1-bbl carb was. With a Crosely style bridgeporting of the area

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=43737&p=324067#p324067

XFlow_Fairlane":2t1xvtkr said:
DSCF0126.jpg


DSCF0125.jpg


cleaned up the welds on the bungs and that all looks good now.

cleaned up the exhaust ports a little (just 20 mins of work) nothing to big as far as porting mostly just "gasket" matching it.

going to polish up the chambers this week and see about getting a flange of some sort on there for an elbow of some sort I still need to fab up.

have a goal of it out for a valve job and machine work by the 4th of july.

like I said rotating assembly is in and cam and timing set is ready to go just need to stab it in. once I get the fairlane fired back up on the new trans I think I will yank the roller rockers off it and toss on this motor.



viewtopic.php?f=51&t=37661&p=274668#p274668
XFlow_Fairlane":2t1xvtkr said:
well here are the pics as of now. the welds look like total crap as the welder I am on I think has a dead pedal on it still. lots of cold weld being laid down but gonna clean it up with the die grinder and do it on the welder at home I think over thanksgiving. but thay are tacked in at least. the inside of the log was very clean where the runners met up...no flashing at all just a nice smooth radius corner.

Pix023.jpg


Pix024.jpg


Pix025.jpg

XFlow_Fairlane":2t1xvtkr said:
DSCF0018.jpg


DSCF0017.jpg


here is the partially welded head. I am having problems with the welder I was using (TIG unit and has a dead foot pedal.....amperage was either 60 or 160 so either makes holes to can't even sustain an arc for crap....gonna properly weld this later on)

throttle is off a 3.8L gm FWD motor. the front on it is where the idle solenoid bolts up but I think I will be remote mounting it for clearance issues. it will get mounted up on a 1"-1.5" thick spacer in the end so that will give me some injector clearnace. I still need to make fuel rails and finish the head welding on it though. not doing too bad since I am working out of a storage unit it no power and finding places to do this and that on it. seriously thinking of a $70 HF arc welder so at least I can TRY and weld stuff together.


And Drag200Turbo. Buick GNX injectors mounted like the old 1966-1968 AIR injection intakes.


Once you've got room for the injectors, then you have to find room for air, but its all been done before.
 
viewtopic.php?f=51&t=27536


Img_0412.jpg


drag-200stang":3e5lxbsw said:
injection.jpg

I hope this is better...darn computers! Maybe I'm in over my head with this EFI stuff!
IMG_0410A.jpg




RacnJsn95":3e5lxbsw said:
I plan on running a MegaSquirt system, so I'm trying to think of a way to rig up an injection system... I read the topic below about EFI on the log. That setup looks a little more difficult that I could handle. I was thinking of placing the injectors higher up on the log.

I've done a lot of research when I was into Z cars, and I was going to make a custom intake. The reason they put the injectors so close to the valve for emissions reasons. The farther you put the injector from the valve the fuel gets a better chance to atomize, and will make a little more power... So taking that theory into consideration, I think my injector placement would not only make a little more power, but would be easier (for me, and most people) to rig up, rather than to try the placement of the other injectors on the topic below.

inj.jpg


What do you guys think?
 
For ignition, the TFi system from retrofits from a 2.3 OHC EECIV.

EDIS6 does as well. thesameguy and XFlow_Fairlane fleashed that out.


To run sequential injections, you can use the EECIV system, and the distributor then becomes the sequencer for the ignition. If you use the 5.0 Port EFi Mustang method, its sequential, but doesn't use a crank trigger to get the igntion or injection phased. The TFi V8 system is just like the old EECIII CFi system for the 1980-1984 Standard Output 5.0's, except it uses 100% of the existing distributor to phase spark and injection.

EDIS6 and TFi are only three lines of input code separate, you have to decide how you want the igntion to go. DUI and HEI GM are far less advanced. Duraspark II misses the control the TFi has.

I'm sure you know where you want to head from here.

I've dealt with electronic systems a lot since 1993. The most important thing is not saying yes to too much. Get it running like a Port EFi 5.0, using the same system, and you'll be golden. Or go further, and run it EDIS6 like Mike1157's and then you'll have any number of people to help you out.

Scope it to suit yourself.

I'd strongly suggest you don't shift the injectors into a position where the exhasut Gas temperatures heat saturate cold fuel. The 4.9 EFi truck engines and even the Electronic Injection Holden Commodore 3.3 (http://holdenpaedia.oldholden.com/EFI_VK_3.3) had huge heat buildup issues that required a lot of additional work for Ford and General Motors Australia to work around.

You can use the trip power intake, and add six injectors.

Here is MustangMatt5's three injector indirect Port EFi 200. You can rephase the injectors, and follow his example with a Tri Power style intake.

viewtopic.php?f=51&t=79027
MustangMatt5":1tug00z1 said:
Sorry for the delay in getting a response out. I got a little busy last week. Here is the image requested. You'll note i am using an Offy Tripower intake that came on my car when i purchased it about 9 years ago.

Update: i have successfully got the engine to run and idle. I found I was having an issue of losing Tach Sync once the engine switched from cranking to running. I am starting the task of learning how to tune the engine via software instead of using screwdrivers :)

file.php

file.php
 
Something else crazy that i have not seen, would be running a tripower intake setup but instead of doing as matt did with 1 TBI unit run 3 of the Tempo/Topaz CFI units as they bolt right up to where the carbs would without moddification just some linakages needed to link them together but would be an interesting setup to run.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-OUT-OF-BOX ... :rk:1:pf:0
 
would that match up w/cfm, timing, throttle linkage, etc., Comet?
Ideas on that wrked out yet? I like it but can't figure it out yet. ($800 - 1K$ ?)
 
theres a lot of info to iron out yet, but preliminary info shows that a setup like that would run someone north of $1700-1800 if they were to buy everything new. MS2, offy intake, throttle body units, fuel pump, line hoses, aftermarket distributor, could be more on the harder parts like custom machining to make a MAP sensor fit and the custom linkage not to mention the weird 3 inch 1 air tube/intake tube system from the turbo or just mount 3 filters if going NA. If i had the money id spend more time doing the research but the only difference between this and the Port style conversion is mounting it to the engine is slightly easier, other than that the MPI style has more benefits when it comes down to it. The number of times i wish i had a fully setup machine shop so i could test all my mad scientist ideas :LOL:

Maybe i could try and persuade my employers to let me and one of my CAD buddies have a whack with their multi million dollar units :unsure: probably not but it would be very interesting if they did
 
The original terms of reference from the OP were Port EFI on a big log head 200. Most likely with his turbo.

The later 54 and 62 lb-hr 2.3 CFi single throttle bodies from the OHV 2.3 engines in the Tracer/Tempo is often used as an SU or Stromberg Zenith CD125/150/175 replacement. So it uses a stock YFA Carter/Holley 1940/1945/1946 1-bbl base plate. Often is not really the right word..."has been used in the past with good sucess". The 2.5 Taurus was Port EFi. And there's the rubb. Ford couldn't wait to get rid of CFi because it requires a whole lot more fettling to work than Port EFi does

A few MG's, Triumphs etc exist on the internet with the SU or Stromberg Zenith replaced by a good old 85-100 hp Ford 2.3 CFi.

Basicaly, you have to drive the CFi as three units, and control the air fuel mixture from one or two O2 sensors. The issue is


1) injector to injector accuracy, as the Tracer/Tempo/Taurus injectors are very coarse, and not very accurate compared to the Bosch injectros used in the 2-bbl 3.8, 5.0 or 5.0 HO CFi. Variances of more than 10% per injector are common.


2) Three CFi's are designed to cover off 255 to 280 hp net at wide open throttle, and low speed stability of fuel delivery could be pretty raggard unless the igntion tip in and other stability control programs are used. The tendancy is for people to try and work around a progressive system with idle on the center CFi, and then phased outers. In my opinion, not the way to go.


3) Discussions on Port EFi always, always get scuppered by someone discussing single, twin or triple point CFi. The only precendent for this Synch-ing up was the (L83) 1982 and 1984-1985 Chevrolet Corvette CrossFire 205 hp 5.7 liter and the (LU5) 165hp 5.0 liter 165 hp Camaro/Firebiird auto 1982-1983 engine. With the world most restrictive intake, these were very hard to calibrate unless you understood exactly what GM was doing with the throttle linakges, and they were used on cars with either 7 speed overdrives or 4 speed THM 700's with air con, power steering, and throttle valve kickdowns. On the F car, 3 speed autos, and then for 1983, a 700R4 4-speed automatic transmission replaced the 3-speed automatic. I've worked with these CFi twin point systems, they are exceptionally smart, but have a legion of other matters to deal with. With no changes to calibration, a stock CrossFire with a proper intake would make another 50 hp.

https://oldcarmemories.com/1982-1984-l8 ... r-hate-it/

The Mother of all Twin Throttle Bodies Corvette buid up gives you some clues in how to re-calibrate it past the 260 hp level.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tbi/472 ... odies.html

Stock, an old trashed 1983 CrossFire LU5 is a complicated beast to master, but like the old CFi 5.0 Mustangs, the fault wasn't CFi, it was a lack of discipline and ability for service guys to play by the rules. Tuned right, they have a rock solid idle, and an exceptionally good torque curve.

Stock, unmaintianed, its a bit of a complicated turd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCrCiB-Gy-0.

4) Suffice to say, the low end rpm fuel delivery for a triple CFi system would always requires an equal or better than Chevrolet and Ford approach used for its 1980 to 1986's; your on your own with that. Multiple CFi will streach you quite a lot! MegaSquirt will run it if you work in with an on line expert, but you'll find that a new ball game. I've dealt with it, but I don't like using a 25 dollar CFi throttle body with very poor injectors; you spend all your time deciding on what your ignition tip in, IAC and voltages drivers for the injectos are gonna look like. With help, you can do it, but your on your own.

If you want to, you can run it off a non sequential MS2, and then work through the injection tables.

I like the 1-bbl CFi, but you then have to decide what your going to do with your ignition curve.
 
xctasy":2uzkphkf said:
The original terms of reference from the OP were Port EFI on a big log head 200. Most likely with his turbo.
'H U G E log' as in post #3 pic.
Imagine that's a ford experimental/test log in '80s (& rare)?

Wonder what would B accompanying needs for just drill/thread or press mount injectors there (top of runners) -
The trigger (already shown on DYI modes here), ele fule pump, return line (no fuel rail?), fuel pump block plate,
can U avoid a brain'n O2? Keep DSII (dizy, coil, box'n coil)? Can I avoid the TBI? Can I get ed-u-ma-cated here w/o
jumpin ford6 forums?
8^0
 
Ford did the brain elimination Trust process in 1984. They used NASA and Patriot Missle guys and some Telco gurus, The first frontal lobomy was TFi. Second (Same year), Ford Australia used a non feedback, non O2 sensor EECIV in the 4.1 EFi Falcon in Australia. So did Holden in 1985 with its 3.3 Electronic Injection Commodore engine. The Vane Air Meter, aka Bosch LEII Jetronic, eliminated the O2 sensor. Back in 1972, the Bosch D jetronic Volvos, VW's and some 280e Benzes experiemented with purely MAP sensor driven computers. So you can step back with less electronics, but you don't have any fall back if its a puelly Druck Sucker


Injection was really West German run thing. Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford and Lucas, along with Kugefisher, copied the ideas. Lucas may have inveted slide injection, but the Germans made it work. Then the USA productionised it so it was reliable. The Japanese also did its share.


The evolution of it was a case of first going overboard with pure electronics like Bendix did in 1957, and then the systems slowly developed to be servicable. We all want to make it simple, but sometimes, you've got to find other ways to manage your Cr@p.The barn-door Air Fuel Meter can work fine to eliminate the 02. So can a 3 bar GM MAP sensor.

The Germans did that develoment work, Robert L Bosch made injection work, and then Ford and GM made it work economically. The French also did a huge amount of work via Matra and Renniex, but the development is basically this

D-Jetronic (1967–1979) <--- Nasty to work on, but very simple, pure electronics via sensors. Bank fire, not sequential

K-Jetronic (1973–1994) <--- Nasty to work on, but very mechanical. CIS = Continous Injection, not sequential . Ford used this for many years on the European 2.8 V6

L-Jetronic (1974–1989) <--- Easier to work on, complicated electronics but without a feedback O2 sensor on early non US versions. Some were bank fire, some had the barn-door AFM, others were feedback, and still others became sequential like Fords EECIV 5.0 Mustang. Some Fords stayed bank fire like the Bosch L. It wasn't untill the 1988 Porsche 928 S4, that the L got a sequential facilty (The ML.3 or L Motronic was it)

Bosch D stood for Druck, or Suction I think in German. K stands for Kontinuierlich, or “continuous” in German. L stood for Luft, or Air.First they overkilled it with sensors, D system. That fell over, so they went back to a K system, then they got smart, and upgraded to a L system which has pretty much stayed the same).

A TFi distributor is a Durasaprk III distributor without a crank trigger. It does two things. Crank trigger, and sequencer for EFi.

A DSIII is a Durasaprk II with an external program for igntion advance. That's what a TFi is as well.

TFi was Fords way of eliminating two parts, the crank trigger all EECIII 5.0 CFi's had, and the sequencer nearly all other Sequential Port EFi engines had.

MS2 runs off TFi logic, or EDIS6 logic, depending on what you buy.

Buying less stuff means less hassle if the electronic codes are already there to operate it.

There are many roads to Rome. In essance, you cannot have authority over systems unless you rule all sides of the supply, so deciding not to control an espect of an Electronic Port EFi engine means you have to use something more mechanical, or decide not to have a limp home facility.

For me, the O2 sensor is a kill joy, but you can do without it if you USE A Vane Air Meter or AirFlow Meter, but both are mechanical, and restrictions.


Injector bungs, man, you could use brass unions if you could enusre they weren't gonna gall. For an irn bung to be leak free, you just need to weld it, but all this crud about heating and welding in the bungs. You could just follow drag-2000stangs method, and drill the bigger size.


WHOLE RAFT OF WAYS TO DO IT EASY.

Just do it. In this case, Nick did all the hard thinking work when he was 20 years old, and now he's 32.... :unsure:


My simple solution is to do it Nicks way, and copy the MAP sensor from MegaSquirt. You then have to eliminate Wasted Spark from your mind, and forget about fully sequential injection, and just time it like the 1984 and 1985 Australian EFI 4.1 Falcon and 3.3 Holden. These two systems were just like the EECIV Mustang 2.3 Turbo Injection and Ford EXP Turbo....they had Vane Air flow Meters. The work around is to use TFi ignition, and change the code to run open loop all the time. Closed loop rquires a wide band O2 sensor.

MS2E allows you to loop out the feedback loop from the Wide Band O2 sensor, but you still might need to have it to work.
 
mmmm, right now my mind (as rhomb sez) is reallin...
 
rhomb asked me a while back if he could just use a 1975 280E Bosch D Jetronic system from a car guy I knew here in NZ....


You know, since they were able to supply anything from 150 to 210 hp on a 1973 to 1976 Mercedes Benz.

Knowing the problems Bosch had making it work, I decided not to respond, I was busy working 120 hour weeks, so I kind of felt it would be like the Central Fuel Injection itch that everyone want's to go down.

The sensors now exist to make those systems work, but Fords EECIV is purely a Digital system with some simple Analogue (voltage changing sensor ) input from anything from 8 to 25 sensors. GM Delcos P4 MemCal/Cal Pac has the same facilities.

My take on it is if its was 1983, and I wanted a stove hot port EFI 200 six, I'd take the Duraspark II, convert it to DS111, and run it off the EECIII alogrithims transfered to the EECIV computer. The old EECIII has the ignition module controlled by a brown box, and the Multiple Saprk Duraspark unit by a Yellow Strain module. I'd put a 36-1 sensor on the back block of the bellhousing flange like the early 1980 CFi 5.0 Lincolns had, and run it all off that with a BMAP sensor, and loop it out of feedback mode to richen or lean the mixtures. It would have on 75 mm throttle body where the 1-bbl carb is, and be just like Nicks.

The problem is that all the EECIV and MegaSquirt system run 0 to 5 volt refernce signals, and the the 12 volt reference systems of the EECIII don't match.

The MS2E does all the above, with a TFi igntion module, and no crank sensor.
 
Wow, the response to this thread was pretty impressive.

Yep, knew it had been done before, just didn't spend enough time in the search box of course.

XFlow_Fairlane 's setup is precisely what I was talking about. I guess I'm not so crazy afterall. I will have to go snoop around to see how it worked.

I really like what 62Cometman was talking about with the triple CFI setup.
Originally the CFI was where I was going to start messing with EFI'ing the I-6. I suspected it would have bolted on, but I never found hard evidence it would have. Glad to know I was right in my suspicions.

Although it would be more complicated than doing a port setup, I think it would fit the bill for what I would want to do, and does not require me having to buy two large pieces of shop equipment to do so (TIG AND a milling machine). Although I will still probably justify the need for them to my wife....maybe over the next 5 years....

Xctasy, I think I disagree with you on the theory of the 3 CFI units working in unison.

With my current v8 setup, I run 8 injectors on 2 banks, however, it is capable to run all 8 as one single bank. Essentially all 8 would pulse 8 times per rotation.

I think the same thing would be capable with running the 3 injectors on the same bank. Only one O2 needed on the outlet of the turbo. I think it would be invaluable to verify tuning changes by reading plugs to ensure 1&2, 3&4, and 5&6 are all getting the same amount of fuel, and to combat small differences, adjust fuel pressure at the CFI unit.

With a more advanced Megasquirt setup, I am sure running the 3 injectors sequentially would be possible by wiring the harness as if it were a true sequential 6 cylinder, but had 3 injectors. Would probably have to put some inline diodes on the injector circuits or something. Still plausible, however. That way, in theory, when each CFI unit were to do an injection cycle, it could be timed for when the intake valve is opening, and essentially force scavenging the charge at the precise time.

But all that is getting way ahead of where I am right now haha. Currently away from home for several months. When I return I will be directing focus to my tow-pig as well. Gotta have a truck to pull stuff with.

But this is good. When I re-attack the plan on fuel injecting the 200 I will be sure to update this thread. Until then, the lessons in theory and prior attemps is greatly appreciated.
 
After review of prior responses AFTER my response, I realize I have "foot in mouth" syndrome.

I suppose my question is really as follows.

What makes 3 CFI units different from 3 phased injectors?

Thanks in advance.
 
Back
Top