EFI (Engine management)

Ol' Ron

Ol' Ron

Well-known member
I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to adapt the 88-92 GM TB engine management system to their engine. I have most of the parts except the Harness ($$$$) I was planning to use only the Ignition system first. This seems to eliminate allot of problems associated with our flatheads.
Just curious.
 
Well that's quite generious, I don't mind paying a reasonable amount the harnes ids the engine control harnes from an 88-92 chevy PU with Y6 or V8. I'd like the relays too but not the gas tank wiring or fuel system. I have that. Probably all the wties that come from the computer to the engine. These trucks don't make it through 20 years of vermont winters and sauit.
 
Its been done so a good start would be to get hold of the mapping they use and the adapt it to the engine your building.
 
es, this is all available on the internet from several people, But if you burn the chip with the advance curve you want, including the vacuum advance, all you need to do is install a sendor in your stock distrubitor and the computer does the rest and the engine looks stock. Any engine.
 
I was thinking about fuel injection too when I read the thread on the 4 barrel manifold. Any body think about the ez-efi unit? It's not cheap, but simple.
www.ezefi.com
 
Over the years we ( Linder Fuel Injection) has done a ton of these , including a couple flatheads . Quite a few threads on the hamb board .....
I think sometimes we try to make the flathead something it just shouldnt be..

However this is really the wrong place for this discussion.......
 
JWL tied one of the commercial EFI systems and found the 4bl did better. A recent AMC 243 ci engine on Power nation produced 1 hp per cubic with a 4bl carb. They also tried the aftermarket EFi and found the unit needed the ignition system as well. Yes this can add up to allot of money.
I'll just poor boy it because I think we can get better economy from an Engine management system.
HOWEVER. A throttle body is not the answer, but multi port is. Individual port injectors will allow better control of the fuel delivery and no wetting of the intake, so ALL THE FUEL IS BURNED.
Getting back to just the ignitions system. Our stock or near stock flatheads are running out of good reliable ignition parts and even when supplied, operate on a 75 year old design. Just using the ignition part of the EFI system would eliminate all that and give Bubba another product to sell.
 
There's nothing wrong with wanting to burn less fuel, and get good performance. I've been waiting to hear more of this build up. Good luck:)
 
What about a megasquirt? Completely adjustable. Map the lot.
Can you buy fuel injectors that are integral with sparkplugs?
 
Bluebell said:
What about a megasquirt? Completely adjustable. Map the lot.
Can you buy fuel injectors that are integral with sparkplugs?
Click to expand...
Just a few issues with an injector next to a sparkplug...heat,pressure...
Best to stick them on the right side of the intake valve.
 
My issue here is cost,$$$$$$ can usually fix anything. I've been interested in adding a junkyard system to our flatheads for over 30 years and have made several that worked, but not as well as the stock syste. Reading JWL's book as well as some test made on late engines on the Internet, Thes plug and Play systems don't work as well as advertized. Yes If I was wealthy, I'd go with the Mega squirt system, but what I'm really trying to do is find a system that the adverage guy can install at a reasonable price that will operate as good or better than the original system. Unfortunately, No one has spent the time to work out the bugs. Take a moment to consider the fact that it wasn't until recently, we learned the ignition timing curves necessary for the Flathead. That's because one person took the time to address the problem, build the test equipment, buy the necessary components and publish the results. Which has been totaly ignored by most people.. WE spend over 300 bucks for an MSD distributor and don't bother to correct the timing curve.
Now you say this is not the place for this discussion. Actually this is the most importan place for it, because it affects the future of our beloved Flathead, when you can't get points condensers etc.
 
There was a guy on the HAMB that installed his injectors in the intake runners underneath the intake manifold sort of aimed at the intake valve. I haven't kept up with the thread but might have to see if it went anywhere. I have no idea what components he was using.
 
Takes a bit of mapping to get an optimal system.
The plug and play systems just adjust AF and use a preset ignition advance or use the existing distributors advance.
What are we aiming for a Stealth system intended for a stock engine ?
The GM TBI/TPI isnt to bad to program.
With a crankposition and manifold pressure sensor you get way more adjusting posibilitys of the ignition and all the parts needed is on your junkyard donor car.
Its the programming/testing that takes time...
 
You need to read and study the old "SD" TBI manual ....SD= service dealer book that was used in the TBI service class etc.
This manual will explain all the sensors , the spark timing and the fuel system needed to run the engine.
As long as the CI is close there is no need to program etc , just install all the sensors apply power and fuel and light it up!!

Heres the manual on ebay = http://www.ebay.com/itm/1983-Roches...-EFI-Fuel-R-/380915210095?hash=item58b050d76f

Really helps to understand all the inputs required ( sensors) and the outputs performed ( actuators)..
 
Recieved some questions regarding the lack of reprograming needed.
Easier to answer here :

The GM TBI is a "speed density map" controlled fuel system, meaning the main controls are engine load ( manifold pressure) and rpm (speed). The other sensors ie : Throttle position (tps) engine temperature ( ECT), air temp ( ACT), Exhaust sensor ( O2 sensor) are trimming sensors , meaning they dont really control they trim the system. In fact the engine will run fairly well with one or more not hooked up.

Assuming the engine ci is close to the orginal GM engine , the program in the computer ( thousands of cells of adjustment ) will work just fine without any additional programing etc.
Fuel pressure and map can be adjusted to help fit the exact driving habits of the owner.....
Spark control is also based on these sensors and will advance and retard timing as needed as well..
 
I'm having real trouble believing "as long as the displacement is close, it'll work"
Maybe it'll work ok, sort of, ish? Close to cubic capacity just don't jive. Surely you'd be better if you were close in genuine horse power?

A modern 250 cubic inch engine is massively different in the way it inhales and exhales, as in the volume it moves and the rate of that movement, compared to the asthmatic flathead. the torque curve is also massively different. Matching cubic inch, in my opinion is not gonna get the results Ron (I believe) is looking for.

As for running without all the sensors working correctly to trim the fuel curve and timing, you'll get much better results with a carburetor. Even with all them working, there's a bunch of injection systems out there that can be bettered with a good carburation setup. I know a lot of these injection systems claim better mpg and power, they often don't do any better than a good carb on the street where it actually counts.
I'd like to see a comparison of a properly setup Rochester Quadrajet against injection. That is a damn good carb. Very clever beast, driveability is amazing, when properly set up.
If you want to better something like the Quadrajet or Weber DCOE's or even the humble S.U. Your gonna need a full system. With all its sensors plugged in and working. The injection and ignition system will need to be fully programmable. I believe this is what Ron wants.

Something better than Richards (Florida) mpg, driveability and performance is gonna need to be damn good.

I wish you luck on your efi quest Ron, it's gonna be a time consuming project for sure. I do have a question for you regarding the system your planning on using. Does this system have a full gambit of sensors? I think it'll need all of them. It does complicate the installation, but I feel necessary, to better the good carbs. In my opinion the modern systems are designed primarily for low emissions, this may not translate to best mpg. And certainly won't translate to best power.

Getting the manual bubba speaks of would be a good thing, using that you should be able to divorce the ignition from the fuel stuff. If I understand you correctly, you want to run the ignition stuff on an engine with a carb so you can play with it, without the fuel side complicating this. When you get the sparks, you can then add the fuel side, and nail that down too.
You will keep us posted I hope.
Martin.
 
Heres some more thoughts:

A stock TBI could have 3000 cells with each cell holding the values from sensors and the responce fuel and spark control needed for proper running...then add the fact that each cell is three dimentional = 9000 cells or numbers.
Even 20 years ago i didnt have enough life left to even try to program all of these !!!!! So the fix is to use someones program , so why not use the factory as a base?
ALL of these aftermarket programs do something really well and they also do something really bad.
Its usually they run good at wot and may even idle well. Its all the in between thats going to have problems...
I remember doing one of these racy cars a few years ago. It took one afternoon just to get it to run in and out of the trailer , another entire day to get it to pull on our dyno. The customer/builder was having a fit with our hourly rate . He took the car and came back the next week and said car runs good BUT goes lean at 9000 rpm coming out of a turn in third gear.
But he didnt want to pay for any more time.???????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top