Late 6A engines got the 051 103 373D head. Feck, now I know why I went 8v. This is like watching a load of old fish wives gassing. Hangout in the transmission section if you want to go faster in the real world. It can even make 8v cars beat 16v cars.
For all the permutations outputs for all are pretty similar on kjet with KR or ABF cams was my point- Tshirt2k seems to believe my ACE (with ABF cams no less) is fundamentally different to an ABF when in reality it's all very very similar.... Cheers mike- a sensible post. A mappable system will give gains when done properly for sure. There are k jet motors that prove well fettled old skool variants also do the job too. Comes down to dyno time & attention to detail IMO I have driven my old ITBd valver on DTA? Does that count? Throttle response was fantastic. It wasn't breathing through a single throttle body though so I'd imagine the result on Megasquirt & with plenum would be less dramatic. Nice to have better response low down but it all feels like WOT past 50% open anyhow I know k jet is old & there are better alternatives but it is what I have to work with Hi Gurds- cheers mate! Yeah was thinking ~268 cams. We shall see! Your mk1 along with Ian & Graham in the mk2's were the proof that good old kjet does a solid job. Smudge- as posted elsewhere I reckon something similar to my old 268/276 schrick setup is bang on for hyd lifters. With 45mm bodies mine peaked at 7300 holding on strong til 7700. More than enough for hyd lifters. I'd go for the bigger bodies first & see what that gains you. I'm just aiming to optimise the hardware before bolting back together then I can tweak at a later date if necessary...
Gassing? !! This debate has been going on for 8 years or more Danny. Nothing changes! I can smugly point out that I'd got a Mk1 Polo 4.57 FD attached to a Mk1 Jetta 1.3 small block in 1993, on account of reading Fast Car and seeing someone with a 950 Fiesta do the same. Reguarly used to set times faster than some of the Curby entry, 96'-2000. Sixty brake and a single venturi carb. The game has moved on now tho! Mentioned the concept to Badger5 with his cogless 2Y Jetta in '99, cue 3.94 FD. He never looked back either.
Pair of 276's shricks in mine, sadly didnt make the dyno day really wish i had but funds wouldnt allow. May consider a visit some time in the future tho if it can add to the info collected and use their experience too. My K-jet ABF is fun to drive spiritedly, although hot weather in traffic becomes a chore with the lightened flyweel/cams. I still like opening the bonnet and seeing that big shiney curving inlet manifold and agree that theres something nice about it being kept "olds-cool"! Future mods for me will be a lower final drive, but on the recent Bedford trackday and road tyres i cant complain about anything with the performance. Several cars with semi-slicks/cages were esay to overtake and the power delivery was spot on.
Deliver according to exactly what measure, Chris? Are you a spin doctor? Nobody ever suggested these cars don't go fast. But as Barny said sadly untested at the dyno day. It would be great to see what it can do and I've no doubt a car can be trawled out for comparison that went to the dyno day to enable a walk back.
Love all the banter 16V's produce!! How much is one of these Megasquirt kits?? I wonder what the results would be fitting on my car? I'd like to see if it can optimise it further. Perhaps there's someone who would like to try it on CFJ? Stick with the split cams Chris....unless you go solid head...big bucks as you know. CFJ needing some remedial work to exhaust now. I'd like Vince to set it up again on the rollers but am curious about these new systems....it's all cost dependant as per usual. Need new track rubber and like some new track wheels too!.....tarting about with it again! Will be out on Autometrix this year and the RS day....it's all getting very expensive again this time of year!
keep us posted on the rs day this year ian , my daughters partener wants to meet me ther in his rs focus new engine now done 200 miles , feels a lot meaner than the old engine , still got a few niggling issuies thought , that my goal rs day and vw autometrix , two half days reckon thats all the rubber i got left , still on k jet
Prices for an unassembled kit shown in the link. You would also need a loom plus duty to pay. Alot more if you get an assembled one. http://www.diyautotune.com/catalog/megasquirti-programmable-efi-system-pcb30-unassembled-kit-p-46.html
Prices have probably gone up, but I bought an ECU and loom, ready built, with a starter map, for 350. That was about 3.5 years ago, I think. Exchange rates will be a factor too, as the parts come from the US. I spent about 150 on other bits related to the conversion (scrapyard fuel rails, injectors, TPS, sensors, etc), although I was rebuilding other things on the car, so there were other expenses too, but not related to the MS conversion. When you get to mapping it, the cost is down to how much you do for yourself, vs paying someone to do it for you. A bit of rolling road time is good for fine tuning, although mine hasn't been on one yet. If I was doing it in a 16v, I'd get hold of a set of ABF manifold, TB with TPS, sensors, injectors, fuel rail, etc, and most of your hardware stuff is done. A Mk2 diesel airbox or cone filter will finish that off, according to your taste. On a 2.0 valver with headwork, fast road cams, exhaust mods (not 100% on the spec of yours, Ian), then I'd expect you'd get at least 10bhp peak compared to modded KJet, but a wider torque spread, more low-mid range punch, and the power hanging on higher up the rev range. It's a bit like carbs though... in that it depends a lot on how well it's set up. More control over settings means there's more to get right. I'm glad I went to our 'tame megasquirt expert' for my first install, but I'll do a lot more on the next one, which will either be a 2.0 16v in the current track car, or maybe a rebuild for my 911.
try and get hold of a pair secondhand schricks 256 to 276 will work a treat , drive well and last well, good luck with the new motor chris
WOW! 3 pages in the time it takes to road tune 1 20vT . Chris, I have tested a 9A fitted with a late head (051103373D)and ABF 051 101/102 cams and can report, it is no std ABF engine. This car did have a mappable system. I am in the process of mapping another with the same combination this time with a ported head and so far very similar to the first. G meter and dyno data to follow. Compared to the G readings seen on many well maintained KR vehicles it was not as slow as but lacked the edginess of an ABF. So yes there are differences in how the such a 9A/ACE/6A vehicle drives. It does not only come down to dyno time but also adjustablity of the combustion process, making a SEM system, if calibrated correctly superior to a carburettor or a continuous injection system that have a limited window of operation. Vehicles that are calibrated properly would have spent many hours on road to validate transients, economy, and drive feel, before WOT stuff. This is not a plug for MS products mind. Assuming we are talking about fully optimised engines the single plenum car is a different character vehicle to an ITB or twin carb'd vehicle. It will bunch torque high at lower revs and drop it off early in the rev range. You need to sit or even drive, in various conditions, a good working example of a well calibrated SEM vehicle and a well fettled K jet car to understand what is described. A healthy 160PS @ 5900rpm and 157lbft @ 4800rpm K jet ABF in a 1050kg vehicle as tested by me in 'good' ambients would have had significantly different characteristics if a programmable system was fitted. Even without a programmable system such a car if fitted a suitably short gearbox with 3.9 to 4.25 FD should have no issue to pulling close to 0.4g + in second car, traction provided. As a comparison a 225PS+ 1400kg Focus ST does in the same gear will achieve close to 0.4g but not as long a valver with this combination. I recall Paul Halsam's "just rev it" cabby to achieve 161bhp@ 6400 rpm and 150lbft@ 4,??? rpm back in 2009 on the CGTi day back then. Perhaps a better fuel control from his ABF cam'd car would have meant more torque and thus power. We will see how it does with the new engine. And that is fine no issue there is nothing with that statement. KJet is a great system and a positive step from 2bbl or twin independent carbs. But then life moved on... and then it moved on again... Good luck with the build though...
You will first need to test and analyse what the vehicle does first and work out if a SEM will solve any untoward issue. If an engineering solution with your existing hardware cannot be found, providing there is an issue and the engine is not being controlled properly then you start think in this direction. That is my 2p.
I fully accept that things have moved on-k jet is outdated etc etc- christ matts old car had been running standalone for a while back at that Brunters day in ?2004? & Bills Jetta way before that. What I don't get is the sudden notion that it is imperative to immediately go Megasquirt to get any sort of decent results & good old fashioned tuning like cams/heads is as good as obsolete. I always thought the hardware should be sorted initially with any build, then tie it all together with suitable management as desired at a later date..& that simply is why I was asking about cams & any recommends. Of course all the strongest cars have had lots of dyno time (& money) thrown at them- Megasquirt & k jet are alike in that respect- & yes it would be interesting to see what differences exist. I fully agree. When all said & done it's about how they go out on the road or track & in that respect there are still cars out there- Barny, ian, Graham, mark_b, Paul_h that are more than respectable despite their humble fuel systems. That was the only 'measure' I was using your honour. I wasn't trying to make this whole thread about numbers. I am wholly realistic that some fabled cars probably don't have the outputs they were once reputed to have.. We can all pore over numbers, argue the toss, look at fancy graphs & generally get over-political & analytical about the whole thing all day long but there are always going to be different routes to achieve similar goals. It would be boring if everyone did the same
Ref sudden notion that it's imperative to go MS, I think Mike_H summed it up well in saying "it's part of the normal discussion process to suggest alternatives, based on collective experience". That experience has migrated very markedly to standalone as second/third cars get fiddled with and have time off the road. The minute numbers get mentioned and past references to cars before standalone are put on the table, red rag: there's an implied education challenge on the thread from that standalone experience. That is the stepping stone for the cam vs standalone debate, even though it looks off topic/hijack. The reason cams and other hardware tuning become seen not so much as obsolete, but as a second or third step is having watched improvements from standalone which call into question hardware changes as a first step. The fact that standalone allows non-linear fuel and spark mapping, unlike K-Jet and a distributor, is the most compelling argument. It may not deliver the unsophistication of a cammy K-Jetter however, if that is the target character! Whether the two routes (cam+K-Jet/standalone ECU) achieve similar goals as you suggest, or indeed two tiers of results, is clear: sophistication is weighted heavily in favour of the latter, old school tuning the former. Chances are, at any given speed, in any gear, the latter will pull away. Only when the K-Jet is at optimum is it like for like. With non-linear mapping of the K-Jet, the difficulties are clear, but then again, this is all idealism too. It has to be funded, but standalone can be done cost-effectively these days. The track comparison is a fun idea, I'm sure most will be on for that, though it does have 'race' written all over it! Difficult for data purposes, because it brings in many other factors. Quarter miles are actually better for testing outputs, because the window on technique variation is narrower and removes the unknowns of circular track knowledge and very key chassis/cornering factors. The terminal speed on a quarter is clearly a key measure, but brings in car weight, so the Mk1s will be at an advantage! !!!
