Interesting, mappable, K-Jet system

neither does mine:


I do have this box mind elsewhere? left of pic:


Electrical connection in it goes up by the ignition module/k-star, the air pipe coming out of the front of the small box goes into the bottom by the throttle body iirc on my 8v engine...

Looking back in my old pictures it is the see through pipe going under the large flexi rubber connecting to the TB (either that or it's loose in that pic and it connected to the front of the TB), will have a check:



^ ^ i think the air pipe connects to the black pipe end just to the left of the green blanking plug you see which it just below the connector on the front of the FB (that needed blanking)

 

What I meant to say ... was that the standard UTCIS unit does not use a vacuum connection so will be suitable for seanr68 and yourself.

.....mike

Is that `box` a bulkhead fitting i.e. does the tube go through the firewall ?

If not ... it`s probably a vacuum / module interface. Does the tube connect into the vacuum line from the inlet manifold to the brake servo ?

 

Cross over of posts ... would appear that the tube is that vacuum connection.

Have you a picture of the KStar module ?

 

Yes what you said (doesn't go through firewall) just plugs onto box.

Pics/info edited: into my above post, hard to see but the end is loose on the last pic but it connects on the pipes on top of the engine, a small black pipe end just to the right of the green blanking off plug (ignore the empty plug near by on the TB as that isn't used and gets blanked off).

Is that a standard GTi part?


edit: other air pipe end plugs in to the right of the green blanking plug:

 

old K-Star pics during car strip down:

 

How could I identify whether this would work on my EV powered beasty? Any power increase options are a welcomed addition from my POV.

 

Ask them? "or your money back lol"

 

Run your car on a dyno with a lambda measurement device or on the road with the lambda meter from ~1500 rpm top cut out. Observed/log lambda.

If the lambda is between 12.8 -13.4 you are fine with fuel control and no benefit will be had with this device.

If the car is running AFR 14:1 say at 5000 rpm but 12:7 @ 3500rpm then you start looking into fuel adjustments.

You would still be compromised as the great improvement tends to come from spark optimisation.

Like digifant 2 chip tuning I think this is a waste of money.

 

Didn't some of this 1st come about when we stopped using 4star?

 

K Star system yes ( although you may know which system better than me)
Allowed to use of 95 Ron fuel without the loss in power you would get by retarding the dizzy with it fitted or so they said.
Time and technology available to the aftermarket, has moved on though.

 

(I have sent them an enquiry regarding the device`s performance & data)

Toyotec ... how would you rate the following statement please ?

UTCIS-V and performance camshafts
Tuners have long struggled to get CIS to work well with long duration radical camshafts. The problem occurs at
idle when a poor vacuum signal and intake manifold pressure pulses cause the metering plate to flutter. If this
flutter is severe enough the metering plate can bottom out and temporarily shut off fuel to the injectors. It can also
cause the mixture at idle to fluctuate to a point it becomes noticeable. The UTCIS-V has features which allows
CIS fuel injection to work with long duration, high overlap camshafts. The steps to help CIS function with a high
overlap, long duration camshaft are:
1. Lower the warm control pressure setting across the board (manifold pressure = 0.4 to 1.0 bar) by 0.5 bar to not
less than 3.0 bar at idle. The engine will be very rich at this point and a helper may be need to keep the
engine running.
2. Adjust the CO screw to bring the idle mixture to slightly rich. (oxygen sensor output = 600 to 800 mV)
3. Increase the idle slowly until the manifold air pressure is stable at 0.4 or 0.5 bar.
4. Lower the warm-up-cycle control pressure by 0.5 bar at all temperatures to compensate for the lower running
control pressure.
This process allows the metering plate to require less force to respond to the weak vacuum signal produced by a
performance camshaft at idle.
Note: If the manifold pressure at idle is unstable and manifold air pressure is 0.6 bar or higher then
drivability problems will result. If this condition occurs then on acceleration the manifold air pressure will
decrease before it increases. This will cause the fuel injection system to incorrectly lean out the mixture just
off idle, causing a hesitation, “hiccup” or stalling. The longer the camshaft overlap and duration, the higher
the idle RPM will have to be to have a stable vacuum (low MAP) at idle.

 

If the car is proven to require it I would say yes.

@499 USD you are paying for a electronic standalone differential pressure control valve.


I agree with Jamesa it replaces the WUR and allows targeted control pressure for different speed/loads. That is just one part of the ingredients that make up engine torque though.

 

Without a standalone unit on k-jet i know you can tune to a maximum power goal but surely your only going to get one point in the revs where everything is at it's optimum?

 

I can summarise what they are saying as:

Rather than adjusting the screw on a WUR for a global position, usually, as you said at a pre determined target speed/load, you can use your PC to adjust the "Electronic" WUR if you like, if you have manifold pressure at 40 or more kPa at idle or at even that pre determined speed load. You can use what appears to be feedback from a Binary HEGO to see if the sensor hangs rich with this change. The engine should then tick over a bit better.

Thing is if you run "big" cams idle can be at 55-65 kPa leaving very little resolution to WOT (101kPa) for this unit's MAP sensor.
This would a good time to switch to SEM and run alpha-N as I think it is still alot of tinkering to get just average engine control.
If you factor in the rest of parts that would be required for most SEMs would be a a bit more expensive than 499 USD but you will have full control of such an engine for best response, power and torque.

 

That`s the way I see it .....mike and looking at my past AFR dyno results shows exactly where you win (top end) and lose out (mid range torque) ... when the WUR mod is applied.

(Thanks to Toyotec for elaborating the detail behind this)

 

With any mechanically controlled system you would have this compromise.
Plus control varies as components age.
I am not beating K-Jet though as they are some pretty aged systems out there that can still make a car "feel" right with the right adjustments.
But if they are trying to sell this on someone who has race components then I am doubtful if this device would be a solution to good response power and torque. Likewise the same if this is fitted to an almost std road car that already has OK lambda control.

 

But then if you had spark optimisation you could get all that loss back!

 

Thank you ... much as I like working with / understanding these systems I do realise where I may / will end up .... as long as smudge completes his bombproof triggerwheel - pick up design

Getting my kjet 16v on 290`s running again will test this out !

 

Nice guys.
I am off to zzzz.