The crazy thing is we have this same argument in other forum about why points are preferred over elec. All very similar points made. Fact is that EFI is proven as very capable AND flexible. Sure there are more point of failure but for the most part cars today are gas-n-go. No point debating if it should be that way... The turbo regals were good examples of leveraging tech to make power. Coil packs supporting 4x the orig HP, distributor less, FI, overdrive, cheap HP gains without opening the hood, etc etc. Would not have been the same with carb and HEI ! Remember when transmissions didn't have computers? Sure, there is a downside to requiring a brain on the box, but look at what folks have been able to do with the 4L80. Can get with or without brain iirc
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) Dang, Bammax dont look like he is that smart....:Brow::laugh::laugh:
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) I'm not that smart. Just poor and cheap and constantly fixing things. It gives good insight into the shortcomings of various vehicles. Like the light switch catching fire on the 80-90's T-birds, or the temp sensor fiasco on the Gen2 sbc, or the fact that an s10 blazer uses different rear glass shocks if it's a 2-door vs a 4-door because for some reason GM decided to use a different mount on the glass for the coupe version. I can also point out that GM mounted trans lines and vacuum switches right up against the floor on most of their cars and trucks, which means the parts can't be replaced without lifting the body or dropping the trans slightly. That's something people with new car warantees don't know :laugh: I'm either looking for an efi system that is tailored and tested on the specific engine family I'm using, or a system that needs some work (universal fit) but is at least safe to start with and affordable to buy. Right now all that's out there is universal fit parts at $2-3 grans and then need to be professionally tuned at the cost of a few more hundred. You wont see the fuel savings being worth the initial expense until you put 200k miles on the engine. So until one of those dream systems comes along I'm still going to keep trying to figure out which combination of junkyard parts can get the job done safely and affordably. I'm still leaning towards a GenVII 454 setup with the 24x trigger wheel and a vortec van cam sensor retrofitted to the 455 distributor
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) Any ECM worth it's salt doesn't ever need to be professionally tuned. No one but me has ever tuned my Skylark or T-bird. I put a ton of miles on them and am pretty satisfied with the results. Have I mentioned I'm a Geologist not some computer or engineering whiz? I can get good drivability and mpg's without a professional. For max HP, that requires track time and/or a dyno. Professionals just make that process faster, which of course is where the cost is. Same deal for a carb isn't? Lots of people screw up the simple bolting on of a carb, and lots more rarely ever get them optimized for drivability, mpg's and max power. If you can tune a carb, you can tune a programmable EFI system (even easier). I really should just EFI the 455 in the Centurion already. I think I can get the MPI conversion down to less than $800. I only have around $800 in the Thunderbird's TBI system. The only expensive thing on my Skylark related to EFI was the Buick specific part, the SPX intake. It cost as much as the MegaSquirt, wiring harness, WBO2 sensor/controller and relay board combined. I plan on drilling my own intake for the Centurion and using a junk Q-jet for a throttlebody.
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) I pretty much agree with SB on this. I tell everyone, download as many manufacturers software packages as possible, then go from there. Some have better help screens than others, and there are good tuners out there that will help, I'm one of them.
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) Here's what I'm thinking, and I guess the auto-tune feature on some of the newer efi brains sort of do this. You've got all these lookup tables and some of them can get VERY confusing (Like trying to tune a Ford system using the TwEECer for instance), but as an example just taking the fuel map since that's usually where it all starts, or maybe a better example is ignition advance since the general requirements are pretty specific and we aren't dealing with a variable like injector size or pump pressure. Some things we can agree on for any application. Advance for easiest starting is never going to be outside a range of, oh I dunno, just for giggles lets say 0 to 10 degrees. So why do we need to put that in there? Shouldn't it automatically start out at the average best figure and we can move it if we want to? Advance needs to increase with engine speed following a curve that gives best economy under light throttle. This curve is pretty similar for most engines. Shouldn't it start out as an average? And when we change it by for instance dragging a point on the map, shouldn't the map automatically blend with the surrounding areas of the map instead of us having to manually change each and every surrounding data point? It's a computer for chrissake, why can't it do that job? For that matter, why are we specifying target AFR's? Like that's inherently understood or something? No, it is not. Why can't the danged old computer take the throttle opening and other load factors and figure out for itself what the AFR should be for that speed and load? I sort of agree with Edouard on this one guys. If you've been born into tuning with EFI maybe it's no big deal but I gotta tell ya, this stuff is way more user unfriendly than it ought to be. And he's exactly right on his analogies. I diddled around with DOS, and IBM punch cards before that. When you have to spend 3 days making a stack of cards 3 feet high just to get a readout that tells you the time it's enough to make you pull your hair out. Now you just glance down at the lower right corner and there it is. With EFI we're somewhere in the middle. Not punch cards, but certainly not a full featured desktop by any means. It's not a question of putting the studio on the desktop, it's a matter of getting the machine to do all the hard work and computations in the background so that all I have to do is click a button on my shifter when a problem crops up, let the computer analyze it, tell me the cause and give me options for fixing it. WHY in heaven above would I want to do the equivalent of punching cards to have the luxury of doing all the analysis and computations myself? Answer: I don't. What I want are results, and he's right. There's no good reason why the computer could not be set up to do just that. Call me ignorant if you like, but for one given scenario, how many options do you really have? Leaner or richer? More or less advance? A few more peripheral choices and then a few special situations. Can you really say that the computer is incapable of eliminating the least likely candidates correctly? I say it is capable of doing it more accurately and consistently than even the best tuner around once it's set up to do that job. Even if it can only eliminate a few reliably and then gives you a choice of the rest, doesn't that make it easier? And that bit about smoothing the map. That at the very least should be something that is in every package, should be automatic, and adjust to the way you drag your map. JMO. Of course, I'll still take what we have now over a carb any day, but that's a far cry from saying it's good. Jim
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) This is available now. You may not see it so common because often folks use them for performance where its on/off. Closed loop feedback for fuel and timing is already available and most systems either come with or can be provided with a "safe" start base program. So if you want to give it a target fuel ratio and let the system do the work - you can. Want timing backed off automatically or change when the air temp changes - you can. OEMs have even allowed now for years systems that learn driving habits for shifting behavior and timing (but only within a range). The critical comments in this thread would be gone I guess if we hade a fully automated Buick specific system that did everything on auto but with a full manual mode available. But such a specific setup is not needed nor will it ever happen at a tempting price point. You will NOT be able to get away from lookup tables as you have to have a ref point or target. "Tables" has become a bad word? The same process is used to tune carb and points. If THIS then do THAT. Every once in a while a new idea comes along and experimentation begins until you find what works for "THIS n THAT" If you are capable of tuning a points and carb setup you ARE capable of tuning EFI, the providers can walk you through the interface. However the same issues apply to preferences. Some love the Holley while others swear by the Demon or QJet. Windows vs Apple. etc. Those that learned on EFI may have a harder time going old school IMO but I bet this forum could sort them out. The key is to have known good stuff to begin with. If you have worn throttle shafts, bad fuel pump, mismatched parts, or the wrong cam it can be just as frustrating to sort as an EFI setup that is faulty or mismatched from some homebrew mashup. Also, if you are able to screw up traditional tuning EFI won't save you. I can screw up both and know just enough to be dangerous!
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) I don't think the point is to make it an auto-tune with manual override, I think the point is to simplify the interface and make it more human-friendly. Maybe the way to do that IS to use multiple tuning levels, starting out with a simple overall interface that automates almost all of the tuning functions and have a way to "drill down" to more in depth tuning parameters. As noted elsewhere, the brain could care less that it's a Buick, just like a carb. So there's little need for a car-specific tune. An average generic baseline tune would run 99% of the engines it's ever connected to, and automated routines could fine tune that in reasonably short order to eliminate the worst behavior using the sensors it was equipped with. More sensors equals a better tune, and drilling down could take care of the special cases. In terms of what the tuner has to do, isn't that exactly the way we do it with carbs? So why does efi have to be so complicated? Especially when we have a computer we could use to simplify it. I realize this still means inputting parameters like injector size and engine displacement, but just using a generic start-and-run routine, how long would it take for the WB-O2 to tell the brain how much fuel is needed? For that matter, does the brain even need to know how big the engine and injectors are? No it does not. All it cares about is pulse width, O2 level, throttle opening, egt, and things of that nature. The engine itself could be big or small and it doesn't matter in the least. Jim
Not to stir the pot but I wonder who's going to be the first to try out the msd tbi setup and let us know how well it's programmed. http://www.atomicefi.com/home.aspx I'll never consider tbi to be a worthwhile upgrade over a well running carb, but the programming could be harvested and used in a multipoint setup. At the very least it would swap to a 4 cylinder multipoint directly (assuming 4 injectors in the tbi unit) or could be used just for the tables and charts and plugged into the programming for the system of your choosing.
Re: How many times should a car be tuned?? (Re: Dumbed down MPFI talk) Amen! As one guy I know put it, "A carb has a few variables that each change a whole lot and EFI has a lot of variables that each change very little." AFR and timing tables can't be defaulted with out leaving a lot on the table for improvement. You'd never (want to) enter enough variables into the EFI program to make a perfect tune. An LS based 454cid engine versus a Buick 455 engine for example, you'd think would be easy to just set a good "average" AFR table and ignition table and everything would be good, but the reality is that the LS engine will tolerate and make more power at a leaner AFR and far less timing advance because a better cylinder head design, better intake and exhaust manifold flow, and that's assuming the cam specs are the same. Likewise change the displacement to a 4-cylinder with a narrow bore and the timing requirements can be radically different. Knock sensors sound like a good idea except max power isn't always just short of the point of detonation and a lot of big cam'd engines make too much valve train noise for a knock sensor to work. To sense load the program would have to know the actual load on the vehicle, which is difficult to really measure and predict the exact fuel and spark requirements at each load/rpm point. Close works, and makes a fine running engine and that's how 90% of the self tune systems work, but they are always leaving something on the table because the specifics of the vehicle and engine combination. OEM's do a lot of dyno loading of each engine for each model offered, even if the engine is offered in a different vehicle, to simulate dozens of load conditions and then figure out how much fuel and timing are required at each condition. Anyways, I figure if it was easy it would of already been done and have the market cornered.
I know one guy looking to try this one. I am waiting to hear how simple the installation goes. That's the advantage to that particular system, it's very integrated to keep wiring and such very simplified and for people who want the carb look but better fuel control. That's the market niche MSD is going for.
Since I do not like carburetors, and timing adjusted by vacuum modules and/or springs and weights, I put a FAST XFI system providing sequential fuel injection control on a 455 engine in a 1970 GS equipped with a 200 4R transmission with lock up torque converter. The sensors include a one bar Manifold Air Pressure sensor, an MSD crank sensor, the distributor was modified to also be a cam sensor giving one pulse per two engine turns, the carburetor replaced with a Edelbrock 1000 cfm throttle body, and the manifold modified to incorporate eight 43 lbs fuel injectors located over each intake port with an Aeromotive fuel regulator controlling the fuel rail pressure. The fuel tank was replaced with Spectra EFI type internal pump tank made for A bodies with the GS filler neck, and the rubber sections in the stock fuel line replaced with high pressure fuel hose. I love driving this car and would not even consider going back to the 1970 technology the car came with. Yes the incremental difference in fuel economy will never pay a fraction of what these components cost, but the satisfaction of getting this project to a point where there are few tweaks that need to be done are reward enough. Being able to go out and just turn the key to start to car is priceless, and not stalling when pulling out of the garage on a cool morning is worth it's weight in gold. I'm at the point where I would trust this car anywhere. This conversion takes time as there is not a kit so it took time to research the parts needed and how to hook them up to make a working system. The FAST supplied engine wiring harness needed slight modification and many sets of wires and relays were added for fuel pump control, air-conditioning control, electric fan control and of course the MSD 6 box. There was a separate fuse block added to keep the loads from the new devices off the 40 year old wiring harness. The only regret in this whole process is that it could have not been done, with results this good years ago. The advances in aftermarket Electronic Injection Technology has come a long way, and this offers a very flexible route to make the fueling and timing what you want and it needs, forgetting the compromises the automotive manufactures had to make. Having traction control through the XFI box is worth it by itself. Therefore I make the case it is worth it for those who want to venture into this realm. It does make the car more complicated, but again I really hate carburetors.
