Close

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 325
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Looks like I may be running this as an option eventually. I just made a deposit for Stg 3s. So I think we need to test this system out before I get them :3

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,322
    Rep Points
    1,955.5
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by klipseracer Click here to enlarge
    What controller did you use to tune it/controll the injector?
    I didn't run one. I ran six using a cheap controller locally made to me called perfect power. One per port. I misread earlier on and didn't realize you guys are talking about adding single old school style injectors.
    Running it of a boost signal will be optimal with a ramp rate.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by George Smooth Click here to enlarge
    I didn't run one. I ran six using a cheap controller locally made to me called perfect power. One per port. I misread earlier on and didn't realize you guys are talking about adding single old school style injectors.
    Running it of a boost signal will be optimal with a ramp rate.
    Actually, I'm told its going to be made with two injectors. Direct port/Individual port injectors are always a possibility, however we're talking more cost, potentially new intake manifold etc. Trying to keep this simple, if we wanted to do things, "Right", we should be running no less than Pectal Standalones. Instead, we opt for the next, logical and financially reasonable options.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    191
    Rep Points
    208.5
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by klipseracer Click here to enlarge
    Actually, I'm told its going to be made with two injectors. Direct port/Individual port injectors are always a possibility, however we're talking more cost, potentially new intake manifold etc. Trying to keep this simple, if we wanted to do things, "Right", we should be running no less than Pectal Standalones. Instead, we opt for the next, logical and financially reasonable options.
    The more I think about this, the simpler it becomes. If a vendor were to make a high quality kit including all parts/injectors/controller I think it would sell. Upgrade your LPFP for more flow such that when you T it off in the engine bay you will still have plenty, and let the DI supply 80% of the fuel and the supplemental 20%.

    This should actually work perfectly. Run 50% E85 with headroom? Yes please. Wish I lived in LA I would help you out.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DallasBoosted Click here to enlarge
    The more I think about this, the simpler it becomes. If a vendor were to make a high quality kit including all parts/injectors/controller I think it would sell. Upgrade your LPFP for more flow such that when you T it off in the engine bay you will still have plenty, and let the DI supply 80% of the fuel and the supplemental 20%.

    This should actually work perfectly. Run 50% E85 with headroom? Yes please. Wish I lived in LA I would help you out.
    I know it will sell... Just a matter of people getting off their asses and trying it out. If I was in LA my car would already be there. This would reduce the strain on the HPFP tremendously, and who wants to be running 600 wheel and then the HPFP $#@!s out with a bunch of boost and timing advance... Not me.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Can anyone tell me, are there any chassis clearance differences between the 1,3 and 5 series around the throttle body area? Trying to figure out the best way to point the injectors. Toward the firewall, downward or toward the radiator? Would like this to fit all N54 applications. Its going to add 3-4 inches and would like it to be somewhat easily accessible. Remember, it will also push the chargepipe out a couple inches.

    Something like this:
    Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    If it's 3-4" it's going to be close to the shocktower on the bend (at least my ActiveAutowerkes pipe would be I would think). Not to mention the change in the bend radius. Might need a 45deg coupler or something

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sered Click here to enlarge
    If it's 3-4" it's going to be close to the shocktower on the bend (at least my ActiveAutowerkes pipe would be I would think). Not to mention the change in the bend radius. Might need a 45deg coupler or something
    Its 3-4 inchs OUT from the spacer, not the width or thickness of the spacer. I'm told the spacer will only be about 1" thick, therefore only pushing your chargepipe back 1 inch. Its to the side that it will reach 3-4 inches due to the injector and short rail sticking out.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    AH. Ok then you should have enough room. My Active Autowerke BOV crapped out on me the other day and I had to install an ebay-brand spare I had laying around. There was a lot of lateral room around the TB.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sered Click here to enlarge
    AH. Ok then you should have enough room. My Active Autowerke BOV crapped out on me the other day and I had to install an ebay-brand spare I had laying around. There was a lot of lateral room around the TB.
    Wonder which CP will hold up longer Click here to enlarge

    I'm hoping there is enough room for what we need to do, I'm pretty certain there is.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by klipseracer Click here to enlarge
    Wonder which CP will hold up longer Click here to enlarge

    I'm hoping there is enough room for what we need to do, I'm pretty certain there is.
    It was very odd. I kept losing boost up top and could not find any evidence of leaks other than I could HEAR what sounded like the BOV opening. Sure enough, I could loosen and tighten the spring and adjust how much boost was being lost; but even on full tight, it still leaked. I'm guessing the spring just gave out. Having a purple ebay BOV is... interesting... to say the least.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Doylestown,PA
    Posts
    283
    Rep Points
    913.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Lol, I know a guy who's been sitting on this idea for a little while nowClick here to enlarge-I figured it was only a matter of time until someone else thought of it...it makes a lot of sense,for a lot of reasons. I have the plate made, It fits the car, I'm probably going to have o-ring grooves machined into the head side...I was going to make the plate able to accept a variety of options-I settled on ERL aquamist check valve styled nozzles(+additional filtering/rotary distribution block,etc) regarding the meth injection side of it, but each port will have an additional port that would accept either a fuel injector or a wet nos nozzle, via screw in interchangeable bungs. The problem is time-I'm so busy on a million other things that It's been sitting atop my box since last year. Maybe I should rank it higher to my ever growing list...here's a pic of the prototype plate:
    Click here to enlarge
    The problem with injectors is accurate control within the DME's umbrella of acceptance, which will be trial and error-I'm unsure how compatible any additional injector controller will work with the car and vice-versa, I haven't found any sub standalone injector drivers that looked worth gambling on..although I haven't looked terribly hard.
    A Pro-Efi option sure would be cool..."cough"...wonder what's up with that...

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    191
    Rep Points
    208.5
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Would be very interesting to run E85, say 50% mixture, and just not tune the scalar in the Cobb tune, and supply the 15-20% extra fuel needed via the AIC. Then hook up the flex fuel sensor, and tie that into the AIC... Click here to enlarge

    Definitely like the 6 injectors in the intakes better than the TB injection to ensure equal distribution...

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Doylestown,PA
    Posts
    283
    Rep Points
    913.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DallasBoosted Click here to enlarge
    Would be very interesting to run E85, say 50% mixture, and just not tune the scalar in the Cobb tune, and supply the 15-20% extra fuel needed via the AIC. Then hook up the flex fuel sensor, and tie that into the AIC... Click here to enlarge

    Definitely like the 6 injectors in the intakes better than the TB injection to ensure equal distribution...
    Yeah,the possibilities are endless-one thing that has delayed my mentioning of this is the implementation of a failsafe, I believe that if one is adding fuel that the engine's well being is dependent on for survival, monitoring and having preventative measures in place becomes mandatory. I'm in for open discussion/suggestion regarding this-All the options I have access to that do provide feedback push the cost outside of reason. The reason I made a plate over an entire manifold is the desire to offer something relatively cost effective, I'd like to follow suit with the remainder of it, but with the exceptions of a few key components like top shelf meth nozzles,proper distribution and the like...

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston under a book
    Posts
    1,337
    Rep Points
    2,501.9
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well, if we are talking normal fuel injectors I think a failsafe isn't a hugely important thing. Although you could rig up something to read the resistance value of the injectors, individually or of banks, and report if one fails that way (depending on the type of course). Port methanol may be more tricky due to the nature of the kits. In general port setups are better, but it becomes difficult to monitor things individually due to the complexity.

    Have you tested how particular the dme is to fuel? Some people run buckets of meth and the computer reacts perfectly in closed loop. If it's phased in it would be even less of an issue I think.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    191
    Rep Points
    208.5
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by V8Bait Click here to enlarge
    Well, if we are talking normal fuel injectors I think a failsafe isn't a hugely important thing. Although you could rig up something to read the resistance value of the injectors, individually or of banks, and report if one fails that way (depending on the type of course). Port methanol may be more tricky due to the nature of the kits. In general port setups are better, but it becomes difficult to monitor things individually due to the complexity.

    Have you tested how particular the dme is to fuel? Some people run buckets of meth and the computer reacts perfectly in closed loop. If it's phased in it would be even less of an issue I think.
    What would you failsafe if you T off the low pressure fuel line anyway? The fuel line would go directly to the injectors returnless, right? The DME already knows about the fuel pressure, if that drops off you'd get codes. You'd need to failsafe the additional injector controller itself? How would that work?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Boynton Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,209
    Rep Points
    1,445.2
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Just get an afr gauge. On a tuned car it's something that should always be monitored. If it's lean you know you have a problem. These setups are pretty reliable though. As far as the map sensor. idk if you can switch it or not. If you max out the map sensor it should continue to spray at whatever the highest table of the fuel map is once it exceeds the pressure.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DallasBoosted Click here to enlarge
    What would you failsafe if you T off the low pressure fuel line anyway? The fuel line would go directly to the injectors returnless, right? The DME already knows about the fuel pressure, if that drops off you'd get codes. You'd need to failsafe the additional injector controller itself? How would that work?
    Here is a better question. What happens if you get a clog... Fuel pressure would probably spike... What happens if you get a clog in one of the normal injectors? I don't think this is something that needs fail safed, imo. Using a methanol nozzle through pushlocks and a separate pump, thats a lot of hoops to jump through. Using the stock fuel system and a reliable fuel injector, I'm not too worried. Its just a matter of the secondary injection controller doing its job. People trust megasquirts and these other controllers for the entire engine, so I don't see why we would be any more worried here. Biggest risk I see is dumping too much fuel. We could signal from the piggyback to cut fueling or scale it back quickly, but this seems to be a lesser issue for me.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Doylestown,PA
    Posts
    283
    Rep Points
    913.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    You're probably right as far as DME fueling stuff goes, I would like to be sure though before really pouring funding into it, additional injector-wise. I think the way I'm planning to address the meth part of it could use a boost dump failsafe based upon the systems I would use, namely ERL or AEM as a more affordable route, but the nozzles themselves will certainly be the higher quality ERL units. Double filtration and the fact that the nozzles are check valved should prevent any clogging situations, but I think an entire return style sub fuel system(perhaps with E85 fuel cell in trunk) to supply the 6 injectors would be the ultimate.T into lp side?hell no...that things taxed/undersized as it is...If Its gonna come together it should probably be able to sustain big power to make it worth investing in,so preventing any restrictions is key..

    Question is, who makes a additional injector box that is worthy...they've seemed to fade with the expansion of standalone systems, and whatever it is, It will need to be able to cleanly interpret and share the crank sensor signal without pissing off the dme...the boost reference bit is the easy part.
    Last edited by rick@defiv; 03-19-2013 at 10:09 PM.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rick@defiv Click here to enlarge
    You're probably right as far as DME fueling stuff goes, I would like to be sure though before really pouring funding into it, additional injector-wise. I think the way I'm planning to address the meth part of it could use a boost dump failsafe based upon the systems I would use, namely ERL or AEM as a more affordable route, but the nozzles themselves will certainly be the higher quality ERL units. Double filtration and the fact that the nozzles are check valved should prevent any clogging situations, but I think an entire return style sub fuel system(perhaps with E85 fuel cell in trunk) to supply the 6 injectors would be the ultimate.T into lp side?hell no...that things taxed/undersized as it is...If Its gonna come together it should probably be able to sustain big power to make it worth investing in,so preventing any restrictions is key..

    Question is, who makes a additional injector box that is worthy...they've seemed to fade with the expansion of standalone systems, and whatever it is, It will need to be able to cleanly interpret and share the crank sensor signal without pissing off the dme...the boost reference bit is the easy part.
    The shop that wants to make this TB spacer makes a controller specifically for this which is user tunable with 2 separate maps controlling up to ten injectors. There is the 034 controller also posted in this thread.

    The LP pump wouldn't be sufficient for 6 injectors... If any additional injectors are going in, at least an inline will be required in addition to the factory LP, preferably a parallel setup. Thanks to @Terry@BMS we have pretty much solved the LP side and I'm confident it could run a pair or even six additional injectors, as the fuel flowing through the secondary injection rails will be much less than the primary DI. The secondary should really just be to take a load off the DI and help take it beyond our current HPFP limit.

    I can't really make any comments on the meth/n20 side, but having an external, returned secondary fuel system for individual ports would seem like the most capable setup, and potentially a good alternative price wise to going with a full on custom manifold. However keeping a secondary fuel cell, running additional fuel lines from the back of the car to the front then back to the trunk, controlling the pressure on the new fuel pump and the additional cost may have to be carefully considered when it may be just as effective and much less complicated or expensive just to tap the LP line with a couple injectors at the TB. With this type of setup, the system itself becomes more complicated and then I'd start thinking about that failsafe again(Think, turn a corner, fuel sloshes to the side, pump sends air to the injectors at 7k rpms, or pump dies, but since its not connected to anything in the CAN bus, the DME doesn't know until crazy lean afr hits the widebands or knock sensors go crazy and egt's go through the roof).

    I know these are freak accidents but more parts to the system increases the potential for possible failure, especially if installed as a DIY.

    Perhaps to avoid this, use individual port injection off the LP side with a proper LP upgrade. I know someone who is knowledgeable that has told me they would want to test this type of product on their car if you had a prototype ready.
    Last edited by klipseracer; 03-19-2013 at 11:50 PM.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Doylestown,PA
    Posts
    283
    Rep Points
    913.1
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by klipseracer Click here to enlarge
    The shop that wants to make this TB spacer makes a controller specifically for this which is user tunable with 2 separate maps controlling up to ten injectors. There is the 034 controller also posted in this thread.

    The LP pump wouldn't be sufficient for 6 injectors... If any additional injectors are going in, at least an inline will be required in addition to the factory LP, preferably a parallel setup. Thanks to @Terry@BMS we have pretty much solved the LP side and I'm confident it could run a pair or even six additional injectors, as the fuel flowing through the secondary injection rails will be much less than the primary DI. The secondary should really just be to take a load off the DI and help take it beyond our current HPFP limit.

    I can't really make any comments on the meth/n20 side, but having an external, returned secondary fuel system for individual ports would seem like the most capable setup, and potentially a good alternative price wise to going with a full on custom manifold. However keeping a secondary fuel cell, running additional fuel lines from the back of the car to the front then back to the trunk, controlling the pressure on the new fuel pump and the additional cost may have to be carefully considered when it may be just as effective and much less complicated or expensive just to tap the LP line with a couple injectors at the TB. With this type of setup, the system itself becomes more complicated and then I'd start thinking about that failsafe again(Think, turn a corner, fuel sloshes to the side, pump sends air to the injectors at 7k rpms, or pump dies, but since its not connected to anything in the CAN bus, the DME doesn't know until crazy lean afr hits the widebands or knock sensors go crazy and egt's go through the roof).

    I know these are freak accidents but more parts to the system increases the potential for possible failure, especially if installed as a DIY.

    Perhaps to avoid this, use individual port injection off the LP side with a proper LP upgrade. I know someone who is knowledgeable that has told me they would want to test this type of product on their car if you had a prototype ready.
    I have a tester,It's just a matter of obtaining parts,time and doing it. I'll check out the earlier stuff in the thread in reference to the injector driver. Personally I'd avoid sharing anything with the DI supply and either run it's own tank pickup tube a sub cell with it's own rising-rate regulator,pump and return, It would eliminate the chances of instability in the lpfp source,not to mention tuning an injector driver would be a million times easier at a lower pressure for introduction of fuel and ramp the pressure according to boost. Any additional driver i've ever used seems to be coded with a pulsewidth/boost hysteresis that's designed with a return style system in mind, which nominal pressures begin in the 3-3.5bar range and rise 1:1 in accordance to boost. I'll bump it up on my to-do list.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,729
    Rep Points
    2,484.0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    25



    Reputation: Yes | No
    There are indeed many benefits to running an independent fuel delivery system. The variable pressure of the lpfp may make it harder to know how much fuel is actually flowing through the injectors. I'm curious what your findings are.
    Click here to enlarge
    Join the largest N5X Enthusiasts Group! 1200+ Members Strong!
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/n5xenthusiasts/

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Houston under a book
    Posts
    1,337
    Rep Points
    2,501.9
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    26


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Imo, run parallel pumps in tank. Upgrade the fuel pressure regulator at the tank and upgrade the line to the hpfp. T the line there and run a bit smaller line to the additional injectors. Or run a second line and return but I think it's unnecessary, at least at first. My reasoning is because the lpfp pressure is measured at the hpfp inlet so you'd know if the simple setup is bad pretty quickly. Also, the lpfp pressure doesn't vary that much iirc.

    For control, I'm biased but I think it should be stacked with cobb and controlled through a piggyback. The piggy has can access, so any supplemental injection that runs injector duty cycle from a pwm input could be tuned by something already designed for tuning and already controlling boost and the DI system/timing to a point.

    Ultimately this is really no different than methanol injection, just with e85, without cylinder imbalance, no clogged fittings, no extra electric pumps, no fuel cells, no push fittings, etc etc.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,149
    Rep Points
    1,314.7
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by V8Bait Click here to enlarge
    Ultimately this is really no different than methanol injection, just with e85, without cylinder imbalance, no clogged fittings, no extra electric pumps, no fuel cells, no push fittings, etc etc.
    And that to me is the biggest draw. I dont' want the hassle of running another tank, etc. In fact I don't think we need 6 injectors. I think 2 1600cc running the LPFP pressure, should supply enough fuel to push the 63Rs to the limit. This probably wouldn't work so well if the TB wasn't positioned dead-center on the intake mani. I think if you begin the PWM cycle at ~5psi and 100% TPS, and make it linearly scale up with a scale variable using boost as the control signal; then it would probably work. This is pretty much what normal additional injector controllers do.

    I think for TB injection, you don't need a tach/ign signal; given that the TB placement is good and the manifold is simple. May still want it though.
    Last edited by Sered; 03-20-2013 at 08:35 AM.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Harrisburg
    Posts
    1,284
    Rep Points
    1,526.3
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    16


    Reputation: Yes | No
    For what I remember reading, the stock FPR only gets overwhelmed with the increased volume of running two parallel pumps. If the FPR was changed, the fuel pressure should stay more constant even with a parallel pump setup, regardless of the flow out of the tank.

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •