Type 4 2056 cc EFI Engine Build

Discussion in 'Modified Shizzle' started by Owen Snell, Oct 3, 2015.

  1. Most likely a gear change (3rd to 4th)
  2. A bit of a stutter as he put his foot down. I had this on the road as well, so I've altered the timing and it's gone now.
  3. Maybe. There was a low speed hesitation too.
    Paul Weeding likes this.
  4. Theres a rolling road near me that was doing test and tune days. A mate took his '65 mini with metro turbo engine and it had a dip in the chart like that which they put down to clutch slip as the turbo kicked in.
    Not a bad set of numbers. Bet it feels a helluva lot different to a 1600 bay. :p
    Owen Snell likes this.
  5. Is it / was it worth the money over carbs or standard 2ltr FI ?
  6. Much better than carbs, very smooth and quiet running. Should me more economical too - at the moment it's a bit more economical, but I'm driving faster as well.

    I'm glad I did it, it would be nicer if you could easily mess with the cams and heads to do some more experimentation.

    I suspect that adding EFI to a stock 2 litre would give a very good result.

    The downside is the mapping, which is incredibly time consuming to get right. You have to want to get into it and learn how it works, there's no 'out of the box' solution.
  7. Someone said there was a list of maps online somewhere for different spec'd type 1 and 4 engines running megasquirt to get people started.
  8. As Owen says, it's extremely quiet for a big motor... Hardly any induction noise when compared to conventional twin carbs... I'm guessing some of that is due to the lack of chokes which increase the air vacuum in the carbs
  9. Owen's unit had a base map preloaded, but as every engine tuner/builder will tell you no 2 engines are the same!!
  10. True. Its enough to get the engine started though without having to set up all the sensors etc.
  11. It's does get you running, but that is a LONG way from running right. The fact that everyone builds different engines means that a universal map is not possible, so you have to DIY it or pay someone to do it, which might not end up being what you want.
  12. Still had to set up the sensors :lol:
  13. Does it? Looks pretty dead below 3000rpm. I have more than double the torque down at 2000rpm and only another 350cc to get it from.
  14. I don't know how yours drives until we compare, mine revs freely and was still pulling at an indicated 85 the other day.
  15. So it looks like on the graph about 115hp? Am I correct?
  16. The corrected power is 100 bhp. It pulls a lot better than my 1911 at the top end (and all over the range) but has a similar dyno power reading. Different dyno though.
  17. I have 115 out of mine but as stated all dynos are different,I guess that FI is loads smoother!
  18. The FI is nice, but I'm still learning how to set it up right. The inlet side of my engine is probably oversized - 40 mm ITBs and ported 1800 heads - for the cam and capacity. If I could afford to carry on experimenting, I'd say that bolting my top end onto a larger capacity stroked engine would work really well.
  19. I'm getting 100bhp out of mine and I only got single progressive carb.

    You sure your not getting more?
  20. The RR guys were not that keen on dyno numbers, only useful as a comparison on the same dyno. I wanted to see the torque curve to see if the engine behaves as it feels and it definitely pulls best from 3000 rpm.

Share This Page