AusS2000

Sure you can. Just two things to consider. You are limited to injectors just a bit larger than stock (440cc would probably be the limit). And you have to consider the side effects of reducing the MAP signal as much as you are. I don't specifically know what they are, but I think ignition timing is affected.

All in all it's not recommended.

Gernby

If the eManage controls larger injectors in the same fashion as a V-AFC, then I would think they would be equally usefull. If you have larger injectors on a NA or FI setup, then you probably would only need to remove fuel, not add it (via the eManage's injector harness). Granted, the eManage has much more functionality for turbo apps, but I don't see much difference for NA or SC.

AusS2000

For SC there is a world of difference as the E-manage can add fuel at the top end without confusing the ECU and have some control over timing.

For NA you are probably right about reducing fuel but that is only one variable in tuning. Ignition timing is very important too and the price difference between the V-AFC and the E-manage is so little it hardly makes sense unless you really like the display (and I do) or don't have easy access to a laptop (I picked up an old one for $AUD50).

Gernby

Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable advancing timing on any application. I know that retarding timing is beneficial for boosted apps, but not for NA.

Personally, I think it would be better to go with larger injectors to increase fuel, than to just increase the pulse width. If the V-AFC will work similarly to an eManage in that situation, then I really don't see much difference (for bigger injectors).

My reasons behind these questions are not obvious. I am not really a fan of the eManage OR the V-AFC. I am developing my own custom piggy-back.

AusS2000

I don't like the idea of reducing fuel by changing the MAP signal either. But in my application I'm only reducing fuel in the low end of the rev range. I'm at 4lbs boost by 4500 and need to drive the 440cc injectors so the E-manage is the entry level for me.

The more I think about this the more keen I am to upgrade to the AEM. I think I'll let Honda9krpm do all the guinea pig work for me first.

vapors2k

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gernby
Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable advancing timing on any application.

Turtle

Since the Jenvey's don't as standard support a MAP sensor, it's a mute point - the stock ECU / E-Manage, couldn't run them. They're normally setup to use throttle position only to sense load.

The Hayward ITB's do appear to have a connection for a MAP sensor, as well as the brake servo vacuum hose. Whether or not this will work well with the standard ECU and/or piggybacks is a bit debatable. The reason that TPS is commonly used for load on modified engines running ITB's is that often airflow metering can be confused by pulses in the intake system. Just using TPS assumes that airflow is constant for a given throttle opening - so it's not affected by any pulsation effects.

-Brian.

turbo_pwr

Brian, thanks! The Hayward systems does come with the following:

Turtle

IIRC 'TopFuel' posted (in a thread in the photo gallery I think) that the initial set of ITB's from Hayward proved problematic. That might have been problems with the map sensor signal moving around, when trying to use it with the ITB's. I say might it's possible that the setup will work fine, but I'm wary to say the least. Hayward would be the people to comment really - they should know if the system does run with the stock ECU.

If the ITB's do provide the kind of mid-range gains that the dyno's from the Jenvey's suggest, then I'm sure more than just fuel tuning would be needed - with that much more cylinder filling, I'd imagine the ideal ignition timing would be rather different as well.

I wonder about a few other aspects as well. I'm sure you'll need different acceleration fueling to get the best out of the ITB's. That's one of the things that I think the Mugen ECU has got spot on - I could be wrong, but I'd say it's one of the reasons why a Mugen ECU equipped car feels so crisp. While it might be possible to get a resonable mapping from using a piggyback, I doubt it would ever come close in aspects like that. Given that the ITB's are there for response, as well as power, and you're spending so much to get a tuned N/A engine, I think the only option is for a standalone ECU, and the setup work.

A properly setup car with ITB's may not send smoke out the back (just how rich is topfuel's car running?), may not sound so loud (trumpet socks at the least for filtation - they'll dampen the induction noise a little too), but I'm sure it'll be one heck of a car to drive.

-Brian.

WR58

Can anyone tell me the torque figure for the knock sensor?

I took it out to have a look, the original intention was not to use it. However a last minute change of ECU means I need to put it back in.

I will post a picture this evening of the bodies installed with the filters on.

Thanks,

Richard.