Johnty Lyons Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Is it aconcidence that with a change in engine capacity from 1.6 to 1.8 it requires the same % increase in the fuelling to get the mixture into the green on the lambda bar graphs as the % increase in capacity. Or am I over simplifying things. jj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorAtle Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 Yes you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted April 30, 2002 Author Share Posted April 30, 2002 WHY??? jj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted April 30, 2002 Author Share Posted April 30, 2002 SO WITHOUTB A ROLLING ROAD CLEVER CLOGS[bLOODY NORWEGIANS ALL THE SAME :-))] JUST HOW DO YOU WORK OUT THE FUELLING REQUIREMENTS. jj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oilyhands Posted April 30, 2002 Share Posted April 30, 2002 JJ, Borrow a map from someone with a broadly similar engine.. there are *plenty* of maps.. Oily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted April 30, 2002 Author Share Posted April 30, 2002 Yes very many thanks Dave I know you told me this before and I am gratefull, but Andy's map is not for an M3DK and Simons was so far out the car would not start and even with severe modding and started would not run The FPR is Different and the injector scaling. Remember my car is one of the oldest along with Bernards running an M3DK and the Caterham set up was quite different on the old 1.6s Ive resorted to my old map with an overall 13,5% hike in the fuelling but havn't touched thr ign as yet At least it starts and runs.Any further words of wisdom appreciated. jj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V7 SLR Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Would one of mine work? I've still got the standard (read: original) map. The engine as it was then shouldn't be too far from JJ's eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Carmichael Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 JJ, You might want to back off the advance in the midrange as the 1.8 can fill the cylinders very effectively - its VE is significantly better than the 1.6; it seems to have more prominent response to exhaust resonances etc. As for the scaling, one answer could be to scale your original map on the speed axis. A 1.8 is sweeping the same volume at 4000 revs as a 1.6 is at 4500. You will then need to add in a bit more in the appropriate places for the extra VE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorAtle Posted May 1, 2002 Share Posted May 1, 2002 Johnty you know I have absolutely no idea why! But it's not just a case of upping the fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scooby dooby doo Posted May 4, 2002 Share Posted May 4, 2002 while you lot are having this discussion... Anybody got a map for a 1.6 K SS on TBs with a decent exhaust? That's the spec I'll run for July onwards and Finland. Then the rebuild over the winter to a similar spec to Johnty's. So I'll nick his map then. Cheers jj! Dave Hooper - North London dmch2@lineone.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnty Lyons Posted May 6, 2002 Author Share Posted May 6, 2002 Many thanks Peter I seem to be getting somewhere, one of the problems I had was the IACV leaking air, and no matter if I put in in Manual control, and pag up; pag dwn; in Live adj the bugger would not close. So I had to bung it up and am having more succes now pity really as I've had it plumbed in since the start but only got to use it [correction try to use it ] on the latest box. jj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now