Arttu

Yep, that pump looks pretty good. Some voltage drop for that and you may get to 3A level I'll check my stocks for pump controller parts and let you know... Parts kit is possible too but then it's your own headache to make it working

As far as I know back fires are a real problem only on supercharged engines. And to be more specific ones with roots or screw chargers. Those won't release pressure backwards no matter how high it gets so that's the reason for burst panels. Centrifugal chargers will let air flow backwards when the pressure gets higher than their maximum boost capability.

Sure, the welds could have been better. But that's not the key point here in my opinion. The point is that if you have large enough surface without any support in the middle and you put in enough boost it will break or bend somewhere unless you use stupidly thick material. But if you have some additional support here and there or if you think about the plenum shape more carefully you can get away with far more lighter structure.

I'm using one general purpose output from the ECU for speed control. Turning the output on when the MAP goes above certain value. Alternatively you can use simple pressure switch (hobbs switch) for the same if you don't have suitable outputs available. But since you have a NA engine you shouldn't need full speed at all. The price would be probably somewhere between 30-50 Euros. I need to check if I have anything ready or if I need to get a new batch of PCBs made. Won't affect to the price but lead time will be longer if I have to order stuff.

Here's the schematic: http://www.iki.fi/arttuh/MSextra/pump_drw.pdf R3 adjusts the duty cycle. Rest of the connections are commented in the diagram. And here's how the thing looks in flesh.

Nope. The fuel pressure regulator still keeps the fuel pressure constant. So as long as switching to full power happens before demand exceeds supply on half power there is no change in fuel pressure and no need to compensate anything.

I have no experience with DTA but maybe I can help a bit. 2.2 Ohm coils are designed to work with systems that charge coils for some fixed part of the engine revolution. and then at low RPM dwell (on time) would be really long, like 10-20ms. So from your choices 4000 us would be better and probably quite ok for the coils. Battery voltage correction isn't that critical with these coils. But you can enter there something that reduces linearly with voltage above 12V and increases exponentially below. For example 100% addition around 8-9V. I have no data for those injectors but I think 0.8ms dead time should be pretty close. And maybe 0.1ms / V voltage correction if you can set that. I think these should be close enough since the injectors are relatively small for the engine displacement.

That's slightly tricky problem indeed. Based on experiments with my GSX maximum constant current draw for the pump that charging system can support is around 5A. And typically external aftermarket EFI pumps draw 7-10A. However, there are few options to solve this. Most straightforward option would be getting a pump that consumes less current. For you this would be a viable option since you don't need massive fuel flow. But the problem would be finding a suitable pump. Old Kwak GPZ1100 pump would be fine as it draws only about 3-4A but working ones are probably very thin on earth. I haven't measured any OEM pumps from modern EFI bikes but I guess most of them would have pretty low power demand as they don't have too high flow figures either. Only problem is that they are mainly in-tank versions. If you don't want to modify the tank you can maybe make a small external intermediate tank for the pump. There are also some external OEM pumps on "modern" bikes but they are pretty rare. Early Busa is one example that comes to my mind. Like said most external pumps intended for cars tend to have too high current draw but there are some exceptions. Best that I have measured is Mallory 4060 FI that was taking about 4-5A and I run it on my GSX for years. But it seems to be pretty pricey today and in addition it eats motor brushes a bit too quickly for street use. Just recently I also tested one generic EFI pump that had quite reasonable current draw, around 6A if I recall correctly. I don't remember model number but I can try to dig it out if needed. Then one option is to reduce voltage supplied to the pump. Typically you can cut consumption to about a half of the full power with this method. On my turbo GSX I have a circuit that runs pump at reduced power at low load and switches to full power when more fuel is needed. On your case you could run it constantly at low power. Voltage reduction can be done with relatively simple PWM circuit. I may have some spare units still left if you are interested. Small voltage drop could be done also with suitable series resistor but efficiency will be worse and heat from the resistor can become a problem pretty quickly. Dropping the fuel pressure helps a bit as well. But you can't go much lower than 3 bars without hurting injector spray quality.

Yep, good that I wasn't sittin on the bike as usual. Luckily bike had an exhaust that tried to burn my leg so decided to stand on the side So I got just some bruises on my arm.

Slightly related to discussion in "Main jet" thread... Here's some food for thought if you are designing a system for high boost pressure (relative term, I know). It would be a good idea to think a bit about forces that pressure applies on the plenum. So take a largest surface of your plenum, or any other pressurized part of intake system, and calculate how much force planned boost will make on it. You may get surprized if you haven't thought about this before To get some fun for this thread I'll add an anecdotal example. Here's what slight mishap with boost control can do. So whole lid of the plenum just popped of. And after a quick fix. Original construction wasn't looking that bad. Thick enough material and proper welds. But the lid had just too large area without any support from the middle. After quick calculation I found out that even planned 2 bar boost would make about 1200kg force on the lid. And in this case there was about 3 bars...

I mean, from technical standpoint there shouldn't be any disadvantages from large plenum. As far as I know increased volum should only improve performance if anything. As long as we are talking about any remotely sensible size. Ok, to be fair there are a couple real life problems with making a big plenum. The first and obvious one is availability of space. Usually these projects are continuos fight to get everything fit in. So even if you have space to make the plenum larger that space might be valuable for placing other components. Second problem is mechanical rigidity under boost pressure. Larger the volume gets also surface areas get bigger and that increases forces that pressure applies on them. And that might become a real problem surprisingly quickly.

Why not?

Depends on what you mean by "dead head"... With mechanical pressure regulator some kind return flow is pretty much mandatory. But it isn't that critical where the return actually comes from. It can be from the injector rail or from just after pump with external regulator or even inside the tank with in-tank pump and regulator. There are some slight differences between each solution and it depends on application if these matter or not. Probably the most important factor is that usually you can't use intake manifold pressure reference with in-tank regulator. For NA engine this isn't big deal. Effective fuel pressure over the injector will vary a bit depending on engine load but since the variation is relatively small compared to fuel pressure it can be easily compensated with tuning. But with boosted engines situation is different. There intake pressure variation is bigger and without manifold reference the effective fuel pressure will drop significantly exactly when more fuel is needed. So for boosted engines a manifold referenced regulator with 1:1 ratio is highly recommended.

Here are some examples: https://www.airlines-pneumatics.co.uk/pneumatics/filters-regulators-lubricators-and-gauges/pressure-gauges--vacuum-gauges/pressure-vacuum-gauge-stainless-steel-case-glycerine-filled/S050128

Just some generic glycerine filled stainless gauge from hydraulics / pneumatic shop should be good. I have had mine in use for over ten years. Still works just perfectly and I think I paid less than 20€ for it back in the days. Pretty good bang for a buck.

I have once test fitted rockers from oil cooled engine on GSX1100 head. Based on what I was able to measure the ratio was exactly the same. Fitment was slightly iffy. If I recall correctly some slight modification would have been required to make them work properly. Longer adjuster screws, grinding from here and there or something like that. But biggest problem for me was that contact pads are much narrower than cam lobes on air cooled engines. So I didn't want to risk long term reliability and kept using original rockers.

Proboost sells very similar part: https://www.proboost.fi/other-turbo-parts

At first, there might be still a change to get your 2006 model TBs fit. If I recall correctly I have 2007 GSX-R600 TBs on my 1127 Slingy project. The trick to make them fit was to swap intake boots between 1&2 and 3&4. This alters spacing just enough to make them fit. But if you have to get another TB set here are some options: GSX-R600 2001-2003. Individual castings so it's relatively easy to adjust the spacing. 38mm bore, should fit pretty easily to intake boots. Old Kwak GPZ1100. Spacing should be correct without modifications. 34mm bore. Outlet stubs are most likely too small for intake boots, some adapters are needed. And obviously these start to be pretty old now so condition of parts might be far from perfect... I know that some GSX-R1000 TBs have been fitted as well but I haven't played with them personally so can't give any further details.

Oh yes, that makes quite big difference. With cam sensor the ECU can use it for syncing the crank position and it doesn't need to try detect missing tooth. That tooth logger shows time between teeth. So two short ones are gaps between normal teeth and long one over the missing tooth.

Well, let's say it may work There are quite many variables that may affect to result. Missing tooth phasing, compression ratio and so on. Also there might be variation between different ECUs how the software handles decoding. So yes, it may work but based on my experience it's asking for trouble with Megasquirt ECUs. Fine if you want to experiment and see if it works. But I wouldn't recommend it if you are looking for trouble free installation. 4-1 wheel has three actual teeth so the graph looks correct. As Hasse hinted I can supply 24-2 wheels that bolt on oil cooled engines and work with stock pickup sensor.

Do you see RPM on TunerStudio while cranking? That is a good indication if the issue is on crank triggering side or somewhere else. Tooth logger looks like it probably should work. Just be warned that it's very likely that you won't get 4-1 trigger pattern working properly on bike engine. Light crank combined with relatively high compression results uneven crank speed over revolution. And if trigger teeth are too far apart the ECU can't detect reliably where the missing tooth is. In practice 12 teeth seems to be on borderline. May work on some engines and give trouble on others. 24 teeth has been pretty reliable on all engines that I have been playing with. Beside of crank triggering, have you tried to fire the coils with test mode? That would tell if you have all the wiring and basic settings correct. Btw, 3.3ms looks like too long dwell for GSX-R COP coils. At least the coils that I have measured have had about 2ms maximum dwell.

Care to clarify this a bit? Do you mean that a 12.9 bolt shouldn't be torqued higher than a standard 8.8 bolt? Or that a 12.9 bolt shouldn't be torqued over specification of a 12.9 bolt? I agree with latter but first statement is simply wrong. Generally higher strength bolt material allows higher torque. See for example here: http://www.wtools.com.tw/STANDARD-BOLT-TIGHTENING-TORQUE.shtml So maximum recommended torque of M8 bolt is 25Nm for 8.8 and 42Nm for 12.9. And Suzuki spec for starter clutch bolts is 23-28Nm. So my point was that if you use 12.9 bolts you can pretty safely torque them to for example 35Nm which provides more clamping between the starter clutch and rotor.

That's pretty usual fault. Happening on almost every engine sooner or later, I think. If it isn't some big bore high compression engine welding shouldn't be necessary. Here are tricks that I have been using with good success: Use 12.9 hardness bolts. Possibly torque them a bit over Suzuki spec. Make sure that mating surfaces on the rotor, startes clutch and copper plate between them are clean and smooth. On EFE engine there should be a dovel pin between the rotor and clutch to take the load off from the bolts. However, the design is apparently screwed up. The pin is too short for the holes and it can slide down to rotor/clutch so that it doesn't make any contact to other side. Stuffing something in bottom of the hole should fix this.

Not sure if you were interested or not? Any ways, I checked the block and it's bored to 75mm currently. The bores aren't perfect but maybe usable without re-boring.

Well, think twice GPZ TBs might be easy to install but they are now over 30 years old. Injectors are low impedance which causes some extra effort. TPS sensors are likely to fail at that age. Naturally all that can be fixed if needed but some more modern alternative might give better result with less effort. But I guess it's up to you to weight up these different factors. I think for your case it would be the same ECU that @bruteforceis using: https://oldskoolsuzuki.info/forums/topic/4931-turbogs-is-going-efi/ I can send you some details a bit later.