That's a nice looking manifold brockyb8.

dsyfer, what's the duration of your cam?

Hey Brockyb8, this picture is not showing up? the old two are though, I'd like to see what the new setup looks like.

There is no picture of my current setup .
And there wont be hehe .Lol
Atleast for the moment as some of the bits havent been released to public yet.
Mind yuu ive had since sept last year.

To be honest you dont really get heaps of power for doing this.
For the amount of money to the bits u put in tis setup there are better things u can do
That setup there with cam head and computer got me 178.6.
The previous owner had 170 - OPLEASE

Fair enough, is this something that you fabricated for yourself? or is it a project to be released for sale as a kit?

You may not want to answer but just in case, are the letters JMM involved in this particular project? as i know there is a project they are working on.

i agree with you about the starting a vs war - it wont achieve anything, and its not my intent.

With ITB's you cannot tune for lean cruise using TPS based tuning, nor can you tune for power using map based tuning as you can reach max load (ie 100kpa) at as little as 10% throttle. Then you need to account for the extra fuel required for the other 90% throttle.
This is due to the lack of vacuum and hugely different air requirements of the engine at different throttle positions and RPM.

Using alpha-n you need to tune for mid 12 afr's at all rpm and all throttle positions, because there is no way to determine engine load. you could be under power at 3% throttle or you could be cruising at 3% throttle, the ecu will still inject the same amount of fuel.
This is where your closed loop targets will also fail, unless you can set your target afr table to use map readings for load, when your primary algorithm is alpha-n. Most ecu's use same load sensor for all maps.

The problem with this is that you will cruise at rich a/f ratios unless you can set up a multiplier table to pull fuel based on vacuum.
For example, one of my setups pulls upto 30% fuel from the primary alpha-n table based on vacuum, from 30-70kpa - this results in cruise afr's in the 14's and acceleration afr's in the mid 12's and decel in the 15's. Unfortunately you wont get this fexibility in some of the mainstream ecu's.



Closed loop will help with the cruise stuff, but then you need to have your closed loop corrections take out a lot of fuel.

With the MSII's you can do all this without needing to switch maps etc(although you can switch between 2x fuel maps, as well as the 3rd multiplier map still operating) Your primary fuel map can be alpha-n, multiplier map based on MAP and spark tables based on MAP.

It hugely depends on what the intended purpose of the vehicle is, ie track only or daily driver, i've used both ecu's but found one to be a lot better in running itb's than the other.

To be honest you dont really get heaps of power for doing this.
For the amount of money to the bits u put in tis setup there are better things u can do
That setup there with cam head and computer got me 178.6.
The previous owner had 170 - OPLEASE

runner length and size will have more effect then simply having 6TBs. get the runner sizes wrong for the application and you wont see huge gains.

runner length and size will have more effect then simply having 6TBs. get the runner sizes wrong for the application and you wont see huge gains.

runner length and size will have more effect then simply having 6TBs. get the runner sizes wrong for the application and you wont see huge gains.

I dont mean to be a little rude but how many of these have you made.
Alot of the things that everyone says will work and wont work only gets found when you actually done .

THere are alot of maths to these things and people like paul who did mine spent many months doing calculations to make my new setup best for what my car will do .

DSYFER if u got any questions msg MR CVE

Yeah you're right i don't know anything at all.