Rockers upgrade

[bpefi]

BPEF one minute you post that hot air going into a carby will make more power than cold air will,then you post that if you tried to run a CAI with a carby ,that it wouldnt work ,as the carby can freeze up and that you know this because you tried this 25 years ago and it didnt work.I post up that Ive tried it a lot of times sucessfully and you just shrug it off as if that means absolutely nothing.I post and say "why did ford engineers use CAI's on carby engines all around the world if cold air makes less power",and you dont answer that. And now you say that icing "could " happen which might cause the power loss.You also post that mace dont know how their own product works and that the spacers dont do what mace say they do,wheres your proof of this?Mace has sold heaps of these,and everyone on here who has bought one is heaps happy with them,so they must know something thats right, wouldnt you think?Heaps of happy customers is proof to me that they do exactly what they say they do.Even in your post Ive quoted above, you say "Yes CAI do work on carby vehicles-no one said they didnt",But you said they dont work on carbys before in an earlier post!! pfff.

"Hot air actually makes more power as fuel vaporizes better & its easier to ignite - so you get a more complete burn - in a fuel injected N/A motor cold air makes more power as the air is more dense.

The only reason for inter coolers with turbo setups is to bring air temps down to reduce detonation. If you tried to use cold air with a carburetor you would lose power as the fuel would not vaporize properly & get stuck to the inlet walls"

Above is what I said & the first part was correct - if you read the link to the website on previous posts on the newly designed motor.

The second part everyone knows & yes I was correct

The third statement about inter coolers is not quite correct in some ways but it does do this.

I didn't clarify myself correctly on the last one & it should have been more like this.

"If you use really cold air with a carburetor you could have a situation where as there is not enough heat to vaporize the fuel & in this case you could have a situation where your engine will run rough & you will use a lot of fuel as fuel will condense on the walls of the inlet manifold instead of vaporizing & getting burnt & in this situation application of hot air will make more power"

The fact is with CAI put on vehicles around the world is that they are setup with thermal flaps on the intake (which mine didn't have) which gives the vehicle warmer air when required & you should have been able to work this out for yourself..... this is a totally different situation to mine..

I didn't say a CAI would not work on a carburetor engine....

Yes you posted a number of times & your point was taken the first time - it was not ignored & the reason you didn't experience freezing was explained in other posts & the reason for this is that you yourself admitted that you drove a V8 - which again is a completely different situation - now if you have a V8 your carby sits on top of a heated manifold & I don't care if the water has been disconnected or not its still drawing heat from the rest of the motor - you have heat coming from all sides to vaporize the fuel - so its not a problem.

In my case I had a carby stuck 8 inches away from the motor with no heat from anything which is why it happened to me. Your not making any allowance for different situations other than your own.
Just because it doesn't happen on a V8 it doesn't mean it cant happen on something else....

I didn't say that the Mace product didn't work - I didn't say that Mace don't know how their product works....I didn't say that the product doesn't work like Mace claims ... you are twisting things around here severely .....Mace claim that it cools down the intake & it does -

I explained how it does work - my proof is in what I said in my recent post - its pure logic & its perfectly understandable & feasible - its not really up to me to prove... it would be up to Mace to prove their claims wouldn't you think....

When they do their dynos they are not putting an aluminum spacer in & doing testing & then replacing it with their fiber one & retesting it - they just do before & after fitment.

I don't see them proving that the colder air makes the difference - they just put a spacer in that does two things - it lengthens the runners & it try's to cool the manifold down - so which one makes the difference ???

They don't explain that & they probably don't want you to know that the runners make the difference - they themselves say that the thicker one works much better - now the difference in cooling between the thicker one & the thinner one would be very little - yet the thicker one makes a much bigger difference - so logic must tell you that this does not add up.

Now I have already explained why it works like it does - there are others that have agreed with me that manifold length makes a big difference to where an engine gets its HP - I have already explained that there are variable length manifolds such as those on an EF Ford which will give a big increase of power across the rev range - it is not up to me to prove anything - it is up to you to do some work yourself & research the facts as it is common knowledge to most people that manifold lengths make big difference to power.

All the answers that you are looking for are in the posts that I have made & I suggest you look for the answers in there by reading them properly.

To start you off you can go to the following which will show you a bit of how a variable manifold actually works....

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Variable_length_intake_manifold

 

[bpefi]

Yeah,Im not exactly sure what act it actually was,it mentions it on a sticker thats on the sun visor in my oldies HQ ute.The visors are from a later model though,maybe HX or HZ.I will have a look next time im there and post up what it says.Im not 100 % sure about the pollution gear setups on ford/holden six cylinder engines or older holden V8 stuff.I mainly owned 351 fords back then.. Whatever happened in 1977 or 76 or whenever it actually was,it killed performance and economy for both ford and holden on both the 6 cylinder and V8 engines, they both had a lot of trouble meeting the new emission regulations that were introduced.Heres a piece from a book that is some sort of official book on ford australia.
"The cross flow head on the 6 cylinder, burnt petrol more efficiently,thus achieving the boost in power.With this system, fuel was fed into the cylinders on one side ,while the exhaust manifold extracted the burnt gasses on the other.Unlike the de-emmissioned holdens,the XC did not run at higher temperatures.The hotter operation of the then HX holden resulted from an exhaust heated inlet manifold which was used to warm the car quickly and so reduce pollution.The new fords had water heated manifolds."
I remember comparing the older 308's to the 308's in the early commodores,these commodore V8's copped the full pollution gear,and they were never really that quick in standard form compared the the older 308's.Jeez you could easily get em going good though,Ive driven some bloody quick V8 commodores over the years.Im just glad of computers and engine management systems.We can now constantly have the perfect ignition timing to suit the engine load ,air temp ,fuel quality etc,computers are the best thing that has ever happened to the internal combustion engine. I now tune with the click of a mouse or keyboard instead of actually moving the dizzy or trying different carby jet sizes and having to make compromises with the ignition timing.The tune Ive just done on my VSV6 is way better than the standard one.Way more responsive,better fuel economy and no more laggy auto trans shift times.Years ago it would have taken a fair bit of work and expense to make the physical changes to things to get the same end result that Ive got with a few mouse clicks,way easier.

So what can you do with my memcal ?? I have a VS V6 / Auto trans in a Hilux with 3.7 diff - its a dual map LPG / Petrol EFI from the factory chip - everything std in the motor at the moment - biggest problem seems to be that the computer does not know of the speed difference with the diff. I also have another problem with fuel economy & the oxygen sensors in that the oxygen sensors are reading incorrectly. When I got it fuel economy was bad - so I put it LPG with a LPG computer & the fuel economy was bad - so I tuned it by the seat of my pants & had it checked - it was 15.5 on a wide band setup which is very close to stoich - so theoretically the oxygen sensors in the car should read similar - but they just read lean - I did the earth fix for the oxygen sensors & even fitted an extra earth cable - motor to battery. I fixed the exhaust manifold leaks & any in the exhaust holding a rag over the tailpipe & having someone else check for leaks. The std tune drops the lean burn from the petrol cycle which I would like back. I have a Carman scan - scan tool & I have checked everything possible & knock sensors never seem to be activated. Other than that I can record everything such as Oxy sensor waveforms etc & everything comes up great - I really do not think its the oxy sensors as they go right up & down though cross count (I think its called) could be slow. Someone else was mentioning something about problems here in a certain model ECU in another thread. Any ideas ?? I am pulling the block out tomorrow & I have someone lined up to measure everything to find the unusual noise in it & to do some things like increase compressions - organize an LPG cam & do the heads up - I will probably smooth all the ports out a bit. So next year I will be looking for a custom tune for it. Not going to do headers or anything as they would have to be custom made & I do not think it will make that much difference for what I will have to pay for them to be made. Any ideas???

 

[soop]

Blockoftextdonotwant!

I hope you stick around Bpefi, not enough people on here that understand how an internal combustion engine works and why what you just said makes 100% perfect sense.

 

[bpefi]

I've very much enjoyed reading this and thought I'd put my input in, bpefi I havnt been in the industry for as long as you but in my time I've played with alot of v6 commodores and I've owned 7 of them in total and have flogged the hell outa them except for my latest one, and only done 1 cam bearing, and if you do a cam bearing your engine isn't worth worrying about, my latest toy is a supercharged 6 vp engine with 1.9 ratio roller rockers from mace with pushrods to suit, BEST MOD I have done by far. Steve at mace isn't silly and does have a few good mods for the v6's none of which give 500kw but for the average punter at home there good value for money.
Keep your oil levels up on your vs and don't cook it which goes without saying and if you have a healthy engine I don't see you having an issue.

They do cope with a lot of punishment I will grant you that & your probably right about the engine not being worthwhile if it does a cam bearing as it would have to be line bored & that would be expensive. I had a couple of "young Lads" that would burn a brand new set of tyres out on a weekend - they would even swap them when bald & wipe the others out as well. Despite this flogging the motor & drive line seemed to take the punishment well - though there was always all sorts of other problems like rear control arm bushes flogging out / coil packs DFI modules etc etc

I had heard of the camshaft journals being out of line in earlier models - but thought that the VS would be ok by now. I am not one to flog a car - but put me on a motorbike & its a different story - I drive very hard / fast at times but don't flog or abuse machinery..really never had a problem with motors & drive line myself. All comes from being an apprentice on **** wages for years & not having any money...Nowadays things seem to be a bit different - good supply of cheap motors & parts makes a huge difference..

 

[Brett_jjj]

Sure can.I fixed one up the other day where the guy had 3.72 diff gears in his VS and his speedo and auto trans shifts were way out.The PPK or VSS ratio is changed in the ECU file to fix this.I use a formula to work out the proper VSS ratio for whatever the diff ratio may be.Ive also run into problems with some older VS V6 4 wire 02 sensors and some ECU,s.It can cause similar problems that the 02 earth problem causes,bad 02 sensor readings,slow to read or way different readings from each sensor ,and error codes 76 and 78 setting sometimes..Ive found that the VS ECU file BSTK,which is the first file released for the VS with the 4 wire 02 sensors,will run fine ,but when I try to use a later updated VS ECU file like the BTXP ,the 02 sensor reading do what I explained before.Ive tried a couple of different ECU,s and different memcals with no difference.But as soon as I put the BSTK memcal back in,it runs perfectly again with perfect 02 sensor cross counts and readings.The problem is the BSTK file was replaced by holden because of some problems with pinging and cold hesitation.I have never experienced this when running this version though.Ive also tried the 02 earthing thing,it made no difference at all to the readings I get when running the later ECU files.No one seems to know why this happens,The later VS's that were released with the BTXP or later ECU file dont do this,you can use the latest VS file in these and it wont effect the 02 sensor readings at all.Ive since run into a couple of people who have had similar problems with 02 sensor readings after fitting a tuned chip.The problem is most tuners will use the latest file as the base to do the tune on,and if you get one of these tuned chips, and fit it into an early VS with the BSTK file,it might stuff up the 02 sensor readings among other things.All I can suggest is that you check which ECU file or memcal you are running,if its not BSTK,it might be one of the later types,you could try getting a BSTK memcal somewhere ,fitting that and then checking the 02 sensor readings while running that memcal,if they suddenly appear to be normal,then thats your problem.

 

[bpefi]

Sure can.I fixed one up the other day where the guy had 3.72 diff gears in his VS and his speedo and auto trans shifts were way out.The PPK or VSS ratio is changed in the ECU file to fix this.I use a formula to work out the proper VSS ratio for whatever the diff ratio may be.Ive also run into problems with some older VS V6 4 wire 02 sensors and some ECU,s.It can cause similar problems that the 02 earth problem causes,bad 02 sensor readings,slow to read or way different readings from each sensor ,and error codes 76 and 78 setting sometimes..Ive found that the VS ECU file BSTK,which is the first file released for the VS with the 4 wire 02 sensors,will run fine ,but when I try to use a later updated VS ECU file like the BTXP ,the 02 sensor reading do what I explained before.Ive tried a couple of different ECU,s and different memcals with no difference.But as soon as I put the BSTK memcal back in,it runs perfectly again with perfect 02 sensor cross counts and readings.The problem is the BSTK file was replaced by holden because of some problems with pinging and cold hesitation.I have never experienced this when running this version though.Ive also tried the 02 earthing thing,it made no difference at all to the readings I get when running the later ECU files.No one seems to know why this happens,The later VS's that were released with the BTXP or later ECU file dont do this,you can use the latest VS file in these and it wont effect the 02 sensor readings at all.Ive since run into a couple of people who have had similar problems with 02 sensor readings after fitting a tuned chip.The problem is most tuners will use the latest file as the base to do the tune on,and if you get one of these tuned chips, and fit it into an early VS with the BSTK file,it might stuff up the 02 sensor readings among other things.All I can suggest is that you check which ECU file or memcal you are running,if its not BSTK,it might be one of the later types,you could try getting a BSTK memcal somewhere ,fitting that and then checking the 02 sensor readings while running that memcal,if they suddenly appear to be normal,then thats your problem.

I should correct something here - when I got it it had single petrol map on a memcal which was a BWLT 1282 the PCM is marked as follows service # 16199728 16241628 / BWPJ
The new memcal which I actually bought from an LPG supplier - is a BMZJ 1782

The LPG tune comes up std & petrol tune is activated by applying power to a pin on the PCM & apparently it fires the injectors for a couple of secs on LPG & cuts out the fuel pump on LPG

What do you think about those numbers - mean anything to you

 

[bpefi]

One thing that got me about your comment just now & that was that the Memcal tune was upgraded because of pinging issues - now if that is so then there must be problems with knock sensors to my way of thinking. Some vehicles that I have worked on use the knock sensor to get the timing as advanced as possible. I had a Hyundai come in one day running like s$$t & in the end the wiring had broken behind the motor (front wheel drive) due to a lot of movement & where the wiring was located - it cut the knock sensor wire & as soon as it was reconnected away it went. So from this I have to imagine the knock sensors are faulty or not up to speed on these - have you got any thoughts on this

 

[Brett_jjj]

Sorry mate, I didnt see that it was on LPG and petrol.Ive never had much to do with cars on LPG,or their ECU setups.Im definitely the wrong guy to ask about LPG setups as Id only be guessing.Ive only done 1 tune for a LPG car,its gas system used a normal VS ECU file to run on,it was also a BSTK version ,there was no other timing tables for LPG in the file anywhere,so I tuned it as I would for petrol only and it worked out fine..I dont know if the factory uses a different file for their LPG setups,or how they go about swapping maps when its switched to LPG from petrol or vice versa.Maybe someone else here can shed some more light on the matter.And about the knock sensors,I dont see how the engine would ping with the knock sensors there,unless they were faulty or not connected.Ive ran this BSTK chip since I bought the car 6 years ago,and have never had any pinging problems,so I dont know the specific circumstances around these problems with this version.All I can find out is that holden replaced it because of these problems. The BWPJ file is a VS V6 auto file,and it says it has revised canpurge,cold hesitation and ping fix.
The BMZJ is an early version of a factory LPG file.Ive looked for BWLT and cant even find it.Theres other BWL ones , they are for the V6 with T5 manual box.I noticed theres another version of the VS factory LPG,its BTBS, it says late factry LPG.Maybe you could try this chip.Call around a few wreckers and track one down.It might have better 02 sensor readings.

 

[bpefi]

Well looks like I have to go with the speedo converter then - I bought a "supposed" dual map off Ebay & it was wrong as well - nobody seems to know much about them at all - its a great thing though - I run a Blos mixer off ebay (variable mixer) & with this dual map tune I lose nothing on LPG to petrol - I had 1/2 pallet of soft drinks in the back & took on another auto VS from the lights & he never lost me - I stayed with him all the way - admittedly I have the 3.7 diff ratio - but I also had the soft drinks on board as well. So I was impressed...

 

[Brett_jjj]

Ive just downloaded and had a look at the factory LPG file,the BMZJ one,and I can do the adjustment of the VSS ratio to suit the lower diff ratio,which will then correct the speedo error and the autos shift points if thats all you need done..It looks the same as the normal VS ECU file where the VSS ratio is concerned, so it should be no problem at all.