Thanks Myron, very much appreciated.
At last week's SEMA Show I was able to meet with several experts regarding my turbo/EFI build. It's amazing who attends and how accessible they are at this event. I learned a LOT, and from sources I completely trust. The net result is that some of my plans have been confirmed as solid, while others will be modified. But overall I was very encouraged that the project should work as intended without too much change. In fact some of the things that I thought were a compromise (for the sake of practicality, budget, ability, etc) are actually preferred. Who knew my ignorance and simple minded approach actually works sometimes.
A couple things in particular that very much surprised me are:
Using the currently available knock sensor technology on this (my) application isn't preferred. It will be better to acquire a slightly more conservative tune to prevent the occurrence of detonation, than to try to chase it when it exists. There are emerging technologies (I saw the prototypes for a couple) that will change this, but it will be awhile before they are available and they will be very expensive. With the current technology, it can be made to work fairly well in some cases. But to do so requires a very sophisticated ECU, rather advanced engineering knowledge to set up properly, lots of specific (and expensive) testing for each particular application, etc, etc. As much as many individuals may like to believe they have it figured out, the experts say otherwise.
While ECU choice is important, the higher-end (and very costly) units with lots of extra features simply won't be necessary for my particular application. Obviously this will be different for each project. But with my goals and overall set up, a basic simple system is more than sufficient. Frankly that was surprising but also a relief for me, as I am new to developing a boosted standalone management system and really wasn't confident about setting up some of the more advanced functions on the higher-end units.
However I did get mixed opinions on a couple things. For example a wasted spark ignition set-up was universally considered good (for anything not using a single coil), frankly I thought I would have heard otherwise. But on the other hand, for a street driven application, sequential fuel injection is preferred by some experts but not everyone. I thought they would all pretty much believe sequential the better approach. To go sequential complicates things quite a bit as it requires a second (cam position) sensor that is otherwise not needed, it involves much more complicated mapping and tuning, and naturally the ECU must be capable of supporting it. I am still sifting through all of the inputs I received and reviewing the options available to me. But I may change my plans and go batch or "semi-sequential" for the injection, just for the sake of simplicity. This is a change in direction for me because as I stated I had the impression that sequential was more universally preferred. And it is for other applications; if plan to run higher boost levels, are using a newer design of engine with more sophisticated engineering/technologies, intend to engage in any competitive or high performance (i.e. greater than street) use, need to meet emissions regulations, are focused on fuel milage, highly desire the best idle and low RPM stability, etc - then sequential is certainly the way to go.
In general my plan to take a old school '79 carbureted 1500 Fiat X1/9, convert it to EFI and add a turbo was well received. Even the American muscle car guys liked the idea and asked to hear back as it develops. The European guys loved it even more. But more encouraging was to hear that my choice of components, intended set-up, and general plan received general approval. Adds a little motivation - not that it will make things happen any faster though.
