Discussion in 'Discussion Forum' started by Dr.Jeff, Jun 22, 2018.
Lol yeah it’s on a dyno in that pic
FYI, Saab Tronic 5 engine management system. This is what is required to make a proper reliable turbo engine management system. There are lesser systems, they are also lesser in many ways. It is possible to graft a Saab Tronic system on to a non Saab engine. Would take some doing, but possible.
"In 1994- Trionic (T5.5) there is a slotted disk attached to crankshaft which is read with an inductive pickup sensor. Each time a slot and a bridge in the disk moves past the sensor the reluctance of the magnetic circuit variates and thus a signal can be acquired. There is one bridge missing in this disk and that is used to determine the TDC. The signal from the sensor is converted to a usable signal for the ECU by the LM1815.
Trionic is an all sequential injection system meaning that each dose of fuel is calculated for each cylinder in ignition sequence. There is a lot of sensor data (like engine coolant temperature, manifold absolute pressure (MAP), manifold air temperature (MAT)) that is used for calculating the injector open time. Also, several constants are used like engine volumetric efficiency at a certain point of load (a matrix of rpm and manifold pressure), injector constant, battery voltage table etc. Even further, this is still adjusted by variables like lambda feedback and throttle position sensor delta from previous position of it (acceleration enrichment and deceleration enleanment).
There are three different hardware versions of T5. In 1993 Trionic 5.2 was used with engines B324R and B234L. In 1994 Trionic 5.5 came to all engines (in 9000, NG900 turbo only) and from 1996 on Trionic 5.5 was updated with faster CPU (20 MHz, to cope with ODBII requirements) and flash memories (90 ns access time).
The ignition switch (+15, pin 60) on the Trionic 5 box controls the internal +12 volt regulator. When you turn off the ignition, the CPU and others will power down too. There is apparently a delay circuitry on the board which will turn on the box after about 15 minutes for updating adaptive injection tables etc.
© Dilemma & J.K. Nilsson 2010 rev 1.24 2"
Where did you find your ~ $20 injectors?
RockAuto, listed for a BMW 5 and 6-series from the late 70's as well as other vehicles. The specs show them as about 20% greater flow capacity than the stock X1/9 items. Direct fit. If I recall correctly the universal part number is "FJ709". But I just looked on their site and that number now comes up at $43 each. So I might be thinking the wrong part number, or frequently their prices go up and down depending on their supply on hand. So best to verify the number and shop around, it is a very common item.
Turbo exhaust (and intake) manifold gaskets. What to use?
I've been doing some research on what types of manifold gaskets work best for turbo engines. It appears one of the top recommendations is MLS, much like the MLS head gaskets. Naturally nothing like that is made for the SOHC.
Another frequent recommendation is a hybrid design that uses a SS outer layer and graphite core. Also not made for the SOHC. Some of those hybrid designs have a SS ring stamped around the openings (port holes). There are SOHC manifold gaskets with similar rings, but not combined with graphite. There is one graphite gasket (Remflex) for the FI SOHC, but it is a solid graphite, not a hybrid. Many reports say solid graphite is too brittle for a turbo application and will blow out (which I believe to be true, they are very delicate). In particular there are numerous accounts of the very same brand of graphite gaskets blowing out on turbo Subaru's and others.
The gaskets for the Uno Turbo and Punto GT Turbo are interesting. One has metal rings around the ports (intake and exhaust), the other has some sort of soft rings (perhaps silicone?) around the intake ports only. But both have very large, odd shaped openings for the intakes, and I've found they do not align well on my ported SOHC 1500. Enough so that I believe it will cause sealing issues (gaps).
There are other SOHC manifold gaskets with metal rings around the openings; some on the exhausts only, some on the intakes only, some on both. Aside from the added rings they use typical materials. But they seem to be only for the carb type ports - no scallops for the FI 'notch'. And with the metal ring you could not enlarge them to accommodate the FI scallop.
So far I've come up with a very short list of options. The solid graphite gasket that I suspect will not last on a turbo application. The UT gasket that I fear will not seal on my enlarged intake ports. Or the stock standard gasket that isn't intended for turbo use. What are some other options, experiences, or further thoughts on this?
the odd port shape and silicone seal ring gaskets you're referring to are probably Mk 2 uno T and Punto GT gaskets respectively ... what you want is Mk 1 uno T gasket...
Sometimes old school is best, the original early gaskets were a graphited asbestos layer each side, bonded to a perforated metal internal layer, that would be a suitable type if you were OK with the asbestos related safety / handling issues. last of the asbestos ones were coated with a sealant and always carded (cardboard backing with plastic wrap) but they all stopped production in the mid 1980's... but if you want some I might know where to find some ;-)
Uno T mk 1 gasket is made the same way, but uses an Astadur type material (yep just like the head gaskets) bonded to what looks like a stainless steel core, the gasket is really quite firm and not flexible... coated with a lightly adhesive thin layer... always wrapped, one piece. (not two like the "usual" gaskets) and don't quote me on this, but it's quite possible the packaging carried the big A asbestos warning symbol on it... I changed the manifold gasket on my Dad's mk 1 Uno T once, and recall it was a special gasket my Dad bought in for the job.
Same with head gasket choice, if you used an M10 block then a genuine astadur gasket would be a good choice for a turbo engine, same material as the mk 1 / mk 2 and punto GT uses standard, but for M12 engines I haven't seen one and Fiat never (AFAIK) made an M12 astadur system bolt set / head gasket.... so a good compromise would be an old school asbestos composite gasket... I might be able to find some of those in various thicknesses from 1.0 to 2.0mm as well ;-)
Thanks Steve, this seems to be my problem. I'm not certain what gaskets were for what engines exactly. When I search online, many of the same ones are listed for different variants of Uno's or Punto's (1.3, 1.4, etc). Furthermore it seems many of the aftermarket gaskets are not like the original ones, regardless of the listing information.
I was hoping to get a factory type gasket for a turbo model with the same manifolds (fitment) as my FI 1500. But now I'm not sure what that would be. Some of the listed ones look to be for a carb type manifold (no scallops for the injector). And others look to have a very different (odd, large) intake port shape as you described.
The part numbers I think are correct are: 5891220, 7625272, 7625273. But something that confuses it further is these are all two piece gaskets. And they seem to be made with two different surfaces (for head and manifold sides respectively). So I presume those last two numbers are for "left/right" (-73, -73). But the first number is what comes up mostly; how can that be for both sides? I've already purchased a couple but they aren't quite right (see more about that in the next paragraph). Otherwise your descriptions of the construction sounds like what I'd expect, and is very similar to what the current turbo experts recommend (except for having any asbestos, which doesn't bother me either way).
Another factor that I have to consider is the actual fit of the gasket on my head/manifolds. When I port matched the UT manifolds to my US spec FI head, the alignments were pretty far off in places. By the time I got all of the porting straightened out, the gaskets that I already purchased (supposedly for UT) leave some overlap over the ports. If I line up some holes, others are off. The intake ports have the least amount of flat surface area around them (particularly at the scallops), so lining them up is more important to avoid gaps/leaks. But that puts the exhaust holes off (they needed the most correction on the head/manifold to line up, after milling flat a warped manifold). Actually the two piece gaskets help in this aspect; adjusting the stud holes and shifting the two around helps, but I'll still need to trim a little. So if possible I'd like to find something that can be trimmed as needed; ones with steel exhaust rings cannot.
Please clear this up for me. What are the correct part numbers and what makers still produce them? And are there any that will allow me to do a little trimming as described?
In recent posts under the "what did you do to your X today" section, the topic of swapping a Uno Turbo engine into the X1/9 came up. And it has grown to include more general turbo stuff as well. So it seems the discussion may be getting a bit lengthy for the heading it is under. Therefore I'll reference this thread to further the topic if desired (seemed the most relevant place).
We were discussing fuel injector size for various turbo applications. A while back I did some research on it and found the following information. Note: it is from internet sources so there may be some discrepancies, but I tried to find as many related sources to confirm as much of it as possible.
The stock Bosch injectors on the Mk1 Uno Turbo (1300cc) were part number 0-280-150-708, EV1 type, 15.9 ohm resistance, rated at 155-165 cc/min @ 3 bar (the 155 to 165 range is due to differences found from various sources).
The stock Bosch X1/9 injectors were part number 0-280-150-123 (or 280-150-121), EV1 type, 2.3 ohm resistance, rated at 196 cc/min @3 bar.
The BMW Bosch injectors that are a direct fit replacement for the X1/9 application (*) are part number 0-280-150-151, EV1 type, 2.4 ohm resistance, rated at 240-260 cc/min @ 3 bar (the 240 to 260 range is due to differences found from various sources). This has an estimated HP @ .52 BSFC of 44.6 at 80% duty cycle, and 53 at 95% duty cycle.
* The BMW injectors are actually 5mm shorter overall, but the connecting hoses from the injectors to the fuel rail could easily be made longer to accommodate for this. Several X's have used these in prior builds.
As far as I could determine all of these injectors were specified to the same standards, for new Bosch parts, so the ratings should be direct comparisons.
So the UT injectors are actually considerably less flow than the X1/9 injectors, and the BMW injectors have greater flow than either (I was mistaken earlier when I thought all of these were less, and the BMW's considerably under 250cc). Although the UT is a 1300cc engine vs the X's 1500cc, I'd expect the UT's boosted application would require more fuel. This is one area that I see the UT guys always upgrade (injector size), so maybe the stock items were a bit on the small side? On the other hand, from what I could find out the 250cc/min (avg) flow of the BMW injectors should be good for most turbo applications on either the UT or X1/9 engine up to around the 200+HP level(?). Any additional information about all of this is greatly appreciated.
I'll cross reference this to the other thread:
I've spent hours trying to find information about fuel injectors to UT 1300 but I am not getting wiser. Yesterday I had a closer look at my fuel rail and injectors (Bosch 0-280-150-708 just like Dr.Jeff says). I never had this engine running, but preparing it for putting it in my X. After having a close inspection of the injectors, I realize this engine will not run well until at least one of the injectors being replaced. One injector is cracked and is almost falling in to pieces:
As I am going for more power this is not a big deal as injectors in the range of 250-300cc is needed, so I will replace them anyway. But how to remove them from the rail? I've tried to pry them off with no luck, or is real brutal force needed?
A new (much better looking) common rail would of course solve this problem, but would that also open up for flexibility for other types of injectors than listed by Dr.Jeff? I found this rail on https://www.protoxide.eu that should fit on UT Mk1 (and Mk2, and Punto GT):
They also offer "Increased Injectors For Uno Turbo 150-280hp". Unfortunately they do not mention flow/capacity or if they fit the rail above. I am awating an answer from their customer service.
I also wonder if Punto GT injectors would work on a UT Mk1 as some people claim. Are there any differences on the inlet tubes? If not, that would also open up for more options like
Punto GT Standard, Bosch 0.280.150.759, 2,3Ω, 260cc/min
Or if going wild
Punto GT Stage 3 Upgrade, Bosch 0.280.150.785, 14,5Ω, 339cc/min (max 250 hp)
Would higher flow injectors be detrimental at all to a mostly stock SOHC? It'd be nice to refresh my injectors with brand new ones and not have to spend ~$1000.
Probably not if you're not planning to turbo it. You do not need more gasoline on a N/A engine. Clean your existing injectors to remove the dirt that built up in the injectors after many miles to obtain a good spray pattern. There are lots of how-to videos on YouTube if you are new to this.
Bjorn, several comments in response to your post.
The injectors on my Mk1 UT are like the X1/9 ones, they have a hose at the top that connects them to the fuel rail. If yours are the same, then to remove them from the rail you simply remove the retainers (round metal bands - I just cut them), slice the hose (careful not to gouge the metal barb inside) and pull it off the rail's barb.
As far as I know the Mk2 UT (but it might depend on the year?) and Punto injectors are a different type. They do not have a hose at the top, but are more like "modern" injectors with a O-ring push-on connection to the rail (similar to the custom rails you showed). So the injectors themselves are not interchangeable with a Mk1 unless you also change the complete rail assembly (which I have heard will fit).
If you wish to upgrade your Mk1 UT's performance then larger injectors would be best. By switching to the modern type fuel rail style (similar to what you showed), it gives you a much larger selection of injectors. The older "hose connection" type (stock X1/9 and Mk1 UT) are limited in selection. I wanted to retain that older type because part of my project goals are to see if a turbo can be added to a stock X1/9 engine. A second goal is to see how inexpensively it can be done. So I wanted to retain as much of the stock type components as possible. Another advantage to the newer type injectors is they have high impedance vs the older low impedance. Some aftermarket ECU's are only built to handle high impedance injectors (but most can handle both types). But overall it will be better to use the newer type injector with the modern fuel rail. Either way be sure the injectors you choose match the type of fuel rail you choose (injector connection type). Also keep in mind the design of the intake manifold, folding back over the fuel rail with a large plenum just above it, leaves very little room for any combination of injector/fuel rail that might be taller (longer) than the stock ones.
The BMW injectors I mentioned are a higher flow rate than the stock X1/9 injectors. I do not believe the stock X1/9 ECU will accomodate for that on a totally stock engine. If you do any performance modifications to your FI X engine (e.g. bigger cam, higher compression, header, porting or big valves, etc), then the higher flow injectors would be a good idea, especially with a otherwise stock FI system. Also if you swap to a aftermarket ECU that is programmable, then you can adjust the injector rate electronically and the higher flow ones are better. But with a completely stock engine / FI system it might be best to use stock sized injectors.
I saw that the BMW items I bought from RockAuto had gone up in price since then. But RA changes their prices frequently depending on availability, so it can change up or down any time. A better option for retaining stock injectors is to have yours cleaned and serviced. Karl ("kmead") listed some places to get that done for a great price (around $35 each if I recall). I don't remember what thread that was in but maybe he can offer it up again.
I sliced my fuelrail today, thanks for instructions Dr. Jeff, it worked out well. The UT Mk1 and US X seems to share the same fuelrail. My rubber hoses was hard and dry, had lots of cracks so they sure need to be replaced. Having a modern straight "stiff" fuelrail on X and UT Mk1 is not possible as injectors are mounted in a V-shape on cylinder 1-2 and 3-4 so UT Mk2 and other "modern" standard injectors cannot be used. A friend told me that UT Mk2 inlet tubes can be welded on X/UT Mk1 plenum to achieve this. However finding those tubes seem to be even more impossible than finding injectors. On Ebay I've found a set of 4 remanufactured BMW (0.280.150.151) injectors from an US company GB Remanufacturing for 182$, But with stupid Swedish import charges it would cost me almost 300$. Maybe this is something for you guys over there, but I must continue looking here in EU to obtain a lower price. Anyway, the BMW injector seems to be the easiest way going forward without complex modifications.
Bjorn, that's a good point about the angles of the injectors that I had not considered. So it will be more difficult to use modern injectors. However I believe others have done it(?), so maybe there is some way to compensate for the lack of hoses on the tops (that make up for the angle). Could you use two short solid rails?
Yes, the Mk1 UT and X fuel rails can be interchanged - almost. The inlet nipple for the fuel feed line is pointing the opposite direction between them (one toward the front of the car, the other toward the rear). On the X that means the UT's fuel inlet would interfere with other parts (I'll have to look at it again to see exactly what it was - maybe the dog-bone mount that's not on the UT ???). But there is likely a way to get around that if needed.
The drawback to using injectors with hoses on top is they are not as common (less to choose from), but otherwise there are both low and high impedance ones with all levels of flow rate, so not a big concern (in my opinion). And frankly I think they are easier to fit because you can adjust the length of the hose to accommodate different heights. Plus I was able to buy new ones for less than the cost of "adapters" for mounting the new style injectors. Let me go back to my old notes and see what other part numbers I can come up with. Maybe there are others with hoses that will work and more available for you. Bosch injectors are VERY common on German cars, so I'd think you can get them easily from German sources (near you)?
O.K. Bjorn, found my notes and lots of part numbers for you to look into. The Bosch number is either 0280150151 or 0280150152 (some sources may drop the first "0"). The BMW part number can be any of these: 13641358916, 13641361353, 13641363918, 13649058762. And the "generic" interchange number for the injector (any brand) is FJ709.
The online parts seller "RockAuto" currently has them for $40 (USD) each:
Those are the ones I bought a year or so ago from the same source and they were actual new Bosch parts. Great price, but their availability and prices change constantly depending on what inventory buyouts they find. I understand RockAuto has international locations but I have no idea the details, however it may avoid some import tax? Or what if someone sends you a personal package from another country, any tax?
Search all of those numbers to see what comes up in your area. Like I said they should be very common in Germany. Can't you drive there by way of Denmark? I'm sure there are other options besides the BMW application, I'm just not certain what they are. The BMW one is rated by various sources anywhere between 248cc/min (lowest) up to 304.8cc/min (highest), with most ratings at 258cc/min (all at 3 bar, a Bosch fuel pump for a VW, BMW, etc, easily delivers 7 bar). I guess different test methods are used, but it gives you an idea of the capability - plenty for a performance 1500 engine with a single cam, two valve, counterflow head and mild boost. Plus they use the same electrical connector, and fit either the X or UT stock fuel rails (you may need to use the Fiat O-rings to mount them in the injector holders).
I'll post the specs for my set up later in the week. My real point for posting is to highlight the necessity to get things right on modified engines and not to been too mean with your budget, or, realistic in what it will sustainably achieve. Before fitting the Maxx ecu earlier this year I had a Dastek piggy back type which worked by intercepting some of the signals from the standard ecu. While the set up was comparatively cheap and the output was I'm near to what I'm getting now (180hp) the fueling control was poor. To cut a long story short we were doing some Dyno work in anger prior to my first event with the new ecu and it came to light that the car had a serious breathing problem. This after only a few thousand miles a some minor racing efforts. It was noted when we dropped the oil at the end of last season the strong smell of petrol. It looks like the bores were being washed clean of oil due to poor fueling leading to rapid wear.
The cure will require sleeving the engine as the bores are at maximum size. Hopefully we have caught it in time to spare the rest of the engine, a strip down will tell.
Germany is in EU so I do not need to go there. I can order car parts from all countries in EU without extra customs charges etc. But best would be to find something on Swedish junkyards. I've managed to fit a "standard" Volvo, Pegeout, Saab etc. injector to a UT Mk I (and X?) by using a rubber hose that fits exactly to the drilled hole on the inlet. I am not using the plastic adapter between the injector and inlet tube because I realized it would break. The UT/X injectors do not have an O-ring, they have a round gasket that seals by pressure from the injector mounting ring. I assume an O-ring would cause the plastic adapter to crack over time.
As you see the Volvo 240,740,940 injector to the left doesn't differ much from the UT injector to the right except the O-ring:
By adding a rubber hose that fits exactly to the hole on the inlet tube, with an inner diameter of 14mm, and reusing the rubber ring and mounting ring from UT it looks like this:
This is super tight and opens up for a lot of options. The upper part of the injector is still causing a problem but can easily be solved by the (overpriced) Australian converter/adapter mentioned in earlier posts.
(The picture above is just a test. I will clean it up, have a pair of tubes instead of washers ;-))
However, one thing in this setup is worrying me a little bit. The Volvo injector will be closer to the inlet compared to the UT injector:
I don't know if this will have an impact on spray pattern. To me it looks like the Volvo injector would be more efficient. It at least looks better? What is yor oppinion?
The Volvo 960 Turbo injectors would be my first choice for my application. They deliver 310-330cc/min and that should be good for the 200hp I am aiming for on my UT Mk1 engine.
I've also found a complete list of Bosch injectors. I will structure it in an Excel file and publish it later.
I've discussed a turbo upgrade with GIK Turbo Sweden, they are a Holset, Garrett and IHI representative. There is not much space for a bigger turbo, the alternator is very close to the downpipe. They offered me to rebuild the IHI VL3 with a bigger turbine which was quite costly (700$). Speedy Fiat, Did you upgrade the turbo? I would love to hear more about your mods.
I certainly agree that a correct set up is important, not only for performance but longevity and reliability. And to do that requires a suitable budget. However having the right set up does not necessarily mean buying the most expensive components on the market. I realize that wasn't what you were saying. So please don't get me wrong, I agree with what you said and I completely believe in having good equipment. But I just wanted to make another point, that a proper set up can be achieved while keeping within a reasonable budget IF things are selected carefully for the specific goals planned. In some areas there are component options that achieve the same function to the same degree without breaking the bank, especially if you are not building a race engine. For my current turbo project that is one of the primary goals. I am not seeking ultimate performance, there is no intent to make it a competition vehicle. What I am looking to do is provide a package that makes the car more drivable and enjoyable (for normal street use) than the stock SOHC provides, while keeping it reliable, and doing it within a reasonable budget. My hope is to develop a plan that others could follow with their stock healthy SOHC (as I am doing), and achieve the basic equivalent to a "built" NA engine - but without having to stress it to the limits, have lots of torque, and for less total expense. It may not prove to work the way I intend, but that's the plan. So I am looking for ways to control my spending while not compromising on the important (vital) aspects - for my specific goals. The current discussion of injectors is a good example. With a small turbo, low boost, mild build the injector requirements were calculated at less than 250cc/min flow rate (actually less than 200 but I want some headroom). If the hose-top Bosch injectors (e.g. the BMW 3.0 ones noted earlier) can reliability do that, and work compatibly with my chosen aftermarket standalone ECU, without having to modify things, and for a lot less expense than converting to another style injector - then it fits within all of my goals. On the other hand there are some components that cannot be compromised - such as the ECU. As in your case, the stock ECU simply won't work so the expense of a suitable standalone aftermarket ECU is required.
If my goals were to build a high performance engine for the track then things would be very different.
Bjorn, I'm not sure if I completely followed what you did. Does the hose go into the intake manifold's injector bore, then the injector go into the hose? In other words it replaces the o-ring (Volvo) or round rubber mount (Fiat)? If that is what you have done then I'm thinking it might be as well to use the stock injector plastic mount. Will the Volvo injector fit in it? The Fiat injector does have a o-ring, so I do not think the plastic mount would break. But maybe I misunderstood, sorry.
I doubt that how far the injector tip sticks into the manifold would make too much difference. As you say there is still the other end to deal with. Have you looked at the various injector adaptors that are made for converting injector types (like in this case from hose-top to push-in)?
Regarding a turbo upgrade. Naturally it will depend on your overall goal. Keep in mind how the specific turbo size and design affect the power band and overall performance. For example you may get more top end power (greater boost) but have little low end power due to a long spool up time. Also there may not be too many choices that will fit the stock manifold (if you plan to use it) due to its uncommon flange type. If you change to a aftermarket tube type manifold with a more common flange, then there are lots of options. Another possibility if you keep the standard IHI turbo (and manifold) is either change the turbin (as GIK suggested), or change only the wheel inside the stock compressor housing. There are a couple of aftermarket billet wheels available for this unit. They are designed to offer a bit more output from the basically stock turbo. It is not difficult to rebuild the turbo, or to install a new wheel. Just have the shop balance it after.
Separate names with a comma.