.

Yyyyyyyyyup....how cool, i was just looking at one of my data logs....heres the PROOF !

 

My observation is the bypass valve closes with any reduction in the vacuum, so that is why you saw no difference using the manifold or the throttle housing as a vacuum source. The default setup is to use the vacuum port on the valve itself, which is pre-SC (not boosted). Not sure why Andy blocked that off and insisted on manifold vac/boost for the valve. I now have the bypass hooked to the throttle housing vacuum and it seems fine AND my idle got much smoother coincidentally.

In the other posts you speculate that it is pretty obvious that the bypass valve location is contributing to the problem with cyl #7 that I have reported in my car. I will try the test you suggested. I have tried to divert the direction of flow by inserting an elbow inside the bypass that would gather air from the center of the manifiold, but it made little difference. Your idea to just close the valve temporarily makes more sense. Daryl - try that.

 

Hi Tony,

>ford makes a 104mm throttle body and I have the 4" tubing in the garage.

I have a VERY nice Billet Aluminum 4.25" Neck 95mm (1450 CFM) Throttle Body (large Ford square flange Style) in stock that mates directly with that MAF :-)

>How do you recalibrated it?

It was done by Mr. Speake personally :-)

I also have a custom MAF programmer that can calibrate any MAF to output whatever you like, you can even use twin MAFs and calibrate them to work with stock 928 computers :-)

>I wonder what gains if any would be had?

With the right Blower and boost you can bet your booty it would :-)

 

Any one tell you your a tease DR!

may be after Christmass here when i get a few thing$ $quared away.. Id have to modify my rear inlet to fit a 4inch pipe...and from there it snowballs im sure....make this fit...that fit...bend here...cut off there...grind that. But, its somehting that i had set out to try at some point. Im not even sure how restrictive the stock inlet systems for our TS are yet...I think Daryl may be looking at that soon.

The inlet i have from the fender at this point is "to the nats ***" as far as fitment for length, i might have to ditch that and do the standard 90' to the front.

 

A truly non-resitrictive intake would be one without a MAF. MAP with a linear translation to MAF voltage would be great for "you's guys"

 

Brendan,

>A truly non-resitrictive intake would be one without a MAF. MAP with a linear translation to MAF >voltage would be great for "you's guys"

I have one of those gadgets here also, converts MAP signals to 928 MAF signal for use on a stock LH Computer :-)

Tony,

Here are a couple of "little" 1450CFM 95mm teaser photos for you, custom made for me with provisons for 928 IAC in/out and direct bolt on 928 TPS...you should recognize the little fellar to the right :-)

How's that for "teasing" :-)

 

You gonna use TWO of those for the dual TB?

 

Hi Brendan
I don't think there are any advantages to running injectors at a higher than rated pressure. In general it is a good policy to run devices like that at the design recommendations. For injectors, pressure and duty cycle.

Regards

 

>You gonna use TWO of those for the dual TB?

No not on the production version, but with my latest modular design you would be able to swap to that unit easily....that particular TB is for "Big Custom Twin Screw Systems"

 

Dave,
What’s your thoughts on using or not using the BEIG? For example I am running an Eaton 8 lbs boost intercooled with the 85-86 fuel regulator, #30 injectors and the two dampers. This is the way Andy wanted me to go on my install. I am using a wide band A/F gauge and mixtures are in the ball park. I am running in closed loop and getting 14s at idle/ cruse and 12s full throttle. I noted on one of John’s posts that they are testing with #42 injectors and using the stock 88 fuel regulator then re chipped using the Sharktuner. I am not sure what boost they are running.

 

Hi Daryl,

>What’s your thoughts on using or not using the BEIG?

I prefer to not use the BEGI or other FMUs if I can tune the 928 properly without them. One reason is less "non-factory" fuel lines to potentially cause fuel leakage issues.

I am using our standard Adjustable Fuel Regulators (the newer billet style we have been selling for 3-4 years) and have had great results so far. Plus it is a direct replacement for the stock regulator so less muss and fuss as far as installation. Our Kits will also include a remote adjuster for this regulator to make it easier for fine tuning or changes in the future. I have tested both ways with and without the BEGI (and many more ways) and get better results with just our adjustable regulator. Of course as I get closer and if final testing shows better tuning using the BEGI, then it will be incorporated into our Kits. If you look closely at the side photo of my prototype you can see I have a temporary fuel return loop just at the back edge of the cover so I can install or remove the BEGI in just a minute or so for testing with and without (see pink circle in photo below).

Also, if I just needed to have additional "on boost fine tuning" it would be simple to add a bleed-off valve system to our adjustable regulators that would give it the same bleed off function the BEGI has. Doing this would give me the same features as the BEGI, but of course would not give the 3 adjustments that you can get when you combine a regulator (adjustable or sock) and a BEGI.

>For example I am running an Eaton 8 lbs boost intercooled with the 85-86 >fuel regulator, #30 injectors and the two dampers. This is the way Andy >wanted me to go on my install. I am using a wide band A/F gauge and >mixtures are in the ball park. I am running in closed loop and getting 14s at idle/ cruse and 12s full throttle.

IF you are getting proper (power and engine safety) A/F ratios then there is no need to change from what works. The only reason I could see you needing to change is if you modify your setup for more boost etc. and need to change your pressures and the adjustable regulator will give you that option without additional plumbing.

> I noted on one of John’s posts that they are testing with #42 injectors and >using the stock 88 fuel regulator then re chipped using the Sharktuner.

That is completely feasible using the SharkTuner and would be the optimum way to do things in the long run. Unfortunately that will currently only apply to 87 and up 928s so other ways need to be perfected for the other years.

 

Exactly what DR said. If it works, don't mess with it. There is no need to add further complication and cost to something like this unless it is necessary.

 

Hi Mike,
What makes you think I want to change anything?

 

EVERYONE wants more boost sooner or later

 

too true