265 FI and Crank Trigger

[James_Douglas]

Hi all,

 

I am managing to get a little work done in the garage. I spend most of my day cleaning and cooking. Sondra is playing Russian Roulette at work every day in the ICU here in San Francisco.

 

Over the last couple of days I have mocked up the first try at a crankshaft trigger for a flathead six in cardboard. I am thinking of a somewhat thin plate that would go between the hub and pulley, just like the small second pulley on my industrial block. Then a spacer that goes over the edge of the hub (represented by 3 little pieces of cardboard) then the thicker steel wheel with the teeth on it.

 

It looks like the wheel will fit. I think I may trim the engine mount just a bit so that if the motor mount were to flex a little too much it would still clear the chopper wheel.

 

I will have to make a new pointer as the Industrial thick belt pulley is 7 inch, but that is ok as it will raise the RPM for the accessories. I will also have to make a bracket on the timing cover for the magnetic pickup. I may move the timing on the harmonic balance to the opposite side so I can make one bracket for the pointer and to hold the magnet. I am sending the balancer to get rebuilt, so, moving the outer ring to a new point would not be a big deal.

 

I included a couple of photos of the Edmunds Intake with the dual exhaust. I am going to use two Carter 1BBL bases as the throttle valves. They are steel and fit perfect. With Asche linkage I have the "air valve" package basically ready to go. I will rebuild them so the throttle shafts fit nice and I will solder the little holes closed in the valves. I will need to make a couple of short stakes that go up to an air cleaner. Not a big deal, just time and money.

 

One thing is that between the Edmunds and the Headers there is a lot of "core shift" the standard washers to mount them will not work. I will have to make a custom set to bridge the gaps which are not the same on either side. Also, the Edmunds is thicker than the cast iron exhaust so one side of the custom washer will have to be thinner than the other.

 

On the Edmunds Intake, the plan is to drill and put bugs in the base of each runner. Use one Fuel Injector in each and double wire them. I have checked with MS3/Pro (Megasquirt) folks and they say that is no problem. This way each injector fill fire directly at the base of the intake runners in the block...yet...far enough back so air will have some time to mix. Only trying it will tell.

 

That is it for now. Wish us luck. The peak wave is due to hit SF Hospitals about the 28th of the month. I hope Sondra and I make it thought this. She is the consummate professional, 26 or so months from retirement. Lets hope we both make it to it.

 

Best, James

 

PS. One thing I forgot to mention. Even though the Langdon manifolds do not fit all that well with reference to the distance of the flanges to the studs, I stuck my finger down the valve holes in the block and felt around and the runners line up well with the block. I will scribe it from the top to port match them, but once I saw the flanges I thought I was screwed out the money. Turns out not. I purchased them from someone who bought them and sold the car and never used them.

 

 

Edited April 4, 2020 by James_Douglas

[BobK]

James, I was just about to search for your post from a couple days ago in which you mentioned FI for your flathead...…….and bingo...…..this shows up. Please keep us posted on your progress. I have been thinking about different ways (TBI or direct port) to have fuel injection for a 251. Modern computer electronic auto systems may be way beyond my skill set. But sometimes dumb, first time beginners luck will get the job done.

[40Club]

James , couldn't you just mill the outside of the intake flange to match the cast iron of the headers??

 

[Sniper]

Oddly enough I have gathered most of the parts to EFI my 218.  I am going with dual TBI rather than port injection.  Going to use Microsquirt to control things, the ECU is the one major part still enroute.  I plan to start the mock up this week. I'll take pictures, maybe we can collaborate some on this. 

[Loren]

Innovation is the hallmark of the automobile. Mechanically almost everything that could be tried was tired by 1905. Such as turbocharging which was patented in Switzerland in 1905.

Where automotive engineering really took off is electronics. Electronics are the cheapest solution to the thorniest modern problems of emissions, power and economy.

Those three issues work against each other in nearly every case. Emission controls of the 1970s used more fuel and caused power to suffer. Power concerns use more fuel and cause terrific emissions. One Mercedes Grand Prix car measured fuel consumption in Gallons per Mile rather than Miles per Gallon! Economy causes power to suffer and also emissions. Then there are the drivability issues. For collector cars I would think that is the number one issue. You don't care about economy and you certainly don't care about emissions. Drivability concerns include power. You'll want to keep up with traffic.

 

Fuel injected engines can be the best starting of all. They have the ability to squirt fuel under high pressure into the cylinder in a way that no carburetor can.

Ironically it has been found that Carburetors can produce more power and better fuel economy under certain circumstances. Why? Because in a gasoline engine air and how much of it you can get into the cylinder determines power. Fuel injectors are very efficient at atomizing fuel, carburetors are notoriously bad. Fuel enters the cylinder in clumps rather than fully atomized with a carburetor. Those clumps do not displace air like atomized fuel. More air, more oxygen to burn what fuel there is thus more power.

 

So what we are looking at is compromise.

An automobile is a collection of compromises to achieve an engineering goal. We love our old cars because we see the value of the choices engineers made years ago. We put up with some deficiencies to experience what we liked about them.

There is no perfect car. There is only that which satisfies the driver/owner/builder.

I am very interested in James' project. A modernized flathead 6 is an engineering exercise I find fascinating.

Personally I am going a different direction. Mine is more of a snap shot of what could have been done in the car's era (if you can forgive the HEI ignition. I figure points one day will be impossible to find) I am not a purist but I do like the idea of a hot rodded car with the best that was done in it's era. It just adds a little fun to the equation.

 

There's all sorts of different types and levels of sophistication with fuel injection. Every generation has it's virtues. The aftermarket is pealing away some of the compromises made for modern cars and getting back to basics. The injection system that I had the most experience (and thus success) is now considered hopelessly obsolete (no longer supported with replacement parts) but it sure worked good and was easy to diagnose and fix. That's a problem (or will be). A flathead committed to being modern will have to be continually modernized. Might be fun to put the two approaches side by each from time to time just to see how they fare.

[James_Douglas]

15 hours ago, 40Club said:

James , couldn't you just mill the outside of the intake flange to match the cast iron of the headers??

 

No. The aluminum is not nearly as strong as the cast iron. If I did I think it would crack.

[James_Douglas]

14 hours ago, Sniper said:

Oddly enough I have gathered most of the parts to EFI my 218.  I am going with dual TBI rather than port injection.  Going to use Microsquirt to control things, the ECU is the one major part still enroute.  I plan to start the mock up this week. I'll take pictures, maybe we can collaborate some on this. 

So, exactly how are you going to use TBI if I may ask? What manifold?

 

My plan is not strictly port injection nor is it TBI. I have spent months reading and talking with people who do FI to figure out the best way to do it with the flathead and the Siamese ports.

 

Since I own the Edmunds and have a lot of Carter BB's I tore apart for spare parts...I have bunch of bases. I looked at a half dozen air valves and it would be a lot of work to get those to work with a lot of custom machining.  I also looked at all the available TBI from Holley and the like and none of them are rated to work down below 150 HP.  I looked at a couple of people making custom units for guys like us with low HP cars...but they cost a ton and leave too much for the customer to figure out.

 

In the end, I think that if one can source a two 1BBL manifold and strip two dead carters for the base part...get George Asche linkage...and find a place to insert bugs...in the end it will be less work at the mechanical end.

 

The real work is going to be making the fuel maps. Self learning is not going to work well with Siamese ports. A lot of issues there that will have to be addressed. I suggest that you pick up a copy of Greg Banish's book on fuel injection systems and read it 3 or 4 times like I did. The fuel mapping is going to be a lot more complicated and expensive than one thinks to get it correct. Spending money on a loading chassis dyno is going to be a must.

 

James.

[James_Douglas]

3 hours ago, Loren said:

Innovation is the hallmark of the automobile. Mechanically almost everything that could be tried was tired by 1905. Such as turbocharging which was patented in Switzerland in 1905.

Where automotive engineering really took off is electronics. Electronics are the cheapest solution to the thorniest modern problems of emissions, power and economy.

Those three issues work against each other in nearly every case. Emission controls of the 1970s used more fuel and caused power to suffer. Power concerns use more fuel and cause terrific emissions. One Mercedes Grand Prix car measured fuel consumption in Gallons per Mile rather than Miles per Gallon! Economy causes power to suffer and also emissions. Then there are the drivability issues. For collector cars I would think that is the number one issue. You don't care about economy and you certainly don't care about emissions. Drivability concerns include power. You'll want to keep up with traffic.

 

Fuel injected engines can be the best starting of all. They have the ability to squirt fuel under high pressure into the cylinder in a way that no carburetor can.

Ironically it has been found that Carburetors can produce more power and better fuel economy under certain circumstances. Why? Because in a gasoline engine air and how much of it you can get into the cylinder determines power. Fuel injectors are very efficient at atomizing fuel, carburetors are notoriously bad. Fuel enters the cylinder in clumps rather than fully atomized with a carburetor. Those clumps do not displace air like atomized fuel. More air, more oxygen to burn what fuel there is thus more power.

 

So what we are looking at is compromise.

An automobile is a collection of compromises to achieve an engineering goal. We love our old cars because we see the value of the choices engineers made years ago. We put up with some deficiencies to experience what we liked about them.

There is no perfect car. There is only that which satisfies the driver/owner/builder.

I am very interested in James' project. A modernized flathead 6 is an engineering exercise I find fascinating.

Personally I am going a different direction. Mine is more of a snap shot of what could have been done in the car's era (if you can forgive the HEI ignition. I figure points one day will be impossible to find) I am not a purist but I do like the idea of a hot rodded car with the best that was done in it's era. It just adds a little fun to the equation.

 

There's all sorts of different types and levels of sophistication with fuel injection. Every generation has it's virtues. The aftermarket is pealing away some of the compromises made for modern cars and getting back to basics. The injection system that I had the most experience (and thus success) is now considered hopelessly obsolete (no longer supported with replacement parts) but it sure worked good and was easy to diagnose and fix. That's a problem (or will be). A flathead committed to being modern will have to be continually modernized. Might be fun to put the two approaches side by each from time to time just to see how they fare.

Well.

As someone who has been driving a flathead six as MY ONLY driver for 20 years, I think I am in a position to talk about the reliability of the stock design.

 

In general, they are reliable as is. In my particular case however, I will be using the car in retirement to travel the USA in it. I t also comes in at 5000 pounds and going over the mountain means power loss at altitude. That is why I want FI. If I was going to use my '49 Convertible to travel the USA, I would not bother. The 1000 pound lower weight means there is more than enough power to keep up with traffic over the mountains. In the '47 Suburban it is just not their.

 

It is all about power to weight ratio.

 

I can tell you that many parts are becoming hard to get or junk. SMP Bluestreak moved its production of ignition products to Mexico from NY about 8 years ago. Since then the points have been junk, with multiple sets I have had to send back. When my system is done, I will buy two or three engine controllers, magnetic pick ups, and coil packs, throttle position sensors and the like.  That stock will last until I am about 150 years old :-)  Everything else is steel and should last forever.

 

James.

[55 Fargo]

https://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/suburban-1951.html

 

[Ulu]

33 minutes ago, James_Douglas said:

. . . going over the mountain means power loss at altitude. That is why I want FI.

 

My Scout 4 cyl has the same issue at altitude (and now at sea level, as the engine is frozen.)

I have the turbo-normalized Scout engine to put in it. I'll bet it's one of the last running ones.

 

And I did consider the same on my 218 have many times. It was a strain to keep 45-50 MPH at the top of Pacheco Pass.

But my real plan was just sidedrafts and headers, and electronic ignition plus an exhaust temp gage so I'd know when to back off.

 

The fuel mapping of FI was to daunting to consider back then (and now).

 

I've been thru this with some motorcycles, and you really do want to beg, borrow, or steal a dyno.

 

I don't know if I would trigger from the crank snout. Crank whip you know...

Industrial engines are often timed from the flywheel, and it is more accurate.

For one thing, the diameter makes a big difference.

Also, crank whip is "anchored" at the heavy flywheel/clutch, and the snout needs the damper to keep it under control.

Max whip is at the snout, in my imagination.

[kencombs]

I briefly considered adapting a TBI from an 80s/90s engine of similar airflow needs but the fuel map issues caused me to reject that.

 

The 2.4/3 liter sixes from GM and Nissan in that era should be a close match in flow needs.  Slightly smaller displacement, but higher airflow per unit of displacement due to cams, valve placement and porting.

[Sniper]

3 hours ago, James_Douglas said:

So, exactly how are you going to use TBI if I may ask? What manifold?

 

 

I have a Thickstun dual 1bbl intake, probably the best balanced of the ones I have seen.  I have two 42mm Weber IDA based throttle bodies, running 1 34lb/hr injector in each throttle body.  Based on an estimated 150hp max once the Edgy head goes on and the hot rod cam goes in, the injectors are probably a bit undersized for 150 hp but I realistically expect about 125hp, split the difference between stock HP and max HP seen with this head/cam combo.  If it turns out I need more I can up the fuel pressure or buy bigger injectors.

I don't plan to implement constant barometric compensation at this time, I don't plan to drive it anywhere there is a significant elevation change any time soon, that's at least a 6 hour drive for me.  Once it's running good I might add it in later, I don't want too many issues going on all at once.

 

I will put in the LC2 wideband O2 sensor to provide feedback to the ECU when the dual exhaust is being built, going to put it in the merge collector. 

 

Not real worried about the siamesed port issue either, my setup is essentially electronically adjustable carbs and the stock carb setup doesn't care about siamesed ports why would TBI?  Port injection I can understand the issue, but I would probably adjust injector flow ratings to compensate, essentially a bigger injector in the siamesed ports with a smaller injector for the single ports or possibly a dual fuel delivery setup that will allow you to adjust fuel pressure for the siamesed ports separate from the single ports.  If you are doing batch fire it probably doesn't even matter.  Using EGT sensors on each exhaust port would tell the tale there or a Colortune setup

[James_Douglas]

4 hours ago, 55 Fargo said:

https://www.allpar.com/cars/desoto/suburban-1951.html

 

I actually talked with someone years ago that knew the family and the car. The 2020's are not the 1950's and 1960's. Lower octane gas and a lot less traffic. Also, people back then had a sense of grace and would go around and give someone a break in an older car. Not today.

[James_Douglas]

1 hour ago, Sniper said:

 

I have a Thickstun dual 1bbl intake, probably the best balanced of the ones I have seen.  I have two 42mm Weber IDA based throttle bodies, running 1 34lb/hr injector in each throttle body.  Based on an estimated 150hp max once the Edgy head goes on and the hot rod cam goes in, the injectors are probably a bit undersized for 150 hp but I realistically expect about 125hp, split the difference between stock HP and max HP seen with this head/cam combo.  If it turns out I need more I can up the fuel pressure or buy bigger injectors.

I don't plan to implement constant barometric compensation at this time, I don't plan to drive it anywhere there is a significant elevation change any time soon, that's at least a 6 hour drive for me.  Once it's running good I might add it in later, I don't want too many issues going on all at once.

 

I will put in the LC2 wideband O2 sensor to provide feedback to the ECU when the dual exhaust is being built, going to put it in the merge collector. 

 

Not real worried about the siamesed port issue either, my setup is essentially electronically adjustable carbs and the stock carb setup doesn't care about siamesed ports why would TBI?  Port injection I can understand the issue, but I would probably adjust injector flow ratings to compensate, essentially a bigger injector in the siamesed ports with a smaller injector for the single ports or possibly a dual fuel delivery setup that will allow you to adjust fuel pressure for the siamesed ports separate from the single ports.  If you are doing batch fire it probably doesn't even matter.  Using EGT sensors on each exhaust port would tell the tale there or a Colortune setup

The issue as I understand it is "wall loading" of fuel when using injectors. A carburetor mixes the air and fuel by the time it leaves the base. In TBI it mixes down further. The "accelerator pump" of fuel injection is in part the fuel that sticks to the walls of the manifold from the injection The revision from the Siamese Ports can cause issues with that. The guys in England doing FI on those MBC engines with Siamese ports had issues.

 

Given my time line it is likely that you will get out of the gate long before I do. Keep me posted.

 

James

[Sniper]

A couple of pics of my mock up.  Still need to cut the phenolic adapters to mate the Webers to the manifold.

 

Not my injectors don;t point straight down like a regular TBI, not sure it'll make a difference.  We shall see and now that I know about it I'll look for it.  Thanks.

 

 

[derbydad276]

I have been bouncing this idea around also :

while I was at the Detroit Autorama this year I spoke to a Project Manager from 

Affordable Fuel Injection Systems

who said he could easily build a system to work with my 230 engine ...

based off the system for a 225 slant 6 

https://affordable-fuel-injection.com/product/mopar-chrysler-complete-tbi-system/

 

langdonsstovebolt.com/store/#!/Stovebolt-Mopar-Mini-HEI/p/1222043/category=18665979

 

 

found this a couple years ago while working on my cousins Corvair you might be able to pick the guys brain 

he was ready to pull the trigger on a system .... other issues halted the project 

http://www.corvair-efi.com/

 

[James_Douglas]

I have been advised that I need to keep 1/2 inch between the chopper wheel and the pulley to make sure that the steel of the pulley does not interfere with the sensor.

 

James.

Edited April 7, 2020 by James_Douglas

[falconvan]

Very cool; I’ve considered adapting a GM TBI fuel injection to the flathead. 

[Sniper]

On 4/5/2020 at 4:36 PM, James_Douglas said:

The issue as I understand it is "wall loading" of fuel when using injectors. A carburetor mixes the air and fuel by the time it leaves the base. In TBI it mixes down further. The "accelerator pump" of fuel injection is in part the fuel that sticks to the walls of the manifold from the injection The revision from the Siamese Ports can cause issues with that. The guys in England doing FI on those MBC engines with Siamese ports had issues.

 

 

Since you  pointed this out I have been looking into it.  Microsquirt has a provision to account for that, it's basically a tuning table to account for the wall loading issue you mention, of course you have to configure that parameter to account for you application.

[RCrombie]

 Hi all, I’ve been lurking on this board for a while but I want to chime in here since I have tinkered with efi on the Nissan straight sixes, and I have been keeping it in mind for my M37 as well. 

First off, with these engines being what they are I certainly wouldn’t worry about the crank flexing to any degree. That’s generally a problem with high RPM harmonics in race engines, and it wouldn’t be a timing issue. It would be an issue with main bearings and the crank breaking. I have triggered an L6 with a 36-1 trigger wheel from the crank snout with great success, that was hitting easily twice the  RPM these flatheads top out at.

When I did my conversion, I found you needed to have a very rigid  bracket for the VR sensor or any shake would cause issues with loss of signal. Similarly the missing tooth wheel had to have very little runout as well.

Secondly, I think injecting the fuel just after the  throttle body is the way to go to get around the issues with Siamese port engines. Generally with siamese ports you have to do some very odd timing to get port injection to work, and end up running into other problems as well, such as very short injection pulses. 

Another thing to remember is that the latest generation of injectors is miles better than the TBI injectors of the 80s-90s, and you can run very large injectors (1000cc or more) with great driveability using megasquirt/ micro squirt. 

Anyway, I think these engines would certainly benefit from some form of modern efi, and a coil on plug ignition, or wasted spark using a coil pack. 

Tuning is not difficult either, although it does take some time simply driving in different conditions and tinkering as you go.

I say go for it! I plan on it down the road as well.

My 2 cents.

Rob

[Francois Pelletier]

Hi Guys,

 

Very interesting reading !!!

 

I have the same problem but going in a slightly different direction to fix it.

 

I will use the last high performance carbs made before everything went efi... the superbike CVs.

 

Having done it on several motors already such a single instead of crappy single Zenith on MGB, 4 instead of crappy mechnical injection on Alfa Romeo 2000, 4 instead of single crappy Zenith on MG Midget, 3 instead of 3 crappy Delorto on Laverda 1200, all with very very good results, I am quite confident it will work on the flathead too.

 

My particular setup is a 265 with 238deg at .050 cam, .050 milled head, dual cast Langhorn exhaust and tripe AOK intake.

 

Right now I have triple B&B but foun them to be impossible to tune properly.

They have a 2 stage jetting wich start too rich and goes leaner as rpm and load increase until the second stage kicks in and does it again.

 

Using a wideband o2 sensor I was able to remove the lean flat spots but it is way too rich in some situations.  Maybe back when the same motor used a single one of them the progression was ok but when you install 3, it is hopeless !!

 

So it will get 3 Keihin CVK42 downdraft from a 97-98 Honda CBR1100.

Of course jetting will have to be adjusted but it should not be that complicated.

 

I will be following with interest your FI endeavors and will tell you how it goes with CV carbs as soon as I can finish this.

 

 

Francois

[HotRodTractor]

I'm definitely following along. Fuel injection is on my list of wants for my 265.