Quote:
Like my buddy says "There are many ways to kill a cat besides stuffing it's arse with bricks..."
| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| SLANT EFI Intake on EBAY https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13565 |
Page 2 of 2 |
| Author: | slantzilla [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Like my buddy says "There are many ways to kill a cat besides stuffing it's arse with bricks..."
|
|
| Author: | mpgFanatic [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | separate front and rear airstreams? |
Quote: '65 Valiant, 170 5-spd with a garage full of junk that will make it cool when I get around to it.
Rolling on the floor, laughing my arse off...  A better description of my own life, I've never seen.Anyway, yes, I'm at least curious, if not interested. A little research on the DCOE (I have zero familiarity with Webers) shows me that it's not exactly a 2-barrel side-draft carb, but more like a double 1-barrel... in that each airstream is totally separate. (Yes?) Can't quite tell from the single photo of your manifold on eBay, but it appears that the 1-2-3 is totally isolated from the 4-5-6? Such that perhaps two different throttle bodies could be used, by designing some magical mechanical contraption to synchronize the shafts? Multiport with a Megasquirt is in the cards, definitely. In addition, I have this totally insane idea to see if I can use cylinder deactivation to turn it into a slant-3 on the highway, on demand. Dutra Duals, separate O2 sensors, and appropriate relays ought to do it. Being able to throttle off the airflow independently would be a huge advantage in minimizing pumping loss. Until I saw your item, I was pretty much convinced I'd have to build my own manifold out of tube stock (which of course would allow me to tune the runner lengths to whatever I want, so that's not necessarily bad.) I welcome feedback, either to talk sense into me, or egg me on.  - Erik |
|
| Author: | Matt Haskell [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
the dcoe (or DHLA, PHH, ADDHE) is a syncro 2bbl sidedraft. You are correct, the two banks of 3 are isolated on this manifold. A DCOE style throttle body would work well. They aren't cheap. But it would look nice. http://www.twminduction.com/ThrottleBod ... y2900.html http://www.redlineweber.com/images/thro ... %20out.jpg The easy way would be an air plenum, (basic box) that mounts to the carb mount face, with a hole in it somewhere to mount any junk yard throttle body with the appropriate TPS for the ECU that you plan on using. This would not allow for your cyl isolation idea, but it gets it running. matt- |
|
| Author: | gmader [ Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | couple of problems with cylinder deactivation |
I am remembering a 20 year old mother earth news article about how one mechanic did it. I believe that he did it on only V8 engines, and removed the intake lifters. This way, he could make sure that there was no charge dilution, and he picked which cylinders he deactivated in order to get a 60 degree (I don't think it was a 90 degree) V4. If you were to deactivate only the front three or only the back three, I am pretty sure that the balance would be affected, and it would run pretty roughly. The old Suzuki or Kawa triples had 60 degree cranks, (I think), and I am not sure what the back three cylinders on a slant would have as effective crank timing. Secondly, you are going to have some air leakage in the second throttle body, creating a high vaccum there. I suspect it would be hard on some parts of the car, potentially burning oil through the valve seals or rings. In other words, I think that I do want to talk you out of it, until some research has been done. It is a cool idea, but you might not like the results once you try it. |
|
| Author: | Matt Haskell [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 12:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | EFI intake pics |
After taking a second look, the bores are more than acceptable on the rail. Chatter is evident on the chamfer, not the bores. The bores are fine, I generally like to see a mirror on O-ring surfaces though. As you can see, the ports have not been altered or blended. The step is quite mild, and easilly blended if one desired. Depending on your head port sizing, you may want to open this up. On my stock head 170, I wasn't going to worry about it.    
|
|
| Author: | 70survivor [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This looks great to me. What type of ECU, throttle body, and injectors would work best with this setup? |
|
| Author: | Pierre [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmm, after seeing those pictures I'm tempted to bid... if it was a downdraft manifold I'd deffinately go after it..... I'm thinking of going MPFI but I want to use my existing TBI w/o injectors for the throttle body. Wonder how the GM tbi would fit mounted sideways on that manifold. |
|
| Author: | 64ragtop [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | No offense intended, really!!! |
From my Department of lame apologies: It was late and I was tired. If I had read it AGAIN, before hitting "send" I probably would have deleted, at least, the word "friggin'". My question to the seller could have been better worded. I am sorry that the seller was so offended. I am sorrier still that others were perhaps more offended! As I stated, I am not prepared to engineer a complete slant 6 EFI system on my own. My sarcastic tone was really more due to my frustration at the seeming lack of information on a very interesting topic. It seems that the more I read on the subject of slant 6 EFI experiments, the more confused I get. Finding articles on experimental works in progress that are years out of date adds to the confusion and frustration. They leave me wondering: did these folks ever finish the project...did the experiment produce good results...will they ever publish the conclusion...etc, etc. Interestingly enough, the Clifford site's FI page was was updated earlier today to add the following" "...although with moderate modification it is a great kit for your fuel system needs...Universal means, you can run Our Throttle body, Mult point, or Triple side draught. the prices are fery different. 1. TBI $X,XXX.XX 2. Multi Point system $X,XXX.XX 3. Triple Side Draught $X,XXX,XX. Any of these units will make you very happy you made the right choice. All of these units require patience. *" Which does put their offering in much better perspective than the previous shorter language. Another person on this list asked basically "What else is required?" Which is closer to what I SHOULD have asked. I have spent hours researching slant 6 FI info and being frustrated at the lack of success stories!. Guess I haven't stumbled onto the right link yet. If anyone would care to help in my research, I would be grateful. As I don't use table salt, I had to add a good dash of my favorite Austin, Texas homemade Mango Salsa to this CROW I'm eating. Properly seasoned, it's not too bad. I hope I've soothed any ruffled feathers, we're all in this together. I would much rather build bridges than burn them. Sometimes my alligator mouth overloads my hummingbird a**! BFN! |
|
| Author: | Matt Haskell [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
64ragtop, I'm not offended, though I appreciate your effort to clear things up. I too am guilty of hitting send without the required second thought. To keep things in perspective, I'm only trying to sell an intake manifold, not a complete bolton system. Nor am I selling a how to book or implying that this is the final piece, it's only an intake and rail. I don't mind discussing the various issues, as well as the devils arguments of 'why'.. But in the correct context. To some degree, the fact that this site exists suggests folks like doing things a little differently, and in some cases very differently. "What else is required?" ... Do you like your steak rare or well? V8 or Slant? GM or Programable ECU? Mechanical FI? Natural aspiration or boost... May I reference the cat farting bricks.. I suggest taking some time to read the stuff on this site regarding the GM v6 efi swap. Thats the cheapest and least headache. Then look at SDSEFI.com, tons of info there that will get you on the right track with a good overview. then look at the MSEFI.com forums. also the motorgeek.com forums, linked to from the 034efi site. The slant is a popular engine here, but the same practices employed on a 4cyl front driver will work here. Only big differences is how do you mount the injectors, Throttle body, and ignition control. These sites will explain the basics. And please feel free to field specific questions you have down the road. Cheers, Matt |
|
| Author: | mpgFanatic [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: couple of problems with cylinder deactivation |
Quote: If you were to deactivate only the front three or only the back three, I am pretty sure that the balance would be affected, and it would run pretty roughly.
Actually, if you look at the firing order, eliminating either 1-2-3 or 4-5-6 would result in a sequence that is even-fired. (!) In fact, if you want to try a test, you'll find a slant will idle on 3 cylinders, albeit not terribly happily, but it is smooth. Given that there are no V bank angles to be concerned with, I suspect that cylinder deactivation on an inline 6 has several VERY unique qualities that you simply wouldn't find anywhere else. You're right, I wouldn't want to attempt it on a V engine.Quote: Secondly, you are going to have some air leakage in the second throttle body, creating a high vaccum there. I suspect it would be hard on some parts of the car, potentially burning oil through the valve seals or rings.
Oops, good call. I think you have a good point. The function of the PCV system is to create a vacuum under the valve cover that is at least as great as the vacuum in the intake runners, to keep oil on the "stem side" of the valves. If I deactivated one side and kept a butterfly closed, that would be the source of highest vacuum, and therefore from where I should draw the PCV. I was anticipating a system where I could choose which half to deactivate (to even the wear patterns or maybe the cooling issues if I ever needed that), but if I did, I'd have to build a switchover valve into the PCV as well. Hmmmm. This must by why I'm bringing up the subject, to obtain priceless nuggets I hadn't considered. Thank you.Quote: In other words, I think that I do want to talk you out of it, until some research has been done. It is a cool idea, but you might not like the results once you try it.
Very valid point, I might not like it at all. Especially given the already-low horsepower of a 170. This project might need a 225.Frankly, I'd love to wait until some research has been done, but something tells me it's gonna take a really crazy fool to do that research. Is there anyone more capable than I am, in that regard? No, don't answer that.- Erik |
|
| Author: | Al T [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | MPFI Success Story |
64ragtop Nobody will develop a complete bolt-on EFI solution for slants because: - its not that simple - solving "not simple" challenges takes knowledge or dollars or both - your choice - most slant drivers either don't have the money or don't like to spend the money - that's why they drive slants - the few who would like to spend the required dollars are too small in numbers to create a viable market BTW . . . this is not an experiment. This is driven all over the place with great street manners. This is not a race car. Rear wheel dyno HP at around 170. This is real. Here's the link. http://www.projectplato.com/cars/bigredhome.html |
|
| Author: | slantzilla [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: MPFI Success Story |
Quote: most slant drivers either don't have the money or don't like to spend the money - that's why they drive slants
What are you trying to say here Al? ] You forgot the biggest reason. It is almost impossible to get two Slant owners to agree on what they would want in a bolt-on kit.
|
|
| Author: | Bob D [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
64ragtop, Here's another street EFI Slant with great street manners thats been on the road since 2001 ( http://www.slantsix.org/articles/dibias ... ersion.htm ). Since this article was written the engine has also been turbo charged ( http://hometown.aol.com/bbobbias/page1.html ). Bob D PS Don't beat yourself to death over anything that you said and welcome aboard! |
|
| Author: | ShivaDart [ Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Fuel injection's scary too since you don't know if it will work. Right now my car's down and I expect to have it ready to idle by next week, but I don't know if it will work(if it works, I'll probably write a lengthy post, if it doesn't I'll be too busy getting it running to write). |
|
| Author: | panic [ Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Re: "I believe that he did it on only V8 engines, and removed the intake lifters." Yes, that will prevent pumping loss, but also cause the engine to seize, since the oil pressure with the lifters missing will be close to zero. "he picked which cylinders he deactivated in order to get a 60 degree (I don't think it was a 90 degree) V4." IDK of any common 60 degree V8 motors, no matter which ones you pick to de-activate you have a 90 degree motor. "Secondly, you are going to have some air leakage in the second throttle body, creating a high vaccum there." Intake lifters missing = intake valves closed = no vacuum = no air leaks. |
|
| Page 2 of 2 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
