V6 injector upgrade..... - Page 2

Anon3 · 5th March 2015, 19:02

I remember you mentioning this before Colin, but I forgot all about it.

Having thought about it, I agree with mushymarlin.

Unless Rover deliberately detuned the 2.0, which is doubtful imo, I don't see what you'd have to gain.
From memory the most efficient Air-fuel ratio is around 14-1, but it wouldn't surprise me if modern cars run at around 17-1 for ultra clean burning.
Going slightly rich would probably mean there's a bit to be had there. Plus you could expect a bit more given a factory map will not be perfect for every single stock engine, given tolerances.
But all this could probably be achieved with standard injectors, unless they're already on the limit of their capacity, again doubtful.

And then there's probably the associated increased fuel use and engine wear associated with a richer mixture.

You could go down the cam route and indeed that would get more air in.
In fact one of the KV6 2.5 engines has cams with longer timing, I believe, so could be a cheap option if you were already doing some major surgery if the lift isn't excessive.
But given that the biggest restriction with these engines is in that poor exhaust layout, I really doubt you'd gain much.
And even then, with longer valve timing, I'd expect there to be a loss of power/torque at the bottom end, which I'd suggest is exactly what we don't want on the 2.0.
What's needed there is probably significantly shorter cam timing!

I don't know, it's just my rambling thoughts.
But it all seems a load of hassle for what you might gain to me.

I know something. If I swap my car for another 75, the next one will be a 2.5.

Robson Rover Repair · 9th March 2015, 23:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avora

I bet a remap would reduce the injector pulse time to reduce the over fuelling. So you'd be back where you started with the 2.0 injectors. Forgive me, but I see little point.

Also, I'm not sure of anywhere that can tune the mapping on the EMS2000. Hence the supercharged retrofits have been with a piggy back and a 7th injector or totally standalone fuel management.

Seems a none starter with nothing to gain. And don't get me wrong I am all for more power.

My own zt v6 190 is remapped, plenty of companies out there who can do it, only a 32kb file for the main parameters.

minimutly · 10th March 2015, 08:33

Did that remapping improve anything?
Engines are given "adequate" timing from the factory, sufficient fuel for the lambda to work at low loads, and enough extra for full loads. Remap could give extra rpm ( how much do you need?), more advance at low rpm (which the knock sensor might take off if it needs to).
Be good to know what your trouser dyno tells you, but I wouldn't expect much.
Change cam timing/ cams, gas flow heads, add twin exhausts, inlet mods? THEN remap, and I would expect to see results.
Huw

5th March 2015, 19:02	#11
Anon3 Posted a thing or two Rover 75 Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: Birmingham Posts: 1,394 Thanks: 199 Thanked 219 Times in 187 Posts	I remember you mentioning this before Colin, but I forgot all about it. Having thought about it, I agree with mushymarlin. Unless Rover deliberately detuned the 2.0, which is doubtful imo, I don't see what you'd have to gain. From memory the most efficient Air-fuel ratio is around 14-1, but it wouldn't surprise me if modern cars run at around 17-1 for ultra clean burning. Going slightly rich would probably mean there's a bit to be had there. Plus you could expect a bit more given a factory map will not be perfect for every single stock engine, given tolerances. But all this could probably be achieved with standard injectors, unless they're already on the limit of their capacity, again doubtful. And then there's probably the associated increased fuel use and engine wear associated with a richer mixture. You could go down the cam route and indeed that would get more air in. In fact one of the KV6 2.5 engines has cams with longer timing, I believe, so could be a cheap option if you were already doing some major surgery if the lift isn't excessive. But given that the biggest restriction with these engines is in that poor exhaust layout, I really doubt you'd gain much. And even then, with longer valve timing, I'd expect there to be a loss of power/torque at the bottom end, which I'd suggest is exactly what we don't want on the 2.0. What's needed there is probably significantly shorter cam timing! I don't know, it's just my rambling thoughts. But it all seems a load of hassle for what you might gain to me. I know something. If I swap my car for another 75, the next one will be a 2.5. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] Villa, Stella, Balti. It's Brummie latin that means, er...... Vis tester available to local V6 owners

10th March 2015, 08:33	#13
minimutly Posted a thing or two mg zt Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: cardigan Posts: 1,087 Thanks: 28 Thanked 187 Times in 158 Posts	Did that remapping improve anything? Engines are given "adequate" timing from the factory, sufficient fuel for the lambda to work at low loads, and enough extra for full loads. Remap could give extra rpm ( how much do you need?), more advance at low rpm (which the knock sensor might take off if it needs to). Be good to know what your trouser dyno tells you, but I wouldn't expect much. Change cam timing/ cams, gas flow heads, add twin exhausts, inlet mods? THEN remap, and I would expect to see results. Huw