4g61t.org

Specializing in the 3g CSM
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 1:55 pm

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:15 am 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Okay like the title stated, I installled the remainder of the 1.8L setup meaning the ECU, injectors and MAF. Now I could understand that the computer needs to relearn and I did drive around for 20 mins trying various timing settings with the distributor but here is what I found.

Actual timing not base timing will be stated here - engine at operating temp
5 degrees - yielded delayed response as the computer was learning but the car was less likely to knock. I tried this setting on the third drive.

10 degrees - yielded lots of part throttle knock and I wasn't even going to try anything more than second gear and or full throttle - I tried this setting on the second drive.

12 degrees - yielded tons of knock like my engine was really pi**ed off at me, mid throttle and full throttle would produce the most horrific knocking, so I backed off immediately.

All of this testing was performed on the street at night from 1-4 gears and at relatively slow speeds. 5 degrees actual timing - not jumped to base! - yielded some knock at part throttle but I can't tell if I may need to clean the injectors or what.
Results of the 5 degree setup were promising enough to take it onto the highway. Had a guy in a Cavalier try and hold me from over taking him but 150 kmh did the trick and the car seemed fine - but the muffler was buzzin' so loud it was hard to tell what the motor was doing - I assume a setting close to WOT for speeds like that.

Verdict - still out on that one - I'll try some injector cleaner on the new used 1.8L setup and go from there.

I'll keep this post updated and anyone who has info concerning what you are tuned at and your sea level would be great.

Tim


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:09 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
So, I had the car out for a run today with a part container of fuel injector cleaner (Prestone stuff in yellow bottle) and things sounded pretty good, and I had three people total. Seems to take a little longer than expected but you always want instant results when you swap something right! :twisted: The whole bottom end seems to be milky smooth like things are a little bit richer but only enough to smooth things out. No new smells of unburned hydrocarbons or anything so that is fine.

First throw of the key this morning the car started fine, my only problem was that the throttle came down much quicker than usual and you could tell the ignition was mildly stumbling with the extra fuel and the low idle sitting around 700 rpm; I do believe that my idle would have been around 1000 rpm still for another 2 minutes or so. I will chalk that up the idle drop to the computer timings inside the ECU. I just hope that this will not make starting the winter the bugger that it already can be with a 1.5L setup.

Initial throttle step in is setup too low for my liking until the engine has warmed up and thinned the 15w40 somewhat but the 1.5L setup had fewer problems; seems the ECU is richening things and not using the ISC circuit quite as much to counteract the lower idle. I would like to see the idle stabilize a litte quicker and not almost stall out with lower throttle application and clutch engagement, I just need to let the ECU tweak the idle and get itself to idle a little higher - I just don't like the sound of richer idle and 800-900 RPM for a daily driver and wanting longevity but you can't have it all it would seem. Here I step into unknown territory with a chosen few..... :lol:


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:33 pm 
Offline
CSM Expert
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:10 am
Posts: 2686
Location: Germany
Inside the MAF, there are small plastic plugs that plug small holes (not the big 2 bypasses). Take one out or plug one in (i.e. from a spare MAF) to enlean or richen up things a bit. Hope this helps.

_________________
Got rabies?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:34 pm 
Offline
Nobody Important
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 2:19 pm
Posts: 1994
Location: Rochester, NY
Running 87 octane I assume?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 4:02 pm 
Offline
CSM Expert
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 2952
Location: Waterloo, ON Canada
Quote:
Running 87 octane I assume?
When I ran this setup I only ever ran 94 less than that I did get wicked pinging


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:34 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
PaulMezz,
87 octane is correct

We do get the heavily sulphated gas over here in this neck of the woods.

The Ethereal,
I haven't played with the MAF yet. I guess I need to calm things down a bit in terms of extra air. I have noticed that the bottom end is much smoother but I do have problems getting the idle to settle right now; by that I mean that when cold, the needle and therefore engine bounce off the bottom end sometimes when the clutch is disengaged and the engine winds down - I even experience a stall when it can't catch itself sometimes as the weather is getting cooler - oil must be a little thicker from startup.

I still have the MAF from the 1.6L Hyundai that is produced by another corporation name but aren't all the MAF's using the same circuit (internal elements) with different holes plugged for bypass idle air and different hole sizes on the bleed by holes (I guess you could call them) that are on the outside edges of the plastic center section?
My question is, can I try the 1.6L MAF because it does have the double open tube holes and smaller open outer holes?
It would look like it is THE in between measure that shouldn't gulp more air than the 4g15 is used to and therefore the 1.8L setup can compensate for more readily. I may have to modify holes there too but anyone have thoughts on this .... ? Would this be another option for a 1.8L setup for others to try - or me until I play with the 1.8L MAF holes?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:47 pm 
Offline
CSM Expert
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:10 am
Posts: 2686
Location: Germany
I guess you can just plug in the Hyundai MAF. Say, 1.6L, was it a 4G61 NA?

_________________
Got rabies?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:15 pm 
Offline
Nobody Important
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 2:19 pm
Posts: 1994
Location: Rochester, NY
I suggest running a tank or 2 of high octane gas and see what happens.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:35 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Yes it was the 4g61 1.6L n/a in the Elantra Eth.

PaulMezz, the reason I'm continuing to run 87 octance is because this is the poor man's upgrade path and just like in an issue of Hot Rod mag, the man who builds an engine that beats everyone else using bottom octane pump gas is by the better builder however not many people win races on 87 octane!! :wink:
I have been getting some good results, that reduced ping but brought me back to the power levels of the 4g15 almost before I did the full swap :o STOP RIGHT THERE ... yup I put an isolator from a honduh air box to frame mount thingie in one of the two larger tube holes and go the equivalent of say a pencil or a standard size pen. No knock really on 87 octane and Timing has been dialed back to around 8 or 9 degrees ACTUAL timing no base. Now, should I dial the timing in more or play with the hole size blocker in the air hole again. I find it strange that the car feels great/smooth and calculated in the bottom end but starts to feel considerably slower than the TB swap by itself with stock timing. Guess that means bumping the timing to see if something gets stronger eh?

More comments equals good as usual guys. :P


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:06 pm 
Offline
Spends Too Much Time Under The Hood

Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:04 pm
Posts: 355
Location: Rochester, NY
Could you be leaning out the mix at the top end? I would think that the 1.8 head would allow for better air flow. Can the stock injectors and/or fuel pump handle the extra draw? I'm pretty new at this so please be gently if I'm way off.

P.S. Tim this is Dave the guy who came up with Paul for the Canada/Elentra fun by the way. :)


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:43 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Thanks for the help at the meet eh joggle! Good help, and free help at that is hard to find! lol
First off, I'm using the 1.5L engine with 1.8L MAF, ECU, Injectors and Throttle body; so the 1.8L head doesn't apply here but you knew that I know you did :wink: j/k

No, I haven't pulled the engine past 5K since I've owned it so I never have really stressed anything too bad, but I get ping/knock more not at part throttle tip in but mid throttle just before you bag it;

1/4 tip in not bad - smooth because the ECU was going richer to safety things until dialing in leaner setting I gather once a major change is noticed in airflow and/or some other characteristics,

1/2 tip in moderate ping until engine winds higher and ECU adjusts slightly,

3/4 tip in too loud to really tell but ping not so bad, 3.5/4 equals slower than throttle body swap alone with porting mods - less air flow as seen by the MAF equals less power potential I guess.

Setup is sitting with 1.8L MAF holes all open and one of the two large tubes with a honda rubber body isolator down one at the mouth. Result is as stated above with perfect idle now that timing is dialed back near spec: ACTUAL timing is 7-8 degrees. Idle was corrected when blocking the one tube slightly and bringing timing back to near spec, I was hoping this was the case. Timing really retarded back is not ideal for idle or throttle tip in as it hiccups and nearly chokes itself down low - idle surges and never stabilizes, thus a setup that gets us nearer spec timing is the best way to go in my mind.

I'm wondering if I should toss in the 1.6L Hyundai MAF and see what happens.
What say the people on this one?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:44 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Well without putting in 2 tanks of high octane gas and coming back weeks later to show something for it, I would sermise that I would like to put something out there;
Why could I not use the 1.8L TB ECU and injectors and stock 1.5L MAF and see what timing advances I can get to with the richer injection and then maybe try the timing belt tooth jump (but I have heard about it jumping back again so not looking forward to that setup). I realise that I need more airflow but unless I am using a restricted 1.8L MAF with timing just back a few degrees from stock 10-12 degrees BTC, I am unable to dial in the proper timing and even jump base up higher without doing serious damage on bottom feeder pump gas.
Hrmm :-?

I think the best thing to do without going broke is this formula (without having tested it mind you, and assuming the 1.5L MAF won't trigger the ECU - they all measure the same Hz circuit internally right?)
1.8L ECU
1.8L TB - more airflow potential - no swapping on this no matter the final route
1.8L Injectors - more fuel equals richer - hopefully less ping-knock
1.5L MAF as this may keep the air flow on the richer side and allow the timing to be dialled in more.

IF this doesn't work then I'm not sure what to do, except give in and try the expensive gas that drains out the tailpipe and empties your wallet quicker to the tune of 10+ cents more a litre.

Any comments guys ...?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:22 pm 
Offline
CSM Expert
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:10 am
Posts: 2686
Location: Germany
The ECU will decrease total spark advances at higher MAF freqs. This is, because it thinks the engine's load has increased. The 1.5L MAF will make your car run rich and have less advance. I'd mod the 1.5L MAF a bit and take out all those little black plastic things that block those little holes all around the MAF. You'll know what I mean when you're looking at it.

_________________
Got rabies?


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:24 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Good idea Eth, I just tossed the 1.5L MAF on and went for boot.
I did have a co-driver and he did seem to come to the same conclusions on the same things as I did.

So I put the 1.5L MAF inside the airbox - note their are 2 type of 1.5L MAF's that I have run across, by this I mean that they have one tube runner still blocked but they have different air bypass holes around the outer circle (the two side by side are all the same between 1.5 SOHC, 1.6L DOHC, 1.8L SOHC). The MAF I picked was the one with the largest of the bypass holes opened up or not blocked off totally as the case may be.
The car was tuned after a good highway run to warm up the oil for a good 20 mins. I tuned at 10 PM at night because you can hear so much more with so little energy in the air.

Idle was good and stabilized without hesitation and throttle response was good as lots of air was seen by the sensor versus being bypassed by one of the two large runners being opened on the 1.8L MAF I had just used. I noticed that the timing which was still set at 9 degrees ACTUAL was allowing the motor to rev almost "effortlessly" into the 4000 RPM+ range but the power was smooth and not very powerful but the engine seemed subdued although likely to be at home revving in that area as the power was seemingly dialled back. I meant "effortlessly" because you didn't hit the 3000 hump that seems to mark the performance felt from the exhaust and timing catching up in the proper range; thus there seemed to be less power present but it did feel reassuring and didn't sound wrong at all (no ping at all setup this way!).

Next was to dial the timing to 9 degrees BASE timing and see what happens. The engine was a little peppier in that you seemed to get more torque from the timing bump but I could get ping in the same range that is always plagued with it on low octane pump gas between 2200 and 3500 rpm, things seem to sound a little better after that (you can still make out ping even with my muffler setup).

Onto 7 degrees BASE timing, and that yielded decent power but no ping for the most part. I still think my power experienced was reminiscent of the engine before mods to anything and especially the TB which in this case was the only reason the engine tips in from idle and helps clutch engagement so well. I know that I should now be looking at opening up things on the 1.5L MAF because it seems to be the most friendly for use with the 1.8L ECU and combo. I may try what Eth mentioned about the little black stoppers or even bigger still :twisted: and see what ping or not ping or timing I can dial in. This seems to be worst part of the swap because although people have done it, nobody has written alot about what they have experienced beyond a couple sentences and having run high octane fuel. Don't get me wrong, those that have been running it for a long time are not the ones I would appear to be angry at, I just want to find out for myself what works on the intended budget of low octane fuel, base motor a couple easily sourced DSM parts and a little ingenuity.

I will update some more after letting the ECU settle in for few days and see what the 1.5L MAF does at cold idle with 15W40 in the pan; I think my idle will get raised tomorrow morning.

P.S.
All the MAF sensors so far will not seemingly trip a CEL on any ECU (1.5L,1.8L) I have used so it would appear that the MAF element is universal at least from the 1.5L SOHC/4G15, 1.6L DOHC/4G61, and the 1.8L SOHC/4G37.


Top
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:32 pm 
Offline
The Silent Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:32 pm
Posts: 9524
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
One thing of note is that I haven't changed my cap and rotor since new when I bought the car in November of 2004 with 108,300 KM on the odometer. I am currently sitting at 121,100 KM on the dial and I believe that a new cap may help perk things but I don't have any of the major usual signs that would indicate a bad setup, I would just like to emliminate problem areas.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited