Jump to content


Community user
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BaldiGit

  1. Nigel you put me to shame..... I have put off reading the Microsquirt manual in detail, but should knuckle down and give it a good read. Thank you for the info, that seems to cover all the bases. I think I'll make up a small plenum and attach the MAP sensor as I feel it might be more driveable around town etc. I'm more after smooth driveability than raw power. The only reason I went down the TB's route is because the standard injection system just doesn't physically fit under the bonnet...!!! The Car when finished weighs a little over half a tonne. So the power to weight ratio is getti
  2. Another idea on the RS2000 forums is to use a small chamber (hence the fuel filter) and a restrictor ( a MIG welding tip) to smooth out the pulses. But I think they have somehow got the standard ECU to work with MAP and fuel regulator attached to they're chamber. Sounds a little dubious.... I think what I will do is make up a chamber and attach the MAP. But have tube blankers in my pocket on the day. And ask the guy who's going to set it up for me how he wants it.... Can't loose that way (last famous words).
  3. That was what I thought the regulator was for and I was a little thrown by the mention of barometric pressure....!!!! The TB's are individual not paired, and expanding on the fact that the regulator only needs to sense idle (max vacuum). In hindsight I can't see it mattering if it's one or all 4. And come to that why it would be necessary at all..?? Was it maybe the fact that the original ECU was a one size fits all with a basic map, and the regulator compensated a bit? But I still don't understand why you would need non return valves. I can only see that making the matter worse as onc
  4. Thanks for your replies. Originally the regulator was attached to the inlet plenum of a single throttle body standard Ford setup. I assumed that it not only adjusted for atmospheric pressure but also the load on the engine. I can appreciate that a decent map could tweek the load correctly, but surely it would be better attached for those occasional jaunts up a mountain in a thunder storm..... Also I'm using a Microsquirt ECU and I don't think a barometric sensor is the norm. Or have I missed the point somewhere? I have a question about using non return valves... Surely it will build up
  5. Hi, can anyone out there who has modified there engine to fit the Suzuki throttle bodies, answer me a question on the fuel regulator... Like where do you attach the vacuum tube? There are 2 small brass outlets per throttle body, after the butterfly plate (valve side). So I'm thinking either a common link between all 4 throttle bodies, or would just one give a better result? Just to clarify what I'm doing.... I have a set of Suzuki GSXR750 throttle bodies, of which I have made a manifold to fit them on a Ford RS2000 16v (type14) engine. I'm using the RS injectors, fuel rail and fuel reg
  6. I can see what you mean now, much tidier with the shrink wrap as well. I'm making my own loom up from the old Sierra one, stripping all the wires out and starting again (not cutting and shutting). So I'm just trying to asses what I can cull from the original loom, like for e.g. Ash tray light, Glove box light, Boot light, Alarm, Dim dip relays etc. Thanks for the tip on keeping the wires straight.
  7. Thanks for that. Is the extra insulation to do with the IVA? I've seen posts on people failing due to the length of the bolt and it's cover, but thanks for the advice. It's little nuggets of truth like that, that save a lot of time and money. Is there any documentation from GBS about wiring? All I got with my kit was a few diagrams on Sierra stalk wiring...
  8. I know with a seperate side light there is no IVA requirement for 'Dim Dip' headlights. But I'm assuming it's necessary when the sidelight is built into the headlamp lens, like the GBS Zero...!! Only I have read a few threads in various forums, where people have just wired them without. Can anyone solve this conundrum..??
  9. 230bhp on a car wieghing around 750Kg sounds a tad much. I'm worried about the standard 150bhp even with my LSD. Then when you decat it and get rid of the exhaust air injection... That's supposed to give you 10 - 20bhp. Now throttle bodies....... Oh poo I hope the rear tyres are cheep Now that's why I'm worried about a progressive throttle. To much power can make it undrivable, be carefull. The Galaxy head is supposed to be better for connecting up the rad when you go rwd. But I think the pistons compression height is lower on the bottom end compared to the RS.And I'm not sure if the val
  10. Thanks Steve, look forward to any info. Do you have a megasquirt base map setup for the RS2000? And does yours use the standard plemun or throttle bodies? Gary
  11. Hi Chris, Have you looked into a Megasquirt system at all? From my limited research.... It seems the RS2000 clan favour the Megasquirt 2 with a revison 3 board. Not 100% what that actually means , but need to do some more research. So does the new beast have throttle bodies, or is that on your to-do list?
  12. Hi Chris, The idea is so you have greater control over the lower rev range. For example the first 1" of throttle might only move the throttle plate a couple of degree's. But the last inch will open the throttle the last 15 degrees to full open throttle. (And please for anyone who knows the actual facts........ I'm guessing the figures ). So if the cable has to follow a spiral path round a snail shaped quadrant on the end of the throttle shaft. The larger diameter part has more surface area, so more cable is needed to move it. Where as when it's at the lower radius less cable is needed
  13. Hi Nigel, I'd noticed the progressive snail type quadrant on the TB's, but wondered if it was enough..!! I've seen somewhere that someone was using the one off of an old SU carb, and that was just "HUGE". Thanks for the picture, I was thinking about fabricating one if necessary. Food for thought Gary
  14. Hi Les, I did pretty much the same as you, but added a bit to the front of the bulge to increase oil volume. And I used the RS2000 one instead.
  15. Ahh.... I thought you where doing a Zero. So yours is the original style Robin Hood 7. I'm doing a Zero, so no cross member. You might not have the height restrictions I have and get away with the std injection. I'm not sure if the Suzuki cam on the bodies is progressive enough, might give it a try before I panic. There's just a lot of hype out there where people who have bike TB's (not sure if that includes Suzuki ones) wishing they could afford JenVeys for the progressive throttle. Having played with the sumps..... They only go on one way.... sorry . Mind you if you where using the Sierr
  16. Hi Chris, Sounds great. The only fly I can think of, for your ointment is the 2.3 has balance shafts built into the sump. Not a problem as the first thing that usually gets thrown away is these shafts. And it sounds like someone has been playing with this one so that might be sorted. If you want to fit the RS2000 or the Sierra sump though the sump face is slightly different where the drive to these shafts go. Have a look at this http://www.rs2000-16v.co.uk/newsitefiles/2.3.htm. I used the RS sump as the bulge is at the front more in line with the axle. But had to modify where 2 of the bolt hol
  17. I remember talking to Richard at GBS. He was saying someone had one with a standard sump and it was sort of ok. But he shortened it in the end, because he was fed up avoiding sleeping policemen. Apparently it was running bike carbs and getting 170bhp (I think..... it was a while ago). Mind you, just taking off that stupid air injection on the exhaust is supposed to give a 10hp boost.
  18. I wanted to use the standard system and had all the engine loom and ECU ready. I got the engine in and made up engine mounts so the crank lined up with the diff for height. But once I got the nose cone on, I realised (without the plenum on) I was going to have to shorten the oil filler on the cam cover just to get the bonnet on... And the sump was more like a land rudder when I realised what the ground clearance was. I didn't really want to go to the hastle of Throttle bodies as I was quite happy with the standard 150bhp, but there seemed such a lot to plenum to hide.I managed to use
  19. Hi Steve775, I used the standard RS2000 16V clutch and a MT75 Sierra box. I had to make up a custom clutch spacer though. I was going to post an image... But apparently we're not allowed.... Have a look on my Photobox page. http://s1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb391/Xgas/The%20Zero%20Kitcar%20so%20far/?action=view&current=P5130109.jpg Have you modified your sump? And how did you get that inlet plenum under the bonnet...????
  20. Hi Crazy Chris3rd, I'm Building a GBS Zero with a similar setup. I'm using GSXR 750 TB's on a type 14 RS2000 16V, more for space constraints than power. I'm making my own manifold but haven't decided on what engine management to use. The Meggasquirt looks the best for the money, but not sure how hard it'll be to setup...!!! What are you doing for a progressive throttle linkage? Any advice would be welcome.
  • Create New...