ando76

The boys are all over it. Below is a little 2 barrel engine I recently did for a customer in Brissy. 500 Holley - Ultraflow manifold. Open chamber head with 1.86in - 1.60 ex. Bowl job and basic 3 angle seat cut.
Bottom end was 250/250 deal with a tighe 140t solid. 240/240@.050 and .510 lift. Comp was 11:1.
It's a good street engine that makes solid torque and hp without having terrible manners.
You could pair this combo back a bit and you would be at your target. The small Aussiespeed 2 barrel manifold and a 500 Holley with something in the 215@50 and around .500" would be good for a stock valve size application.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The boys are all over it. Below is a little 2 barrel engine I recently did for a customer in Brissy. 500 Holley - Ultraflow manifold. Open chamber head with 1.86in - 1.60 ex. Bowl job and basic 3 angle seat cut.
Bottom end was 250/250 deal with a tighe 140t solid. 240/240@.050 and .510 lift. Comp was 11:1.
It's a good street engine that makes solid torque and hp without having terrible manners.
You could pair this combo back a bit and you would be at your target. The small Aussiespeed 2 barrel manifold and a 500 Holley with something in the 215@50 and around .500" would be good for a stock valve size application.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The boys are all over it. Below is a little 2 barrel engine I recently did for a customer in Brissy. 500 Holley - Ultraflow manifold. Open chamber head with 1.86in - 1.60 ex. Bowl job and basic 3 angle seat cut.
Bottom end was 250/250 deal with a tighe 140t solid. 240/240@.050 and .510 lift. Comp was 11:1.
It's a good street engine that makes solid torque and hp without having terrible manners.
You could pair this combo back a bit and you would be at your target. The small Aussiespeed 2 barrel manifold and a 500 Holley with something in the 215@50 and around .500" would be good for a stock valve size application.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Here's a CAD Alloy XFlow header flange for anyone who wants to make their own manifold. I've got it at 12mm thick for turbo manifolds. I've also got a dxf file to send directly to laser cutters to save coin having it formatted. PM me and I can email it.

 
Sent from my SM-G610Y using Tapatalk
 
 
 
 
 
 

Sure did. The new Holley system is the one to get in my opinion. Better self learning and easy laptop fine tuning. This MSD system took some sorting and it's now sweet but it would have been easier with the new Holley set up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That would be great to have a bit of a write-up on it. I very much like the idea of bolt-on, drive away performance. If your setup is toward the milder end of tuning, the system should work very nicely.

Sent from my CPH1607 using Tapatalk

Good luck with it.  Really keen to see the results of this newer system. One thing I learnt with it is don't expect it to be brilliant straight out of the box. It takes a good amount of driving to come good, but once there it should be sweet. Benefits of your system is you can get into it if you need to. 

Good luck with it.  Really keen to see the results of this newer system. One thing I learnt with it is don't expect it to be brilliant straight out of the box. It takes a good amount of driving to come good, but once there it should be sweet. Benefits of your system is you can get into it if you need to. 

Some interesting comments there deandx.  Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested?  
Gerg - once again you are all over it. 
Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system.  I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters.  But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me.  
I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent.  Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc.  The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. 
But hey - if you want to do it - do it.  I'm just offering my experience and advice.  The choice is yours.  
 

But did they do that on a crossflow?  That's my point.  

The self learning stuff I have used is not very awe inspiring, particularly if you have a decent stick and 6 cylinder. The self learning just doesn't seem to cut it.  
The fitech stuff works ok on v8's engines but to me I think if your looking for it to be a panacea to all your problems, I think you might be disappointed. 
A 6al2 programmable with map sensor input and a properly tuned 350 Holley on the new small Aussiespeed 2 barrel would shit on it in my honest opinion. 

If you want my opinion (Hahah, Good one.) wihout reading the whole thread.

If you want EFI.
Fucking put it on. 
There is little to nil excuse for using throttle body injection of aftermarket "Bolt on" self learning systems when proper EFi installations can be adapted and used so easily with much better results.

If you want to keep a "carb" manifold and look. Just leave the fkn carby on it..

Some interesting comments there deandx.  Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested?  
Gerg - once again you are all over it. 
Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system.  I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters.  But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me.  
I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent.  Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc.  The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. 
But hey - if you want to do it - do it.  I'm just offering my experience and advice.  The choice is yours.  
 

Some interesting comments there deandx.  Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested?  
Gerg - once again you are all over it. 
Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system.  I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters.  But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me.  
I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent.  Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc.  The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. 
But hey - if you want to do it - do it.  I'm just offering my experience and advice.  The choice is yours.  
 

Some interesting comments there deandx.  Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested?  
Gerg - once again you are all over it. 
Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system.  I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters.  But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me.  
I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent.  Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc.  The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. 
But hey - if you want to do it - do it.  I'm just offering my experience and advice.  The choice is yours.  
 

Some interesting comments there deandx.  Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested?  
Gerg - once again you are all over it. 
Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system.  I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters.  But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me.  
I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent.  Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc.  The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. 
But hey - if you want to do it - do it.  I'm just offering my experience and advice.  The choice is yours.  
 

I'll butt in as have a couple of points to add:

I guess it comes down to what the EFI system is happy doing; whether or not the engine's requirements are outside the capabilities of the system.

Example: a low vac/high throttle opening at ldle (typical of a radical cam) might upset the computer because it sees it as load. Also, the computer only knows how much oxygen is in the exhaust. If there is incomplete combustion (again with the radical cam), the oxygen content in the exhaust gas will be high and thus, thinking it's lean, the computer will (mistakenly) give it more fuel. Think of what happens when someone installs a high-overlap cam into a MAP controlled E-series engine. It goes a bit haywire.

The concept of the self-tune function rides entirely on the ability of the O2 sensor to read what the exhaust is doing. It may well be that a MAP-controlled, closed-loop system is unsuitable for race applications. The makers of the EFI have to make certain assumptions about what it's being bolted to and tune accordingly, whereas a big dumb old carby just does what you tell it to do no matter what, albeit with much trial-and-error to get there.

Carbies require a lot of experience to get running right, but once dialled in, do an amazing job for what they are. EFI tries to do all the thinking for you, but sometimes it can be a bit too smart for its own good.

This is a bit of a blanket statement, but I think that on a milder engine, I think it would be great. However in some scenarios (particularly idle and cruise) on an engine over 1 horse per cube, self-learning EFI may be of no advantage, even detrimental.

Sent from my CPH1607 using Tapatalk

Back at the flow bench this arvo with the cylinder head for HADES, the dedicated e85, 4 barrel customer engine I'm building. Pleasing results and will be a great match for the Aussiespeed 4 barrel manifold. Should make some solid numbers.

Back at the flow bench this arvo with the cylinder head for HADES, the dedicated e85, 4 barrel customer engine I'm building. Pleasing results and will be a great match for the Aussiespeed 4 barrel manifold. Should make some solid numbers.

Back at the flow bench this arvo with the cylinder head for HADES, the dedicated e85, 4 barrel customer engine I'm building. Pleasing results and will be a great match for the Aussiespeed 4 barrel manifold. Should make some solid numbers.

Back at the flow bench this arvo with the cylinder head for HADES, the dedicated e85, 4 barrel customer engine I'm building. Pleasing results and will be a great match for the Aussiespeed 4 barrel manifold. Should make some solid numbers.

Went back to the flow bench today with a new port and chamber design. It was based on the stuff we learnt from doing the last 3 test ports, you know the ones that caused all the conjecture.
Anyway I had a c1 head sitting here that had stainless ferrea valves (1.84&1.5) and all the guides and seats done. It just needed porting. I've had it for years and decided now was the time.
Here are the results. Pretty damn impressive I must say, especially considering how small the valve is. Then have a look at the port window, yep it's stock. ZERO welding or bogging done to the port. None.

Before the naysayers and the like ask, no I'm not sharing what the x section is, nor the chamber shape. Please keep in mind (as I've said numerous times) Anthony's bench flows 10cfm below name benches. That's 243cfm of flow through a 1.84 valve and a stock port window!!! Smallest port doing the biggest job. Look at the mid lift figures. Solid as a rock.
p.s. Please ignore the valve size on the test sheet. Anthony didn't change it. 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Clevo intakes cut down, chev exhausts cut down. 

Went back to the flow bench today with a new port and chamber design. It was based on the stuff we learnt from doing the last 3 test ports, you know the ones that caused all the conjecture.
Anyway I had a c1 head sitting here that had stainless ferrea valves (1.84&1.5) and all the guides and seats done. It just needed porting. I've had it for years and decided now was the time.
Here are the results. Pretty damn impressive I must say, especially considering how small the valve is. Then have a look at the port window, yep it's stock. ZERO welding or bogging done to the port. None.

Before the naysayers and the like ask, no I'm not sharing what the x section is, nor the chamber shape. Please keep in mind (as I've said numerous times) Anthony's bench flows 10cfm below name benches. That's 243cfm of flow through a 1.84 valve and a stock port window!!! Smallest port doing the biggest job. Look at the mid lift figures. Solid as a rock.
p.s. Please ignore the valve size on the test sheet. Anthony didn't change it. 




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If your near Ipswich I'll pop by and do it on Saturday. Gotta do the fire up of a customer engine down there on Saturday.