Ultraflow EFI Intake Manifold

I like it Doug ....

Ron

It looks like it was made to run 100,000 PSI of boost. Heavy duty, industrial grade.

Its Australian, it never went into production (you're looking at a Prototype), it looks like it would interfere with many distributors (mounted with the throttle body facing forward) and the injectors are pointed across the runner, instead of down the runner towards the valve.

Oh, and the runners look like they are 2V size to me. Pretty common for an Aussie product.

cowboy from hell

It seems likely that it is a one of a kind. Too bad.

Dan Jones wrote about it on the Cleveland Forum (I believe).
He defended the angle of the injectors stating that it isn't necessary to point the injector at the valve. That is an emissions trick.
I never heard that before either.

If that is so then maybe all one needs is a manifold with the thickness of the runners capable of just boring through and mounting injectors.
It sure would simplify things alot.

Dan mentioned dyno numbers for the engine with the manifold. I may be presumptuous in thinking that it was run with a distributor, certainly a solid state distributor with a small cap would help.

I think the location of the throttle body, right against the glass in the Pantera, likely is a clearance problem. I know Trick Flow makes a 90 degree "manifold" (looks like an adapter to me) for the throttle body.
Maybe it would all fit like a glove?

As far as the runners I think maybe it's more like the location of the runners are the problem rather then the size.

Interestingly enough much of that can be fixed in the thickness of the flange casting just like Ford Racing (Edelbrock) does with the 9.2/9.5 blocks. The castings being the same. The finished product just machined to different thicknesses.

Since this was kinda Dan's baby, let's see if he knows anything additional about it.

> He defended the angle of the injectors stating that it isn't necessary
> to point the injector at the valve. That is an emissions trick.

The injector angle isn't that big of a deal. Many OEM manifolds, including
the 5.0L "chef's hat" just shoot at the port floor. The reversion pulse
takes care of the rest. Hitting the back of the valve is for cold start and
idle emissions so most of the newer manifolds aim there.

> If that is so then maybe all one needs is a manifold with the thickness of
> the runners capable of just boring through and mounting injectors.

Ipsco makes nice screw injector bungs. You bore and tap the runner.

> Dan mentioned dyno numbers for the engine with the manifold.

Those weren't from me. I didn't supply all the info on that panteraplace
page. The only EFI Clevelands that I have dyno data for are converted carb
intakes.

> Since this was kinda Dan's baby, let's see if he knows anything additional
> about it.

No I don't. I'd prefer a larger plenum so the walls were away from
the runner entry. The converted tunnel rams work pretty well in a
Pantera with the throttle body opening at the rear.

Dan Jones

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:

Ipsco makes nice screw injector bungs. You bore and tap the runner.

> Dan mentioned dyno numbers for the engine with the manifold.

Those weren't from me. I didn't supply all the info on that panteraplace
page. The only EFI Clevelands that I have dyno data for are converted carb
intakes.

> Since this was kinda Dan's baby, let's see if he knows anything additional
> about it.

No I don't.

Dan Jones

Do you remember the source of the manifold information? No one has ever mentioned it but you.


Who, what is Ipsco? Where do I find them?

quote:

Who, what is Ipsco? Where do I find them?

http://www.ipsco.org/Pantera%20Parts/injector%20seat.htm

quote:

Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:

quote:

Who, what is Ipsco? Where do I find them?

http://www.ipsco.org/Pantera%20Parts/injector%20seat.htm

Thanks Larry. That's a great find for me.

Did you check out their other Pantera stuff?

http://www.ipsco.org/

quote:

Did you check out their other Pantera stuff?

I'm pretty sure these are the guys that fab Dennis Quella's items.

Only a few of their items will open to photos - most get a 404 response.

Larry

quote:

Originally posted by LF - TP 2511:

I'm pretty sure these are the guys that fab Dennis Quella's items.

Only a few of their items will open to photos - most get a 404 response.

Larry

Try it again. It's working for me.

I've known Mark at IPSCO for quite a while. He's a good guy. As far as I know, he doesn't retail and only offers through some vendors who buy multiple qtys per order. Ya-just can't practically do one-sies or small qtys in custom stuff like that. Set up time eats you alive. Pricing at the site hasn't been updated for a few years and I suspect isn't current for most if not all things.

Kelly

I,m really confused again on this EFI thing.
Everyone I talk to gives me a different answer.

Steve Wilkinson says that the IR EFI that Pantera Performance was selling was discontinued because it didn't run well.
It ran on a Haltec and didn't have enough parameters to adjust to differences in altitude, temperature, hto starting, etc.

Dan Jones suggested that an IR EFI system be run with a program that combined TPS with MAF.
That would mean that every throat would need it's own MAF sensor.

Kinsler says their system (TPS) runs fine.

TWM says the system is $3200 but needs a $6000 computer to run right and I have to program all of the variables. That means I have to drive to Pikes Peak and program in all the altitude data.
Then I have to drive to the Yucatan and program in all the jungle data.

How does the Ford EFI factory program adjust for these variables? Or doesn't it?

Do you mean that the Ford factory data can't be downloaded and used to run an IR EFI with TPS ifthere is no MAF?

The conversion of the Trickflow 351-w EFI to the 9.2 cleveland had a lot of program issues using the Mustang CPU.

Maybe what everyone means by not running right is that they were disappointed by the performance and it doesn't scream like an Indy car?

This looks like a $10,000 buy in package and $50,000 worth of development time.

I'm scared. The Webers are looking good again.

Hillborn Mechanical. Doesn't run right, but man do they look good. And cheap compared to the numbers you just threw around.

"Run right" seems to be the problem.
I think my Webers with the 40mm chokes run great.
Many people would say that they aren't right.

Talk is cheap. That's like asking about the level of dislike one has for George W.

Most say they "dislike" him to some degree. None are willing to do anything about it.

A IR EFI parts can be aquired for around $4,000, including the manifold.

The argument is over the CPU to use and how.
It's like going to a computer convention and watching all the computer geeks fight over whether to put ketchup or mustard on a hot dog and why.

They make you feel like you don't know something that you should.

Doug, how about a basic approach ... i do this often in my HVAC business when we have a difficult problem ...and the engineers get involved.

Outline the basic system and the seqence of operation. I would assume that as you went to IR you will need individual sensor per runner and exhaust. Are we saying that the computer to read these individual sensors is not made or very costly ?

Ok doesnt FORD make an IR EFI for the 4.6L ?? or is that aftermarket. I'm going for it...my intake is complete to fit my application and its on it way ..so I'll be the test mouse ..
Ron

If they do make it, aftermarket or not, then you just made my day.

As I understand the system for an IR EFI, it gets oxygen sensors, throttle position sensor(s), and engine temperature sensors. That's it.

The operabilaty of the system relys on the ignition map, and the fuel map. They are based upon the throttle opening and get that from the TPS.

The maps are re-writable with access from a laptop.

For my purposes, I don't need the term streetable to apply like what I would get in a new production Mustang.

I gotta go investigate this 4.6 IR EFI thing. I think I saw something from Ford Racing about it.

quote:

I gotta go investigate this 4.6 IR EFI thing. I think I saw something from Ford Racing about it.

Not Ford but Roush offers a 402 stroker IR EFI crate engine. You can check it out here.

http://www.roushperformance.com/engines.shtml

> Steve Wilkinson says that the IR EFI that Pantera Performance was
> selling was discontinued because it didn't run well.

Kirby Schrader sure liked his.

> It ran on a Haltec and didn't have enough parameters to adjust to
> differences in altitude, temperature, hto starting, etc.

The Haltec ran in an Alpha-N mode using RPM and TPS. PPC also offered
a manual trim knob which always struck me as odd.

> Dan Jones suggested that an IR EFI system be run with a program that
> combined TPS with MAF. That would mean that every throat would need
> it's own MAF sensor.

I said no such thing. I suggested blending Alpha-N and Speed Density.
Primary inputs are RPM, throttle position and MAP (manifold absolute
pressure). You can run IR with a MAF sensor (using a single MAF sensor
in one stack) but since flow goes both ways in the stack, it will get
confused.

> Kinsler says their system (TPS) runs fine.

Alpha-N (RPM and TPS) alone will run just fine but blending with
speed density will give better fuel economy and part throttle.

> TWM says the system is $3200 but needs a $6000 computer to run right
> and I have to program all of the variables. That means I have to
> drive to Pikes Peak and program in all the altitude data.
> Then I have to drive to the Yucatan and program in all the jungle data.

Computers are typically in the $1000 to $2000 range. Kelly Coffield
should be able to give you a good idea about what a full on IR EFI
system for Pantera goes for now but I know it's much less than
what you are quoting.

> How does the Ford EFI factory program adjust for these variables? Or
> doesn't it? Do you mean that the Ford factory data can't be downloaded
> and used to run an IR EFI with TPS if there is no MAF?

Ford's EFI assumes a plenum intake and single throttle body.
The logic is not tailored to IR. Ford ran an EEC-based IR EFI in
Formula 1 but didn't use MAF since it was considered a reliabilty
problem given the vibration environment. My guess is they used a
speed density EEC-IV with no MAP input and tailored the table lookups
from there. Speed density alone would not work well because of the
nature of IR (all runners go to near atmospheric pressure within small
throttle openings, rendering the MAP sensor useless).

> The conversion of the Trickflow 351-w EFI to the 9.2 cleveland had a
> lot of program issues using the Mustang CPU.

The Ford EEC-IV has been hacked but it wasn't designed up front to be
programmed by the user. It's not completely understood by the aftermarket
tuners and only certain parts of it are user addressable. The aftermarket
tuners also only support the MAF EEC's, not the speed density EEC's
which presents problems when using large overlap cams. The GM computers
have similar problems but were hacked earlier and are generally better
understood.

> This looks like a $10,000 buy in package and $50,000 worth of development
> time.

Or not.

> I'm scared. The Webers are looking good again.

You've got the same tuning problems with a carb and it's a whole lot
easier to datalog, read a wideband and make a few keystrokes to change
a table than it is to take the wrenches to a carb. It's good to start
with a map working on an engine similar to yours but many of the
controllers have built in models that will generate a starting point
map.

Dan Jones

Good lead!

Andy at Rousch didn't know if the "management system" is available seperately but he'll get back to me.

It also depends on what Rousch calls "Rousch pre-programed" I suppose?

=======================

OOPs, sorry Dan. I didn't intentionally misquote you but I do get some good information that way.

I have to think how speed density works with this system. I am struggling along in new territory to me, so bear with me please.

It sounds like Kirby is the one to talk to. Even just to give me some moral support that it can be done. Do you know if he is reachable and where?

It seems that I'm hearing a lot of bashing by the various vendors because they have vested interest in selling thier product. That is a very likely scenario.

I also realize that they may be technically ignorant and just farm things like an IR EFI out and they don't necessarily know what they are talking about.

The Webers are much simpler in that there are not an infinite amount of variables.
You can jet them up or down for good or bad air and that's about it. So in a sense they are much easier. I didn't say easy, just easier then mapping 8 cylinders to a power of a number as yet unknown to me.

My choice is Kelly hardware ... and then we go the next step figuring out the electronics. When that happens I will have to cash in my favors with a few of my fellow Pantera friends I have at my disposal.

quote:

The Webers are much simpler in that there are not an infinite amount of variables.
You can jet them up or down for good or bad air and that's about it. So in a sense they are much easier.

I suppose it's a matter of what your familiar with but from my point of view, there's no comparison. Webers are much more diffcult to tune. Between the chokes and the number of jets in an IDA it's also very expensive unless you can somehow guess right the first time. I'd go as far as saying that anything you can do with IDA Webers, you can do better with the most simple IR control scheme and in much less time. I think you can get all the control that Webers offer with just rpm, tps, timing signal, and the typical enrichment algorithms found in most aftermarket ECUs. Then you just iterate your adjustments like you would tuning the carb. It may take a little more effort to get the various enrichment schemes right but a lot of this is addressed by software depending upon the ECU manufacturer. If you add wide band O2 you even can take the guess work out of where you're at in A/F ratio. Not that I'd advocate this scheme because it doesn't address a lot of other performance or street behavior issues, but then again, neither do Webers, thus the comparison.

quote:

I didn't say easy, just easier then mapping 8 cylinders to a power of a number as yet unknown to me.

You don't generate fuel maps for each independent cylinder (you assume they each require the same) and it's really not that big of a guessing game. Some estimation of BSFC/ horsepower, your injector flow, and some conservatism to make sure you approach from the rich side of the curve is about all it takes to prescribe pulse width and initial maps. Most aftermarket ECUs will generate an initial curve with this input.

Guess work? Maybe.

OK Kelly, save me the guesswork. What CPU do I need?

I am guessing that what I need for my happiness with the system is my existing distributor, already curved for the Webers and a processor like the Haltec (can't remember the mofel) to control a TPS system.

I wouldn't even know how to approach a speed density system with a IR EFI.

With a TPS system the fuel maps can't be any worse then the Webers mechanical system are.
Presumably a lot better because they are much more detailed.

Incidentally, Webers are easier because you tune mechanically to individual points in the rpm curve. Call them road markers if you like.

With a CPU you have greater control, but you have to fill in all the empty boxes in the graph that you physically can't do with the Webers and therefore don't.

Changing chokes on Webers isn't tuning per say. You don't tuch any of the jetting at all. The size of the chokes change the torque/hp curve.
It's like changing the size of the tubes on the exhaust system.

PD,

There are a number of companies that make a good ECU. For the street, the discriminators are not that large and a lot comes down to personal preference because you end up having to address the same things with them all before you're through. My choice was Electromotive for a variety of reasons. It's more expensive than some but not the most expensive. I'm not a "cost is no object guy" but am also not driven by the most bang for the buck argument. I certainly would not begrudge anyone who is. I'm not interested in trying to cost justify my hobby. Like most, I just have some goals and expectations and am working towards them.

As previously discussed, for IR EFI, I feel that Electromotive has some advantages and doesn't give anything away elsewhere. I decided to go crank trigger and EM has great ignition. It's where it started for them. In for a penny in for a pound I figure. When I get the car fully set up and instrumented, I'm looking forward to lap top tuning as I'm quite comfortable with PC data acquisition, programming, logging, etc.

I also think they have a good rep for durability, reliability, and after sales support. I mulled the decision over with some other friends who are very knowledgable and we're all building Electromotive driven IR EFI systems with my hardware. You would recognize them as they are currently or have been respected members of this furum.

One of them is an EM distributor. He runs what he sells and sells the equipment because it's his equipment of choice. This also provides a network of guys with similar engines that I can leverage knowledge and experience from. -Always fun to share experiences.

I may have mentioned this before, but the Kinsler site really does have a lot of good information available. Go have a look at the EFI section and EFI section of the tech catalogue. It provides a good overview, diagrams, history of fuel injection, and is informative. Also makes some comparisons to mechanical and carb analogues. There is a good ECU comparison chart in the tech catalogue that is worth viewing. Kinsler stuff is pricey but good quality. They've been in the biz a long time and are definitely EFI experts.

Hope this helps.

http://www.kinsler.com/catalog.htm

Kelly

Do any of these CPU's interface with the Motorsport Electronic Distributor?
That would simplify things a bit.

How do I blend, add speed density to the TPS?