EFI for the Ventures

[Flyinfool]

Yes this is to convert the existing CV carb to EFI.

There is not a lot of room to build a manifold to use a single TBI. All the extra stuff for the carb conversion will still be needed for TBI. With the manifold it might cost more to go TBI.

 

If you do a TBI setup, be sure to do a development and build thread as you go.

[Flyinfool]

Well I ordered some more parts today.

The clips for attaching the fuel rail to the injector and the electrical connector with pigtails to fit the injector.

 

I already have the injector.

[Flyinfool]

Jeff,

 

If you do want to offer this kit to the masses (us)...then you need to take into account the 2nd gen gas tank partially covers the diaphrams on the carbs....IE... need a right angle injector or plenum for each carb. Wonder if this might be a good time to mention two injectors on a throttle body deep in the "V" where the carbs now sit, feeding 2 carbs each, may be a lot easier...or whatever it takes for our V4's. But thinking vertical here...

 

Here is a pic of my finger stuck in the small space between the carb cover and the bottom edge of the gas tank.

 

http://www.venturerider.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=109406

 

OK now you got me thinking again, we all know that is always dangerous.

If you look at the screw that holds the diaphragm cover to the carb can you get me a dimension from the surface that that screw bears on to the closest point of the tank. I have an idea that might save a bit of space, but I need an idea of how much space is actually needed.

[videoarizona]

OK now you got me thinking again, we all know that is always dangerous.

If you look at the screw that holds the diaphragm cover to the carb can you get me a dimension from the surface that that screw bears on to the closest point of the tank. I have an idea that might save a bit of space, but I need an idea of how much space is actually needed.

 

 

Will do....might take me a while(a few days) if I can't get to it today.

 

Update:

@Flyinfool, Looks like about 7/8inch from front screw, right side.....

 

 

And about 3/4 inch from rear most screw

 

 

The tank has a plastic type cover over the weld seam along the bottom. I measured to the inside of that.

 

Hope this helps...

Edited August 3, 2017 by videoarizona

[Flyinfool]

It is gonna be real close but I think I will run out of room. I do not know if I can find a shorter injector, or find a way to set the injector a bit deeper.

[Flyinfool]

Well due to circumstances beyond my control, I had some time to build the fixture for machining the "Replacement Cover".

 

 

 

 

 

I will be making up a test set of parts to prove out all of the fixtures and machining methods before I actually order a pile of aluminum to start carving on. I have started making the cover out of a chunk of plastic. I need to do a whole lot of math before the next cut...........

 

PVC plastic is soft enough that I can not crash a tool if I do something wrong. I know that I will also need to buy some cutters to be able to make a few of the tricky precision cuts. There are a few features that need a tolerance of +/-.001 in.

 

Some of the parts I have not even really started to figure out how to make.

[Flyinfool]

First test piece of the Replacement cover, machined out of cheap soft plastic, is done.

 

 

 

 

And it even fits on a carb...........

 

 

The design and the fixture will need a few minor tweaks just to make me happy. Mostly for cosmetics.

The final version will be painted black and then the tops of the fins machined back to bright, just to look pretty. or maybe get them Diamond Cut by that @eusa1 guy...........

 

Next up will be the 2 easy parts, the clamp to hold the injector in and the fuel fitting to attach the fuel line to the injector. Both of these require no special tooling or machine setups so I will probably make them out of metal on the first try.

 

last part will be the adapter to hold the injector in the bore where the slide norm,ally lives, that part needs me to buy a couple of expensive tools to make. It will get done out of cheap soft plastic to prove out the design and my machining methods.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Flyinfool

[eusa1]

you get it made and i will cut a set for your prototype for free! i like to see new ideas come to life!! best of luck to you!!

[WildBill1]

First test piece of the Replacement cover, machined out of cheap soft plastic, is done.

 

http://www.venturerider.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=109986

 

 

 

And it even fits on a carb...........

 

http://www.venturerider.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=109987

 

The design and the fixture will need a few minor tweaks just to make me happy. Mostly for cosmetics.

The final version will be painted black and then the tops of the fins machined back to bright, just to look pretty. or maybe get them Diamond Cut by that @eusa1 guy...........

 

Next up will be the 2 easy parts, the clamp to hold the injector in and the fuel fitting to attach the fuel line to the injector. Both of these require no special tooling or machine setups so I will probably make them out of metal on the first try.

 

last part will be the adapter to hold the injector in the bore where the slide norm,ally lives, that part needs me to buy a couple of expensive tools to make. It will get done out of cheap soft plastic to prove out the design and my machining methods.

 

 

Lookin good Jeff, just like an engineer to use a computer keyboard as a prop for the carburetor. Again nice machine work there.

[Flyinfool]

Did some playing around with the design of the parts I have to make and it looks like it might be possible to squeeze it in under the edge of the tank on a 2nd gen. Before I can tell for sure someone will need to stop at my place with a 2nd gen so I can get a bunch of measurements and just see where stuff is. There is a lot more to it than just the carb mods, have to find a place for the fuel pump, pressure regulator, filter, pressure gauge, fuel manifold, O2 sensor, control box, TPS, MAP, fuse block, and a bunch of hoses and wires to connect it all together.

1st gen has a lot of room for all the "stuff"

 

I might end having to make a different version for 1st gen vs 2nd gen. I hope not. but the 2nd gen parts would fit the 1st gen but are a lot harder to make, I have a part designed that I have no clue how to make, still thinking on that one.

 

All of threads that are currently running with weird carb issues is what keeps me motivated on this project. I am getting closer to the point where it will just take more money for all the purchased parts.

 

Did I ever mention that I hate carbs, they work on blue smoke and mirrors with some voodoo tossed in.................

[VanRiver]

I am getting closer to the point where it will just take more money for all the purchased parts.

 

Hi @Flyinfool, you looking for a partner or "angel investor" for the project? I hate Carbs with a passion too!!!

[baylensman]

The person that invented the system no longer will make the parts, He is also the same person selling the plans. I spoke to him and he has no problem with me making the parts to sell as long as I do not divulge the plans, since he still sells those. He even encouraged me to make extra sets and he likes my redesign to the point he wants to buy a set of parts from me once I have them. So there is no legal issues at this point in time.

Perhaps you and he could "partner" you include a set of his plans with your kit at appropriate price, and on every sale he gets $ome your get $ome

[mantree91]

I have been considering building a single throttle body manifold with injectors installed on the runners like a car.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Flyinfool]

Getting smooth airflow through the manifold in that small of space is the hard part. My guess is that you will loose some top end power.

 

But by all means go for it, Who knows your way might just be way better than my way? I am by no means an expert on fueling an engine.

 

If you do it please post progress pics.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Flyinfool

[mantree91]

Getting smooth airflow through the manifold in that small of space is the hard part. My guess is that you will loose some top end power.

 

But by all means go for it, Who knows your way might just be way better than my way? I am by no means an expert on fueling an engine.

 

If you do it please post progress pics.

Well first draft will be a single carb swap but make a 2nd so that I can get started on the efi version. The part that I am having issues with is that the math tells me I need between a 40mm and 41mm throttle body. I will be heading to the junk yard with a caliper at some point to get some ideas of what to pull off of.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Flyinfool]

Well just for proper closure on this topic. I am now permanently bikeless due to medical stuff.

That has pretty much ended this project. If someone wants to pick up where I left off, I would still like to join in to help it along. It was/is a fun project for something that is different.

[mantree91]

If you're still tooled-up I would be interested in a set. If you don't mind me asking are you just having trouble supporting a bike? That's why I have a sidecar on mine.

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Flyinfool]

As far as I know there is just one more expensive cutting tool that I need to acquire to be able to make the parts. I was thinking about trying my hand at making my own cutter, I have never tried that yet. It might just be a fun side project. I even have it partly drawn up in cad. To buy a 45° dovetail cutter that is big enough is very expensive @ $200+ It would cost me around $40 to make one with a carbide insert.

 

 

I have not yet even tried to make the parts out of metal yet, I have only made the plastic parts just to verify my setups and process. This also means that I have no idea if this will actually work. But I no longer have a bike to test on nor anyone local that would be interested in experimenting.

[Flyinfool]

As far as I know there is just one more expensive cutting tool that I need to acquire to be able to make the parts. I was thinking about trying my hand at making my own cutter, I have never tried that yet. It might just be a fun side project. I even have it partly drawn up in cad. To buy a 45° dovetail cutter that is big enough is very expensive @ $200+ It would cost me around $40 to make one with a carbide insert.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]115553[/ATTACH]

 

I have not yet even tried to make the parts out of metal yet, I have only made the plastic parts just to verify my setups and process. This also means that I have no idea if this will actually work. But I no longer have a bike to test on nor anyone local that would be interested in experimenting.

[mantree91]

If I wasn't so far away I would give you a hand with testing. I am looking at putting my ignition under control of a megasquirt to facilitate in COP ignition. I have also been thinking of using some 01-02 gsxr1000 throttle body's since they are not cast together but bolted together more like old carbs. I am not familiar with a lot of the tools used in milling and lathe work. What do you need the dovetail to do?

 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Edited February 19, 2019 by mantree91

[Flyinfool]

On the part that hold the injector into the slide bore there is a 45° deflector surface to get the injector spray headed in the correct direction. That 45° surface is an under cut. There are other ways to do it but they would be a lot harder to do, and I would probably break a few tiny 1/16 Dia end mills to get it done. It will work without the deflector, but a lot less efficiently, because the injector spray would just go straight across and want to run down the side of the venturi instead of getting atomized. I do have a 60° dovetail cutter already, not ideal, but it would likely be better than no deflector.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, IF I had CNC this would be a WHOLE lot easier. But I am all manual machines so I have to set up each cut. I am also pretty cheap and do not want to spend the cash to buy a special cutter for the one tiny cut.

 

I was also going to use the mega squirt for this project with the same intention of down the road using the squirt to also control COPs.

[Patch]

On the part that hold the injector into the slide bore there is a 45° deflector surface to get the injector spray headed in the correct direction. That 45° surface is an under cut. There are other ways to do it but they would be a lot harder to do, and I would probably break a few tiny 1/16 Dia end mills to get it done. It will work without the deflector, but a lot less efficiently, because the injector spray would just go straight across and want to run down the side of the venturi instead of getting atomized. I do have a 60° dovetail cutter already, not ideal, but it would likely be better than no deflector.

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, IF I had CNC this would be a WHOLE lot easier. But I am all manual machines so I have to set up each cut. I am also pretty cheap and do not want to spend the cash to buy a special cutter for the one tiny cut.

 

I was also going to use the mega squirt for this project with the same intention of down the road using the squirt to also control COPs.

 

 

 

 

 

Hey Jeff, sorry I missed this thread!

The highlighted area in my opinion is incorrect. Now the defector my opinion is also incorrect.

I am going to ask my son if he may still have a clip of a run we did with port injectors exposed?

Of course 10 minds = 10 approaches.

If I may splurge a bit here on the topic?

As I recall and I'm speaking from memory this original conversion wasn't making sense back in 07 or 08. The very first thing to consider is a conversion over a redesign. On these engines and on my MKII I was baffled by the carb transition to port?? Knowing I'm coming out of the Suzi world why was the 90* adapter intake chosen? Well it didn't take long to figure the compromise Yam was faced with.

So adding compromise to comprise won't equal performance in my opinion. In fact it would likely just frustrate the fellow trying to chive stability. I think of it as windows 98 then 2000 which was very unstable at the beginning and grew more so with every freaking patch and new version.

 

You would want the injector to atomize without hard deflection so you would change injector type, and allow for velocity to direct. We can not deflect spray as shown above, it will kill the automatized pattern and end up dripping.

CV castings are tight units and are as close to an injector we think we can get to, air flows are critical the venturi is designed for flow velocity and fuel jet pickup. I know you know thiss. Look back and remember how the fuel leaves the jet when the needle pulls away, at velocity it get pinned to the wall then accelerated through the bore and mixed, the piston yields back allowing for a higher but controlled flow in this case the piston is removed and so is its effect. Turbulence above is corrected via Vstacks and the induction port above (air box lid) and a steady calibrated fuel system that works well but with some lag. In this case what I see is converting the casting into a make do stack. Know what I mean?

 

I the above pic is interacting flow it is also creating turbulence, which interferes with flow rates and velocity.

You can argue that throttle angle will sort that out and that the venturi effect of the valve flute will flow the rest, but that won't be the case.

Again just my thinking but a redesign kept simple wouldn't cost much more then the control box if one was doing it himself. One could chose for example a 2 or 4 injector setup and the machining could be limited most around connecting points.

Of course a 4 injector with 4 throttle bodies would producer better performance at all throttle angles with less losses. The challenge with the control box inputs remains the same so for the price 4 has the biggest gains when at the ports even with stock unmodified heads and cams.

 

PS I may need your help with some stuff with my projects this spring/summer There is something I can't seem to find so might need it built..

[Flyinfool]

https://www.venturerider.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=108760&d=1490362548

 

 

 

Hey Jeff, sorry I missed this thread!

The highlighted area in my opinion is incorrect. Now the defector my opinion is also incorrect.

I am going to ask my son if he may still have a clip of a run we did with port injectors exposed?

Of course 10 minds = 10 approaches.

If I may splurge a bit here on the topic?

As I recall and I'm speaking from memory this original conversion wasn't making sense back in 07 or 08. The very first thing to consider is a conversion over a redesign. On these engines and on my MKII I was baffled by the carb transition to port?? Knowing I'm coming out of the Suzi world why was the 90* adapter intake chosen? Well it didn't take long to figure the compromise Yam was faced with.

So adding compromise to comprise won't equal performance in my opinion. In fact it would likely just frustrate the fellow trying to chive stability. I think of it as windows 98 then 2000 which was very unstable at the beginning and grew more so with every freaking patch and new version.

 

You would want the injector to atomize without hard deflection so you would change injector type, and allow for velocity to direct. We can not deflect spray as shown above, it will kill the automatized pattern and end up dripping.

CV castings are tight units and are as close to an injector we think we can get to, air flows are critical the venturi is designed for flow velocity and fuel jet pickup. I know you know thiss. Look back and remember how the fuel leaves the jet when the needle pulls away, at velocity it get pinned to the wall then accelerated through the bore and mixed, the piston yields back allowing for a higher but controlled flow in this case the piston is removed and so is its effect. Turbulence above is corrected via Vstacks and the induction port above (air box lid) and a steady calibrated fuel system that works well but with some lag. In this case what I see is converting the casting into a make do stack. Know what I mean?

 

I the above pic is interacting flow it is also creating turbulence, which interferes with flow rates and velocity.

You can argue that throttle angle will sort that out and that the venturi effect of the valve flute will flow the rest, but that won't be the case.

Again just my thinking but a redesign kept simple wouldn't cost much more then the control box if one was doing it himself. One could chose for example a 2 or 4 injector setup and the machining could be limited most around connecting points.

Of course a 4 injector with 4 throttle bodies would producer better performance at all throttle angles with less losses. The challenge with the control box inputs remains the same so for the price 4 has the biggest gains when at the ports even with stock unmodified heads and cams.

 

PS I may need your help with some stuff with my projects this spring/summer There is something I can't seem to find so might need it built..

 

First off let me make it very clear that I am not an expert on engine fueling and/or breathing. Having been designing aircraft as a hobby for the last 50 years I do know a little bit (not a lot) about aerodynamics. I work as a mechanical engineer so I have some experience in the mechanical part of what makes things work.

 

The only part of that injector holder that is in the air stream is that deflector. Through testing it was determined that the defector worked better than no deflector. I took it a step farther and made my deflector more aerodynamic to help reduce turbulence. The original design of the deflector was just a cube with one side angled for the deflection. I have refined the shape of the defector even more that the one in that pic to further reduce drag and turbulence. Sometimes some turbulence is a good thing. Look at a golf ball or the dimpled intake runners. Not to say all turbulence is a good thing. The injector itself has its nozzle very close to flush with the wall of the venturi. Of course since there is now 60PSI shoving the fuel in there really is no need for a venturi. Yes this is a 4 injector system. I do not see where any additional throttle lag would come from.

 

While I am sure tat this is no where near optimal, it is fast and easy and relatively inexpensive. I think that to get optimal yes it would be best to design a complete new intake system optimized for EFI. It would also be a lot more expensive to make. All of the pumps hoses electronics injectors would be the same for either system, this one just has a couple of custom parts to get it all to work vs a complete new everything.

 

Yes it would be better to have the injector spray straight down the intake like most throttle bodies do. Again it gets to be more involved mechanically to make that happen.

 

This project got started during a time when it seemed every other post was about someone having some kind of hard to track down issue with their CV carbs. As I mentioned early in this post, I hate carbs, They are blue smoke and mirrors, I do not understand what all is going on inside of them or why it is all there in the first place. I am much more comfortable with wires and electronics and programing with a direct if this then that logic flow.

 

I fully understand that this is not a performance upgrade. I never expected it to be. It is just something different than the mysterious carbs that we all have to deal with. If I were after a performance increase I would slap on a set of V-Max heads, cams, and V-Boost. That is a well documented performance upgrade. The best I was hoping for was equal performance to what I had and no more carbs and their problems to deal with.

 

I like designing and making stuff, Fire away with your ideas, I may have to work with you on the final design of parts to fit within my capabilities. I have already had to spent a full week designing and making fixtures and doing machine setup to make a cut that took a few seconds to do. That defector is actually a very hard thing to make with what I have to work with, but that is a BIG part of the fun of it.

 

But alas, I no longer have or can have a bike so my carb issues are also no longer in existence and that is what ended my actively working on this project.

[Patch]

1) Through testing it was determined that the defector worked better than no deflector.drag and turbulence.

2) Sometimes some turbulence is a good thing.

3) Look at a golf ball or the dimpled intake runners.

4) The injector itself has its nozzle very close to flush with the wall of the venturi.

5) Of course since there is now 60PSI shoving the fuel in there really is no need for a venturi.

6) I do not see where any additional throttle lag would come from.

But alas, I no longer have or can have a bike so my carb issues are also no longer in existence and that is what ended my actively working on this project.

 

 

I get what you are saying Jeff and, I know we share here for similar reasons, this is what the club thrives on.

My experience is around trial and error wins and expensive losses;)

The line below I would have been wiser to leave out as it is insuffient on its own.

"Of course a 4 injector with 4 throttle bodies would producer better performance at all throttle angles with less losses. The challenge with the control box inputs remains the same so for the price 4 has the biggest gains when at the ports even with stock unmodified heads and cams"

I touched briefly on it and will again in the other thread where Puc is being stubborn

line 1) I am curious about how you tested it? If you were'nt able to simulate operating conditions then yes it would be a wash.

2) the problem with accepting turbulence as I know it is, for one it is actively disturbing flow. Now Jeff it is then you may have a stall above the injector?! Thru modeling you know a smooth flow provides more of what we usually want and, when we cut thru it, pressure changes are expected. Now if we are trying to mix fuel/air then that will happen further down.

3) is the new way of the old take on the dark art of porting. But in short it should induce less drag by adding lift which should help keep velocity up so percentage (usually measured as loss or the less you lose the more you gained) in flow should mean better filling of the jug. Many don't agree so it can be a bit of a touchy topic(:

4) that is what I too would aim for. If you get the pulse timed in, the injector will behave differently. Now I know through some experimenting that flow and velocity above is very important and in our fooling with fueling we had some rpm limitations while running open, just like the CVs!

5) I am curious about this and what the effects would be? all existing ports of course would be closed off existing in atmospheric condition but, with a 90* injector position I wonder if that casting geometry wouldn't play out some positives???

6) Lag is often right when and where you least want it but was not what I was referring to. The lag has to do with pressure drops and time it is just is what it is. A quick example, the slide has lag designed into it on the ventures if using stock numbers, this is a plus. I would expect that the slide number for Vmax would be different although I have never studied them! Lag if found only when and where you expect it,,, is a OK, consider it a winding up. (track thinking is different)

[Flyinfool]

I'll try to answer the best I can.

 

1) The original designer of this system originally did not have the deflector, he could see by looking down the carb that the fuel was spraying onto the opposite wall and clinging there and running down. This caused a significant drop in MPG. When he made new injector holders with the deflectors, The MPG was dramatically improved up to similar numbers of the stock carbs and he could see the fuel bouncing off the deflector and still being in a more atomized condition, Yest there was also some dripping, but at least the drops were starting out in the air stream where other turbulence had a chance to break them up.

 

2) Actually from modeling I have learned that smooth flow is not always your friend. Adding texture to a wing can make it faster than a smooth wing. At the trailing edge of a wing a square edge will give much better performance than a sharp smooth transition. Of course this all changes with changes in velocity. I suppose I could easily calculate the air velocity thru the carb by knowing the venturi cross sectional area, the max rpm, displacement of the cylinder and then make an guess/assumption on volumetric efficiency.

 

3) This is an interesting one, An increase in lift always comes as in increase in drag. You can never get any kind of energy for free that energy has to come from somewhere. What is happening on the golf ball or dimpled/textured intake runner or even a wing as I mentioned in #2 , is the uneven surface keeps a layer of turbulence at the surface. air is a fluid, it is sticky and will stick to a smooth surface, the texture while increasing drag to create the turbulent layer has that turbulent layer prevent the flowing air from sticking to the surface and this then reduces drag by more that the drag induced by the turbulence so the result is a net reduction in drag. This is all happening at the molecular level so it is really hard to test for and see with the naked eye.

 

4) I was not going to be using a timed pulse, it is a batch flow system. Airflow's, velocities, and such should remain very close to what the stock system has since it still using all of the stock parts. There will just not be the slid encroching into the bore creating turbulence, there will just be a tiny deflector living in the bore.

 

5) I can see where the changes in airspeed thru the venture will create some extra turbulence to assist in the mixing of the fuel and air. it is very possible that the venturi may give a better result than would a straight tube.

 

6) I can see we are talking about two different things while using the same word LAG. I was referring to the lag/bog of having to wait for everything to stabilize before the engine will even start to make power. If I am correct the lag you are referring to is the same as you would get in an old carbureted car when the accelerator pump goes bad, you mash the gas and the airflow is able to speed up a lot faster than the heavy gas can so there is a LAG in fuel delivery. In a CV carb there is no accelerator pump so the slide with its small ports causes the carb to actually open slower so that the fuel and air can both increase speed at the same rate. With EFI and 60PSI shoving in the fuel you should be able to snap the throttle wide open and the fuel will be forced to match the acceleration. The TPS will tell the computer that you just snapped the throttle wide open so it will know to instantly dump in more gas.

 

 

 

As I mentioned earlier, I had redesigned the deflector to further reduce drag.

this design helps the air to flow around the deflector while being a lot easier to machine that the rounded end and also making the connection of the deflector to the body a lot stronger. There was one reported instance of a deflector snapping off and being ingested by the engine. That would be a BAD thing. There is nothing that will kill flow faster than a hole in the top of a piston or a chunk of something getting stuck and holding a valve open.

I suppose that for even more strength I could make this part out of either a stronger grade of aluminum (I was going to use 6061-T6) like 2024 or 7075, or something other than AL, like Titanium or Stainless steel. All 3 of these options will make machining much more difficult. My design of deflector has 3.2 times the connection area to the rest of the body than the original design and I also eliminated the sharp inside corner at the bottom of the deflector to reduce the stress riser. I may even add a fillet all around the base of the deflector to further reduce stress risers.