Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBoy]

Ooh now on bikes its tother way IMO, carbs where at the end of their development, and EFI was the new kid on the block. And the early efforts with EFI where shocking. Trying to feed in fuel injection smoothly on the power in the rain while cranked over was a very tentative affair, due to a very snatchy delivery. So much so that the apex had long since sailed by.

How we know thats purely the mapping. Probably purposely done, like the 3.2 on initial throttle press, to get it everything at, say, 6k rpm all the way through to 12+k, giving it a good kick when you hit the power, making "injection" seem faster. Even though, in reality, it will kill you when it rains

[Ever Ready]

I had nearly purged the memory of Solex carbs from my memory banks thanks Al

Bosch mechanical injection, K-Tronic if I remember correctly was pretty good

Thinking about a proper escort I loved the RS1800/2000 range

I know a chap with a Sierra Cosworth engine in a stripped out Mk 2 Escort that is no slouch, although considering the amount of time spent on building it it blooming well should be 

[TheBoy]

K-Jetronic was bad (or, being kind, "badly dated") by the time Ford started using it. It was still miles better than the crap they used to put on.

[chrisgixer]

Ooh now on bikes its tother way IMO, carbs where at the end of their development, and EFI was the new kid on the block. And the early efforts with EFI where shocking. Trying to feed in fuel injection smoothly on the power in the rain while cranked over was a very tentative affair, due to a very snatchy delivery. So much so that the apex had long since sailed by.

How we know thats purely the mapping. Probably purposely done, like the 3.2 on initial throttle press, to get it everything at, say, 6k rpm all the way through to 12+k, giving it a good kick when you hit the power, making "injection" seem faster. Even though, in reality, it will kill you when it rains

Well, on further examination of the Suzuki set up, they couldn't tune it out, so fitted a second throttle after the main butterfly to damp the inrush of air, which the fuelling then matched. It was still shite. Maybe they didn't have enough Bits in their initial ecu's, but most if the bike manufacturers struggled with it initially. The 04 fireblade seemed to be the first one to work.
 Which is what's in my garage.

[TheBoy]

Ooh now on bikes its tother way IMO, carbs where at the end of their development, and EFI was the new kid on the block. And the early efforts with EFI where shocking. Trying to feed in fuel injection smoothly on the power in the rain while cranked over was a very tentative affair, due to a very snatchy delivery. So much so that the apex had long since sailed by.

How we know thats purely the mapping. Probably purposely done, like the 3.2 on initial throttle press, to get it everything at, say, 6k rpm all the way through to 12+k, giving it a good kick when you hit the power, making "injection" seem faster. Even though, in reality, it will kill you when it rains

Well, on further examination of the Suzuki set up, they couldn't tune it out, so fitted a second throttle after the main butterfly to damp the inrush of air, which the fuelling then matched. It was still shite. Maybe they didn't have enough Bits in their initial ecu's, but most if the bike manufacturers struggled with it initially. The 04 fireblade seemed to be the first one to work.
 Which is what's in my garage.

Was it around 2000ish that the fireblades got shorter? I rode a colleages one, and thought it was fine, but wasn't man enough to open it all the way

The Suzuki - was it basically the same intake as the carb'd version? If so, either the carb version ran lean at certain points, or the injection mapping was wrong. It should be fairly trivial (for an injection specialist) to get the injection to deliver fuel like a carb. Even 8 bit ECUs.

[Nick W]

Bosch mechanical injection, even on a '73 Merc 450 SE, was exponentially superior to the shitty Solex Carbs with automatic choke as fitted to the non injection Cologne V6

It would have been criminal for Ford not to fit it to the 2.8i

Unfortunately, it doesn't work very well on on the 2.8! They're pretty poor for torque anyway, and the injected ones have terrible throttle lag; it's as if the throttle cable was made of knicker elastic. Anyone who has tried a 3.0l against a 2.8 will realise that Ford simply lied about the 160BHP, as the 3.0l(with a pretty optimistic 138BHP in a late Capri) will stomp all over a 2.8i. And the 3.0l is best used attached to a length of chain with a boat hanging off it. Neither are exactly durable or economical. Both engines suffer from the stupid nylon timing gear stripping, assuming that the oil pump/distributor drive doesn't twist apart first.

The 12v 2.9 is what either V6 should have been from the start, it makes a decent amount of torque, revs like a 2.8, returns decent economy on unleaded fuel(neither of the earlier engine last for long) and has a proper timing chain. Fitting one is the best thing you can do to anything afflicted with a 2.8. Doing that turned my 2.8i Capri into the car it should have been from the start.

[05omegav6]

K-Jetronic was bad (or, being kind, "badly dated") by the time Ford started using it. It was still miles better than the crap they used to put on.

Entirely my point

Having 3 out of four Mk2 Granada V6s fitted with carbs, it might be said that I am a slow learner

The fact that my last one, a manual 2.8i with a fuel injection system designed twenty years previously, was noticeably better in every respect than the other three put together speaks volumes

[05omegav6]

Not having had an Essex powered Ford, I can't really comment on that comparison Nick But I do know my 2.9 12v auto could drink my dog of a 2.8 carb auto under the table

Best two on fuel were the manual 2.8i Mk2 and the 2.9 24v Cosworth auto, both regularly averaging 30-32mpg, and neither being driven remotely gently

[Ever Ready]

I have to agree that the 2.9 was an improvement on the 2.8 if only for having a three port exhaust manifold on the 2.9 as opposed to the wheezy Siamese 2.8

[Nick W]

If you think the 2.8 is wheezy, don't ever drive a 3.0l! The 2.8 actually needs the rev-limiter as it will easily hit it, or blow up if you remove it. Whereas revving a 3.0l past 4500rpm requires ear plugs, a total lack of mechanical sympathy and a bloody long road. You can gain another 750rpm by milling the carb divider out of the inlet manifold, but you'll be resetting the valve clearances weekly if you use it much. And if you do that, you'll wear out the 'self-locking' taper threads in the rocker arms.

[Kevin Wood]

I remember going out with my Dad to test drive a 2.9 V6 Granada with that Cologne boat anchor in it. Must have been a fairly late one, around 1993. Thing couldn't pull the skin off a wet rice pudding!

We then happened across a Vauxhall dealer and decided to try a Senator 24v. Talk about night and day! He was looking for an estate but bought the Sennie anyway, as the Grandada was so sluggish and, quite rightly, he didn't want to be seen in a BMW! 

[Ever Ready]

I loved the old Essex, yes it was an old slouch but I loved driving them, so much that I fitted a few to various vehicles

I remember a lot of time and money being spent on Swaymar manifolds and triple weber setups

I always longed for an RS3100 but never had the money to get one, I think there were only a few hundred made although like many low model production there were more available than were ever officially made

We mustn't be too hard on the old girl she was born in the swingin' sixties after all

[05omegav6]

Must have been a 12v one Kevin, the 24v would keep a 3.2 honest to 145 ish

[Kevin Wood]

Must have been a 12v one Kevin, the 24v would keep a 3.2 honest to 145 ish

Yes, it was, and, whilst the 24v was better, I'm not so sure it'd match a 3.2

[TheBoy]

Must have been a 12v one Kevin, the 24v would keep a 3.2 honest to 145 ish

The 24v in a Grandad is a match for the 2.5 I reckon, but definately not a 3.0l. Not that I would be irresponsible enough to try such a thing 

As there is very little between a 3.0l and 3.2l, I'd say a 3.2 should be able to show the Grandad a clean set of heels.

(assuming both autos, not tried such a test with manuals...  ...actually, not sure I've ever seen a manual version of the 2.9 granny)