G60 CIS-E Is it possible?

[nbvwfan]

Hi all,
I have a project I have been working on and noticed a hybrid swap forum.
1.8 8V 10:1 Stock C/R married with a G60 setup, and running Bosch CIS-E with spec'd 196CC/min injectors @3 BAR.
Here is the link to the OP
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthrea...-CIS-E-G-Lader

Anybody have any tips?
Currently it runs and in theory should work, but my concern is boost retard.
That area is not covered except by the knock sensor circuitry.
What would you do?
Thanks

[nothing-leaves-stock]

compression is too high.
cis won;t work well with that and the charger.
just swap digi1 or aba stuff into it

[nbvwfan]

I have left it 10:1 which is risky
What I wonder is that, paired to the recirculating design of the G-Lader, Max PSI only happens at WOT.
I had considered stacking a gasket, or the pricey B&M thick headgasket, but after studying the design of the diverter valve, I think 10:1 with high octane, Low PSI, and greater than stock F/I, it won't blow up.
I know, it is a risk, but I have read differing viewpoints on C/R theory, and I think it could work, just maybe have to do a boost retard like the guy who did the 79 turbo rabbit on CIS-Basic.
I got Lambda and knock, he did not, though he was able to keep stock C/R and work lots of power by getting timing, and AF Ratio at ~13.6:1.
I plan on using an A/F meter O2 setup, and then expand or update to a wideband.
Last resort is to update to a corrado F/I swap.
It ran in the fall, on crap gas and did not ping or blow in some preliminary runs cold.


One other thing, I have a draw through setup, I.E. CIS-E Meter is drawn up by charger suction, which accounts for M.A.P. and Volume/Mass of air (In Principle out of the Bosch F/I Handbook)



Thanks for the feedback

[nothing-leaves-stock]

13.6 af is terrible lean for FI

[nbvwfan]

13.6 is more rich and for F/I is bad for emissions and MPG.

[nothing-leaves-stock]

what?
13.6AF in boost is LEAN and not good.
you want to be under 12.5 in boost. i like 11-12 max
if i saw 13.6 in my tirbo car i'd back off FAST because it could melt things soon.....

[nbvwfan]

I did not say 13.6 under boost.
12.5 is what I would be aiming at.
Along with boost retard with an older vacuum distributor or boost retard module.
But like I said, I had it running but that was not under load or with an O2 hooked up.
I will be careful and have the A/F meter hooked up before any extended running.

[nothing-leaves-stock]

ah ok...i was scared for you haha!

[nbvwfan]

I am considering pulling the engine and doing the bay work and some wiring remodeling. In the process of that, I would do a BBM head gasket (C/R to 9:1) and Cam swap.
I still want to do CIS-E as I like the engineering and period look, but would consider Digi I or other updating should there be runing issues.

[nbvwfan]

for the replies from "Nothing Leaves stock"

It run's (nearly) great.
Tired G Lader is pushing 5PSI
I split it for a rebuild and its underway on my workbench.
A/F verified with Innovate Wideband 11-12 on throttle and 12.5-13.5 at idle and Decelleration.
Running Bosch W4DPO equivalent Autolight copper plugs
Oil temp ~145F
A/C working
Temp and cooling fine
No knock or pings that I can account for.
Test runs pic

[sdezego]

I ran CIS (modified) for years and many many miles on my Scirocco II that I build the turbo kit for in the late 80s. Logged over 90k on the turbo setup with various mods and upgrades along the way. I was putting out more HP that most of the modified G60s (my current one included). I also had to add ye old crude 5th injector, but hey it worked well. What was one to do back in the 80's? ...other than Calloway's Microfueler

Did you get the early 2 port Dist Canister? Be careful, some had a pin which would prevent it from retarding even though it has the retard port

Also, are you running the Audi Turbo Warm up regulator? IF not, you are going to run out of fuel quick. With that high of compression, timing retard will be your biggest issue.

My biggest concern when I read your post was the MAFS, but since you are doing a draw through, it should work fine.

All, that said, Digi is pretty darn cheap these days and has over a decade worth of advancements

[nbvwfan]

And great to hear of your similar build.
I am slowly getting a turbo itch, but that build will come.
I guess I am late to the party, or just old school or just trying to be different.
All the same, I have done my build with a stock CIS-E, no WUR, Stock Hall/Distributor no 5th injector (yet).
After reading up on K-Jetronic in the bosch F/I handbook, the DPR and Knock/Lambda is what I thought I would need to avoid lean and detonation, given it was setup properly. The book "supercharged" by Corki Bell was also good for theoretical insight.
So far so good, and I met someone else who was running high boost on CIS-E in a crazy fox.
He did a 5Cyl FPR and added cold start injectors and methanol spray, but he was also running much more PSI 20+ and was keeping the stock C/R like me.
I studied the G60 intake setup and made mine mirror the corrado, except I did not update to Digi- I, I wanted to prove a draw through CIS-E could run boost, and it can.
I have check the DPR current and with my wideband and analog 02 output the ECU is managing well enough.
There is a slight hesitation off the line, but that is somewhat due to the CIS-E sensor plate moving from float due to the dump pipe return.
I may delete that recirculation and see if throttle response improves.
So far though I know the knock box is working as advancing the timing to the point of pinging causes the usual retard correction. So for now I have it set stock ~5 degrees advance and let the ECU map do it's thing, until the boost raises the sensor plate and the mechanical injection takes over fueling.
My injectors are ~20% over stock flow rates, I know because I had them batch tested and I matched a set that are ~195CC/min at 3 bar.
My 02 says 10.5-11.5 under part load, give or take.
Thanks for the comments and tips and interest.
My next build will be similar but will be wilder.
I am debating a G60 built 16V 84 GTI but may go with and Eaton 16V, with the same CIS-E.
Thanks

[nbvwfan]

Is porting worth the effort? And if so, where and how?

[nbvwfan]

I have been trying to resolve a miss off idle, it is more of an annoyance than anything else.
Checked/replaced

Plugs
OEM wires
Cap
Rotor
Comp ~150PSI
Timing Ignition
Timing Cam +/- 1 tooth on the cam and then back to 0
A/F
DPR 2.5ma bounce


I have read that S/C'd cars with the T/B far from the charger can have hesitation issues due to pulse waves traveling back down to the MAP or TPS.
Mine is CIS-E and the TPS is at the metering head, about 5' from the T/B
Anyone have any tips on if I could parallel wire in a TPS from a ford at the T/B into my CIS-E TPS?
I am thinking if I can get the voltage drop signal sooner I can get my throttle response back and lose the miss.
Tip/suggestions appreciated.

[nbvwfan]

It runs, and runs right.

Turned out to be clogged injectors due to ethanol gas going bad and baking itself into the pintles.
Drove it in to work today.
Staying out of the boost, a/c on and A/F ~14 all the way in.

[sdezego]

Nice,
Congrats

[nbvwfan]

Nice,
Congrats

Thanks sc2020 looks good too.

[nbvwfan]

Been continuing work on the GTI.
fiddled with the DPR and have things better than before.
Recently battling Rich at idle and lean WOT.
I cannot get a slight WOT lean delay. After about fifty tweaks to the DPR power curve adjustment I still have a brief 14.5 peak before the current drives the A/F down to ~12.
If I gradually let the DPR catch up and then hammer to WOT I get a solid 11 A/F.
I know, a video would help describe this.
But I am wondering, should I keep tweaking the DPR tune, or look into a FMU.
I have a feeling I need a fuel pressure rise at boost and the DPR current and fuel distributor cannot compensate for the abrupt fuel demand of 5-10 PSI sweeps.
Anyone have any tips on a decent FMU ratio for a car running 9:1 C/R and 5-10 PSI boost.
The CIS-E FPR can deliver the volume, just not as quickly as it is needed.
Looking for safe fuel enrichment.
Tips/Advice/Experience appreciated.

[nbvwfan]

Anyone?

[nbvwfan]

Happy Friday.
Thinking about what I will be trying out to continue to improve A/F conditions.
It seems I have shaken out the major issues and I am dealing with the limitations of Boosted CIS-E.

Wondered if anyone has any ideas on how to regulate the effects of boost return on A/F ratio's.
Presently, my Idle is at about 12.5:1 with part throttle rising to ~13.5:1 which then increases to ~14.5 once boost comes on and then drops to ~13:1 at 5psi and drops further to ~12:1 once I am on it at WOT and ~8PSI.
It is acceptable, but not ideal, and it seems my injectors run out of system pressure while the DPR tries to catchup with the load.
Cruising and off throttle I have a momentary drop to ~11:1 which then settles back to 12.5:1.
MPG last tank was 23.4, which is not as good as I would like, but I guess that is the cost of boost and supercharging.
I see that if I had turboed I may have had some more useable economy.

[player2]

perhaps a split throttle cable that lifts the air meter? no "pulsing" and without a power adder, an air filter could be connected directly to the intake. just a thought.

[Prof315]

Happy Friday.
Thinking about what I will be trying out to continue to improve A/F conditions.
It seems I have shaken out the major issues and I am dealing with the limitations of Boosted CIS-E.


MPG last tank was 23.4, which is not as good as I would like, but I guess that is the cost of boost and supercharging.
I see that if I had turboed I may have had some more useable economy.

Actually it's the price of running forced induction and CIS-E. Real (i.e. electronic) fuel injection, particularly a programmable standalone would serve you better both in terms of fuel economy AND power.

[nbvwfan]

Actually it's the price of running forced induction and CIS-E. Real (i.e. electronic) fuel injection, particularly a programmable standalone would serve you better both in terms of fuel economy AND power.

Actually CIS-E can be economical, my initial setup draws all the air through the FPR which gives a false rich condition due to the boost return not plumbing back in to lower the sensor plate position.
I know becasue DPR is almost always at Zero, TPS is High V, and A/F is 12.8 at idle or richer.
I am in the process of relocating the FPR and T/B where they will get a proper Mass Air Flow rate.

I understand I could have gone standalone, and I agree, you cannot discount updating, but that was not my end goal in this build.
I wanted to see if CIS-E could be supercharged, to date, I have not found anyone who has done it.
I can always plunk hours and ~$1200 and get MS or Lugtronic, but I wanted to see if it could be done, and when it can, I plan on repeating this, at a huge reduction of costs by simply a bolt up build.
16V G60 CIS-E, 2.2 Eaton CIS-E, G60 2.1 WBX DIGI II are a couple planned.
I have not given up yet.

[Prof315]

$1200 for MS?????? Even a fully prebuilt and custom configured MS3/3X with harnesses and a wideband 02 is less than that. An MS1 V3.0 kit, harness and wideband is about $500 and it will make more power and better economy than CIS-E on a forced induction motor. Don't misunderstand me CIS is a pretty cool system but it's OLD and outdated. The only time I still use it is on SCCA road racing cars where class rules require stock fuel management.

[nbvwfan]

perhaps a split throttle cable that lifts the air meter? no "pulsing" and without a power adder, an air filter could be connected directly to the intake. just a thought.

I read about this being done on some old Quattro Rally cars. the cars were pretty much WOT most of the time so the CIS Basic was kindof bypassed in favor of quicker throttle response due to a direct cable to the sensor plate.
In my application it would probably make things erratic as the G Lader intake would be limiting the Air to lift ratio.

[nbvwfan]

$1200 for MS?????? Even a fully prebuilt and custom configured MS3/3X with harnesses and a wideband 02 is less than that. An MS1 V3.0 kit, harness and wideband is about $500 and it will make more power and better economy than CIS-E on a forced induction motor. Don't misunderstand me CIS is a pretty cool system but it's OLD and outdated. The only time I still use it is on SCCA road racing cars where class rules require stock fuel management.

Not ,
I'm not well informed enough to scifer what MS system I should use. The lack of package configuartions makes it challenging to know what you need.
I have looked at it and had incorrectly assumed that tuning of CIS-E would be less than the time/money of wiring in a standalone. I also had emissions I was concerned with.
Frankly I like CIS, and wanted to explore it's possibilities (Like the Callaway kits did). Seeing I have not found anyone to say what CIS-E has pushed on supercharging, I challenge the notion that it is inferior to standalone. Show me Apples to Oranges, I know. If I wanted the most power with the least amount of work, I would pay someone for it, and this seems to be the case of some on the vortex. With enough time maybe I will end up being one of those outfits, that support the buy vs built industry, but one cannot buy the experience.
Thanks for caring to share

[Prof315]

I'd have to go do some serious digging for the dyno sheets but if you want an example here you go:

SCCA H Production 1980 Scirroco 1.6L 8V, 11.5 to1, BIG custom camshaft, carefully ported and flowbenched head, CIS with an Aeromotive 2 port pressure regulator in place of the warm up regulator so we could "tune" the fuel curve, 13.0 AFR at WOT. Our best pulls made 129 whp and 115 wtq. In a typical 40 minute race we used 6 gallons of 110 octane leaded race fuel.

Same car same motor on MS2 using 24lb/hr injectors and waste spark ignition. Best dyno pulls (on the same dyno) were 135whp and 118 wtq but AVERAGE hp and torque were up 12hp an 15 ftlbs respectively while fuel economy improved to 4.5 gallons of the same 110 in a 40 minute race. And oh yeah lap times dropped 2-3 seconds.

Being able to tune and optimize fueling and timing across the entire operating range of an engine will always result in more power and better economy and it simply can not be done with CIS.

[nbvwfan]

6hp and 3Lb is a good bump but considering the margins it does not prove
"and it simply can not be done with CIS"
And that was N/A.
I am not trying to dispute your knowledge, my point is I believe CIS (Basic, Lambda, and -E) were very capable setups.

My goal is to match or Better Digi I with CIS-E built to the proper configuring of the current system.
I am after the same basic numbers that a stock corrado had and then go from there, end goal 200HP and 200 FtLbs at the crank.
I am sure that if I went with MS or Lugtronic my numbers and driveability would be much improved, but I would be ditching all the parts and time I spent learning to tune and modify CIS-E.
So far, with my setup being a pull charge system (FPR ahead of the charger) I am pretty sure I am getting ~140WHP and ~24MPG @5-8 PSI, not bad, but not great either.

[Prof315]

You missed the main point. While it is possible with just about ANY type of fuel control system ( carbs, CIS, EFI) to get the most PEAK hp and tq out of a motor we saw a significant increase in AVERAGE hp and tq and that's what matters in the end as proved by our much improved lap times and fuel economy.

And as far as the motor being N/A vs FI, being able to precicely tune the whole fuel and timing curves becomes even more important with FI.

[nbvwfan]

I did not miss the point, I am viewing it from a different angle.
I agree that standalone or "updating" will improve performance and economy, but I did not want to spend the time or money on going that route. There was a lot of engineering that went into CIS-E and I wanted to detirmine how much I could exploit it.
I beleive I have proven the concept, and now will pursue optimizing by relocating items. this from reading Corky Bell's books and seeing some shortcomings of a draw through CIS-E setup.
Once it is done, I may infact go with Lugtronic for my 16V build. I like the simplicity of waste spark and electronic fueling on F/I. It would not take a lot of add ons, just the standalone ECU, a wideband, fuel rail, MAF, TPS, CPS, Coilpack ect, and it certainly would remove a lot of the 80's CIS-E clutter.

[Prof315]

I did not miss the point, I am viewing it from a different angle.
I agree that standalone or "updating" will improve performance and economy, but I did not want to spend the time or money on going that route. There was a lot of engineering that went into CIS-E and I wanted to detirmine how much I could exploit it.
I beleive I have proven the concept, and now will pursue optimizing by relocating items. this from reading Corky Bell's books and seeing some shortcomings of a draw through CIS-E setup.
Once it is done, I may infact go with Lugtronic for my 16V build. I like the simplicity of waste spark and electronic fueling on F/I. It would not take a lot of add ons, just the standalone ECU, a wideband, fuel rail, MAF, TPS, CPS, Coilpack ect, and it certainly would remove a lot of the 80's CIS-E clutter.

Just one question.... the fuel curve on a CIS system is based largely on the size of the orifice in the fuel distributor. That and the pressure applied against the air door which determines how quickly you reach the max amout of fuel delivered. FI motors need LOTS more fuel than NA so how are you going to get there with a system designed for an NA motor?

[nbvwfan]

Just one question.... the fuel curve on a CIS system is based largely on the size of the orifice in the fuel distributor. That and the pressure applied against the air door which determines how quickly you reach the max amout of fuel delivered. FI motors need LOTS more fuel than NA so how are you going to get there with a system designed for an NA motor?

The operating margin of a 1.8 Metering head is capable of delivering more fuel than a 1.8 8V N/A would ever need. Every good design incorporates a factor of (safety). The metering head is capable of delivering within the margins of mild/modestF/I. Additionally, and as I read in Probst book on Bosch systems, CIS-E uses the DPR which decreases/increases upper and lower chamber pressure, thus allowing more sensor plate lift, higher fuel pressure at the orifice, delivering more fuel. Coupled with a MFU, or even a stock FPR tied to MAP, you get more than suitable fuel management.
CIS Basic and CIS Lambda used the WUR and Frequency valve, but at the core is a metering head that has an amplitude of lift and fuel delivery that is within safe limits. Even in my pull through setup that lifts the sensor too much, I have seen A/F as low as 9:1 from the stock FPR.
The answer is not always, put bigger __'s on it. Sometimes, its tune it for the application.

[nbvwfan]

And I have been driving it like this for several weeks, I am actually trying to get less fuel at idle and mid throttle.

[ALLGORIMSHOW]

I like the way you think nbvwfan.

[nbvwfan]

I like the way you think nbvwfan.

Thanks for the
I have been chipping away at the F/I relocation components.
I have an airbox delete almost finished to put the FPR after the intercooler. My TIG welding is pretty rough but I have been watching and reading up on techniques (weldingtipsandtricks.com) and practicing these and it has greatly improved.
Last night I roughed a T/B exit plenum which will allow me to move it just after the G60 with the dump pipe exiting to atmosphere. Plan on deleting the silencer and boost return pipe. This should clean up the bay as well.
I am hoping to have this pretty close by end of the weekend. But I have to pickup my sons recently bought 83 GTI which we will be starting soon.
He will eventually end up with a G Lader, but he wil have to get some seat time before I help him boost his first car.