84 'Ceptor FUEL INJECTED in the Works

"The Speedmaster is updated with a new fuel injection system to meet Euro 3 legislation. Cleaner running than a carbureted engine, the fuel injected engine is also easier to fire up from a cold start and runs more smoothly when cold. The cool retro styling remains uncompromised though, as the fuel injectors are cleverly concealed by throttle bodies designed to look like carburetors."


Why paddle my behind and feed me to the lesbians. That's so cool. Didn't know they were doing it like that. I'm sure that will fool a lot of people.
"Look they're still using Amal carburetors! OMG!

 

So, we are arguing a point that has been decided years ago. Seems like we all got baited by a simple post. I guess when someone does this to a first gen, then we'll be able to see the result.

The whole idea is still neat, but the truth of small displacement motors is how well the atomized fuel gets into the cylinder. Small intake runner length and pulsing vacumn signals make it hard to program a FI, but not impossible. If you make it work on the street, it will be down on power on the track. If you build it for the track it will suck on the street. All the same goes for carbs! Even the car guys know that it is the whole package that gets the job done. You can't have great induction with a sub par cam and restrictive exhaust and expect more power. Now the VF engines are a beautiful design, and as designed they make/made great power numbers at a reasonable cost. As technology improved, the bikes improved. It makes sense that if you can take the best parts of the new and make them work on the old, you should get performance that is at least as good or better than stock. Emissions, fuel economy, ease of maintenance and progress are why the carbs are going away on many applications.

But, if you invest the same amount of money, let's say 5000.00USD to each type of technology, and then build the system for the track, you will get similar numbers. In the end, an engine is just a pump and two pumps running at their very best will both pump about the same. 750cc's is 750cc's. I say: "Use what you want, pay what you can afford and have as much fun as possible in the time that God has given you!"

 

This isn't apples to apples comparison but here's a pic of the '92 Yamaha 600 we converted to FI back in '92 for the SAE competition. 3 college guys who didn't really know what they were doing, :biggrin: , all parts donated so I can't say what it really would cost. And this wouldn't work too well on a bike without changing the intake around considerably but I can imagine how it would be done and fabricated. Would it be better than the original carbs? Maybe not but it sure seemed easier to tune the a/f at a keyboard (especially running methanol m85) than swapping jets in/out. You can just see the injectors in the intake runners. The motor was up about 25% over stock hp, the car weighed in at a little over 500lb and did 0-60 in about 3s flat. We had the luxury of an engine dyno to tune it in. FWIW, just saying it can be done.

 

It's called awesomesauce

 

Nope, I don't know dick bout that, my first car, an 85 Monte Carlo, of course had port fuel injection................ If you wanna get into specific different kinds of injection, and what's mechanical and what's not, let's talk Diesel. The big boomers been running injection for 50 years. Some newer cars are going to direct cylinder injection too (yes, with gasoline) and they're mechanicaly fed pumps with electronic control. There's hundreds of different injection designs, just as many carb designs. Nearly all internal combustion engines are going to injection for every concievable reason ie: better fuel mileage, easier (not more, easier) ajustability, on the fly adjustibility so you can drive or ride or do whatever you want at whatever altitude you please.

Now, am I holding my breath for this project to get done and thinking of starting my own project bike such as this, hell no. Sounds cool though and I wish these fellers the best of luck. I don't understand all the hatred toward this far fetched idea. And just cause somebody wasn't born when technology came out or was popular, dosen't mean they don't know about it.

 

I never said it couldn't be done.

Those pictures are definitely covered in awesomesauce right there.

 

That is gold right there, do you have any more shots?

 

Sorry, that was long before digital cameras. :biggrin:

It did involve a significant amount of sleep deprivation though. lol

Front suspension, I wasn't much involved in that:


'91 (white) & '92 (yellow) cars getting ready for the trip to Ford's Dearborn, MI proving grounds for the competition. Both running Yamaha 600's.

 

Seems like an interesting project, but when I saw this, I started having dreams of what I could do with my 2nd gen:

YouTube - RC 30 on Injection Part 1

Of course, those guys are known to be insane, but an FI RC-30 is definitely an interesting prospect.

For me, the main reason to go F1 over carbs is the shear ability to tune in real-time. Having seen what that's done for the WRX/STi community on the turbo 2/2.5L engines, an hour on a dyno and you can go from a base, very conservative tune, out the ragged edge and back. In the time it takes to swap mains and do another run, you'd be done. That's just incredible, and yeah, it takes a lot of knowledge to tune well with FI. A lot of variables to base your control on.

rpm
load (usually absolute manifold pressure)
temperature
incoming charge density (if you have a MAF, and you don't NEED one, but it's nice)
etc.

And when it comes to making power, you can play with timing vs. fueling, which is something that can't be done by the factory to the extent that we can get away with (EPA is keeping an eye on the stock AFRs that it isn't on us). Which is why a power commander can run a much richer (safer, IMHO) map without getting in trouble.

I think most of the ills people blame FI for are really the super-lean conditions mandated by the EPA and Euro regs. It makes for unhappy engines, and the only recourse being to pull timing (which my cars hate), vs. increasing fuel to stop pinging/detonation.

One of my day-dream projects is to take an old car or bike and rework with the latest of today's tech. For the VFR, take a 2nd gen 750, and do:

USD cartridge forks
radial wheels/tires
SSSA
FI
glass/carbon-fiber bodywork
revised cooling system
bi-xenon projector HIDs (setup like RC-30)
rear-sets
massing lightening project (rear subframe, front cowl stays, everything I can find to toss...)
and I'd probably entirely replace the wiring...

 

Young guys lose their shit for old school work like this. I am losing my shit right now.

 

I say if dude wants to do it, leave him be.
If dude wants to make a V4 chopper, leave him be.
If dude wants to rebuild an 84 mini-ceptor out of butter and toothpicks and run it on used vegetable oil...leave him be.

We are here for VFRs. The V4 is the coolest. Let people play! Let them create!
I wanna see pictures.

 

Okay so maybe my description of 'cat's pajamas' isn't the most accurate...

I was wondering if you have given some thought to re-working the fuel lines (replacing the plastic lines) and to redesigning the linkage...is your take on these that they are prone to failure?

I've not read this before and am curious as to why you think this is a flaw.

Thx!

 

Yes there have been posts here where owners have broken the plastic fuel connection tubes while taking the carbs apart for cleaning. They also have an "o" ring to seal them from leaking. And "o" rings fail just like on the space shuttle. It is better to have a steel tube with a rubber hose and clamp.
I actually did convert a set of carbs to that system.

The problem was that because of the placement of the fuel hose barb inlets the hoses were not in a good position. To messy. I had to tap and thread each fuel hose opening and the aluminum material was too thin. Then install a threaded brass tube.

I DO NOT recommend doing it to a set of good carbs.

Because those plastic tubes are no longer made, there is a company in Europe that makes them out of aluminum.

As far as linking all the carbs together with metal linckages I think it is a bad idea especially when you can get throttle cables made to operate 2 carbs. So all you need is a double cable throttle housing and two- 2 into one cables.

Much simpler to work with. Also easy to adjust. Why have steel rods and pivots,bushings,springs and so forth.

And you will notice that when you sync the carbs that one of them cannot be adjusted, so you have to hope that that carb is good, because the other 3 have to work with it.

The problem with too many parts is that you have a problem. IT is called tolerence stack up. If each part is a few thousandths off, when you get to the end of the line then the gaps whatever are very big.

 

Thank you for the post. You converted a set of V4 carbs?

Any chance for a photo or two (or a spec) on how you went about replacing the fuel joint pipes/o-rings with steel tubes and hose clamps?

Thx!

 

Now that I have already tried all of that I would say do not do it because it is likely to ruin the carb body casting and al the hoses look very messy.

If you really want a clean perfect set up, then get 4 34mm slide carbs ( the old type) and make new intake manifolds and have 4 separate carbs with 4 separate cables.
Of coarse you have to work out the choke cables too.

I think two carbs would be better. I tried two 36mm Kawasaki 1500 carbs which worked but the problem was ,was there were not parts available for those carbs.

So If you used two H-D 40mm carbs it would work and you could tune them. One facing left and one facing right.


The Kawasaki 1500 36mm carbs.

I do not want to high jack this thread though.
Need to start a different thread.

 

Thanks for the post.

I'm not sure this would work though for a V-Four (in my case a VF500F)...space is at a premium on these bikes.