I do really have to step in here and explain at least
my 'findings' as of recent while preparing to
F.I. one of my LBC.s I prefer to learn.... hands on
'tis the fun of it.
First.... to correct a 'para-phrase' the 'original' SDS
units did not include batch fire mode in their lower
end models. Most now do ( a variety of ECU vendors)
..and this is plenum, not port injection.
Secondly.... porting and polishing a head is THE
#one step in any performance upgrades. With no
other mechanical system upgrades, you can easily
gain 8-20% in power with a pro- p $ p job.
The DYI'er first-timer could easily get 10%
With a properly p& p in place, FI will easily add 15-25%
power increase in an older 'non-performance' designed
So for the price of a straight up stock rebuild,
you can assemble an FI system, clean up the ports,
and add a conservative 15-20% power increase
with good emissions, proper mpg economy, and much
easier starting in any weather condition.
Oh... and the web pages showing my route will be up
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kai M. Radicke" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Paul Root" <email@example.com>
Cc: "ptegler@cablespeed" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <Aeseeyou@aol.com>;
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Possible Fuel injection for the MGB?
> > http://www.twminduction.com/Catalogs/Catalogs-FR.html
> > and download their Injection catalog. 2700 2710 systems
> > with SDS ECU and harness setup.
> > Plus complete docs on general installation of FI systems
> > Paul Tegler
> SDS specifically states that their ECU is not meant to work with siamesed
> heads, like MGs have. I don't know the reasoning behind it, but it is
> clearly stated on SDS' website (www.sdsefi.com)
> The other problem is that cost. The SDS ECU is about $850, add two to
> injectors, MAP sensor, 4 wire O2 sensor, fuel rail, hose, throttle bodies
> and TBS unit, wiring harnesses -- It would be hart to make a profit even
> a $1500 selling price. And also who ever makes the kit would have to put
> hours of dyno time into coming up with a suitable fuel map, that the end
> user doesn't have to play with so there is no chance of them screwing it
> Of course, then you have different compression ratios among the MGBs,
> different inlet valve diameters, cams, different ignition parameters...
> that is for the production cars. Now 20 years after production there are
> countless permutations of engine specifications, and I can not see how it
> would be possible to develop a map to suit them all. I am of the opinion
> that configuration of EFI settings from a laptop computer, while on a dyno
> or on a road course, is beyond the ability of the average person on this
> Who is going to spend $1500 on EFI for their MGB, when a new set of SU's
> 1/5 of that? SU's are fairly efficient, and quite accurate... I think it
> would be very difficult for a properly setup EFI to be provide any better
> fuel economy than SUs do (in excellent tune). SUs can adapt themselves
> quite easily, with a different needle and a retune to many parameters...
> you end up putting a new cam (of a different profile) in your MGB, you're
> going to end up remapping the entire EFI map. I think the sole benefit
> would come from EFI is slightly lower emissions. And if you want to spend
> $1500 to have fewer hydrocarbons showing up on your emissions tests
> well then I'd like to have your money.
> EFI isn't the magic answer to power or economy, your SUs do both well if
> proper tune... and even if you have a single ZS, getting an SU manifold
> two HS4/HIF4s is still drastically cheaper. Sure it may not be CARB legal
> to replace your ZS with SUs... but that is still a major monetary penalty
> for choosing EFI. I'd take a risk and assume the tester doesn't even know
> the difference between ZS an SU carbs.
/// email@example.com mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool