<VV> 4x1 4 carb engines

Wed Jan 11 23:18:12 EST 2012

Kevin, it is batch fire, but I believe all injectors fire continuously like
a older throttle body injection system.  I agree on the placement, however,
Craig Nicol says his 140 efi off the Fiero which has injectors pointed at
each valve, works quite well.  One problem is a rough idle, however, Craig
pinned that on the computer, he used a older 85 or 86 Fiero computer, a
couple of generations older technology wise, from mine, which seems to
control idle well.  Fiero guys are switching to my computer type because it
has better mapping for fuel control and distributerless ignition.  Mark
Durham

Sent from my Windows Phone
------------------------------
From: kevin nash
Sent: 1/11/2012 19:16
To: 62vair at gmail.com; virtualvairs at corvair.org
Subject: RE: <VV> 4x1 4 carb engines

  Mark- Just to be sure, the 92 Camaro is a batch triggered injection
system right? or is it sequential (timed) injection? however the injectors
the fired, it is good to mimic that with your injector placement
(sequential systems must be port injection, batch triggered may be port
injected, but have a rougher idle)- If I'm not mistaken, the system you are
going with will use four injectors, 2 firing simultanueously-correct? If
so, I think you will have less problems if the injectors are mounted in a
place where they wont be firing straight across from a wall- that is
to say, I think the four injectors might work better if they are not
mounted in the manifold log as the tendancy
for the fuel spray would be to hit the wall of the manifold (causing
needless fuel puddeling), any time the air flow within the manifold was
unusually slow-too tall of
gear with the throttle slammed open, for example. Perhaps a better injector
placement might be to mount the injectors at the throttle bodys, like you
were pondering.

The system that I'm going to be using is also a batch triggered system,
but the injectors are mounted at the top of each individual intake port,
and the injectors are
aimed to hit the backside of the intake valves- a really nice advantage
with this approach is that it helps keep the intake valves cooler and helps
control carbon build-up.
It will have a somewhat rougher idle than stock- but whatever, if all I
cared about was a smooth idle I wouldnt bother with the efi- it idles fine
with the yh!
Kevin Nash
63 spyder, daily driver, soon to be efi

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:39:44 -0800
Subject: Re: <VV> 4x1 4 carb engines
From: 62vair at gmail.com
To: wrokit at hotmail.com
CC: virtualvairs at corvair.org

Kevin, great information. I will go look. You are correct, when you widen
the venturi to that large, it tends to reduce the vacuum needed for fuel
flow at lower rpm's, hence the problems. My computer should compensate for
the amount of airflow to get the mixture correct.

I'm using the second generation GM computer, a 1223370, out of a 92 Camaro.
It has wide use in Pontiac Fiero upgrades. The Fiero runs a 2.8 V-6 motor,
and is within a couple hundred pounds of my Corvair, with similar
horsepower and torque curves,. This is a OBD-I, I think, no cam sensor, but
allows for a distributerless ignition system, and does use throttle
position, heated EGT, vehhicle speed, knock, Inlet Air temp, MAP as you
said, and coolant temp sensors, which Ted Brown figured out how to mimick
in his kits. I'm doing the same thing. It also uses a idle air
control. There is a fiero guy to programs the computer chips, I am going to
use. My DIS and IAC came off a Lumina.

I've got all of the theory worked out, and have taken suggestions from
different people on how to solve each of those sensor's needs for the
hotter runing Corvair based on their expereince, so, when done, I should
not have many issues??
 Thanks   Mark Durham
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM, kevin nash <wrokit at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 21:34:09 -0800
> From: Mark Durham <62vair at gmail.com>
> Subject: <VV> 4x1 4 carb engines
> To: Virtual Vairs <VirtualVairs at corvair.org>
> Message-ID:
>       <CAEEoEu6nPPGAjcTS_=+JTDr2T=LoAYLDEimquZz+La9+Xy6BtA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
 >
> Gents, I'm looking for people who have converted their engines to the 4
> carb using the 4X1 conversion kit, to get their expereince on the
> driveability of the engine and on how the linkage works.
>
> Has anyone done the kit and removed the progressive portion of the
linkage,
> so all 4 carbs come in together?  I believe Clarks mentions the
progressive
> as the better solution, however, I seem to remember an article back in the
> 60's that says non progressive works, too.The article on the 4X1 back in
> the late 60's I ran across somewhere but lost. Does anyone have a copy I
> could get? I think it speaks to this situation.
>
> The reason I am asking this question?  I am working on a EFI conversion
for
> the car. My original intention was to convert the two carbs to throttle
> bodies by boring out the venturi to the 1.25 bore at the throttle plate.
> This gives approxinately 17% more air.
>
> Another option is to add the 4X1 kit to double the air supply, so the
> engine can breath the best it can. I would then, add a fuel injector at
> each of the 4 throttle bodies. But in this scenario, each carb must open
at
> the same time so there would be appropriate fuel flow to the cylinders
from
> all four carbs. Alternatively, I could find a place to add the four
> injectors to the intake runner, rather than in the carb, as planned.
>
> Hence, my question, if anyone has a running a 4X1 without the progressive
> linkage. Or has anyone experimented with it and likes one over the other,
> and why.
>
> I know there are those who have commented that I should change out the
> heads to 140's and so forth. Some say that adding the extra carbs only
> burns more gas, and so on. There is no doubt that the 140 heads and bigger
> valves provide more breathability potential. My heads have been ported,
the
> chambers welded up and modified like a 140's, and the spark plug hole
moved
> closer to the exhaust valve. So, I think I have a good set of heads and
> will modify them to be the best they can be. I already am running 140
> manifolds and dual exhaust.
>
> I've read all of those remarks and we don't need to go over those items
> again. I've got all that data, and just need to fill in a few holes to see
> what will work well for my intended conversion.
>
> I've also started a thread on Corvair Forum asking for the same
information.
>
> In the mean time, I'm replacing upholstery side panels, rear and kick
> panels, tuxedo carpet, and seat covers this winter! I'm also adding a
three
> point shoulder/seat belt system in the car and adding seat belts to the
> rear seats.
>
> Should be a busy winter!
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Mark Durham
>
> 1962 Monza Coupe, Red/Red
> 64-110 engine, 4 speed
>
 Mark- I have not done this, however there was a post on fastvairs awhile
back (5-6months ago?)- the gist of itwas that the linkage worked well, but
at the carburetor throat size they were running (1.5 inches ), the throttle
responsewas poor, and was only of benefit for racing. Since you are going
to efi, you dont have to worry about low rpm throttleresponse because the
efi doesnt need any vacuum to run correctly. Therefore, you can run 4 1.5"
i.d. throttle bodyswithout the driveablility problems that you would have
on carburetors that size.Kevin Nash
  _______________________________________________
This message was sent by the VirtualVairs mailing list, all copyrights are
the property
of the writer, please attribute properly. For help, mailto:
vv-help at corvair.org
This list sponsored by the Corvair Society of America,
http://www.corvair.org/
Post messages to: VirtualVairs at corvair.org
Change your options: http://www.vv.corvair.org/mailman/options/virtualvairs
 _______________________________________________