Possibly, a dead horse ....Fuel injection

[oke]

Yes 

[98valk]

pancho
Yes, the throttle body fits directly on the modified manifold. The distance of the  holes on the manifold is precisely the same before and after the modification. A slight adjustment is dealt by the design of the adapters between the manifold and cylinder head.

I wanted to make it look like it would have been factory made. Of course if one takes a close look, it´s obvious it´s not. But at least it doesn´t look like it´s made of old sewer plumbing either.

There is lots of finishing to be done, but winters are for that. Last August it was a bit like doing  an emergency section in its birth. I wanted to have it on the road, and get ridden at least some kilometres.

looks very OEM. Looks great. most will not know the difference. 

[pancho]

pancho
Yes, the throttle body fits directly on the modified manifold. The distance of the  holes on the manifold is precisely the same before and after the modification. A slight adjustment is dealt by the design of the adapters between the manifold and cylinder head.

I wanted to make it look like it would have been factory made. Of course if one takes a close look, it´s obvious it´s not. But at least it doesn´t look like it´s made of old sewer plumbing either.

There is lots of finishing to be done, but winters are for that. Last August it was a bit like doing  an emergency section in its birth. I wanted to have it on the road, and get ridden at least some kilometres.

Any way you look at it, that is very nice work oke,,,  are all six of the adapters the same?


There is lots of finishing to be done, but winters are for that.

Yeah, I understand with the long winters in Finland, you boys come up with all kinds of things to keep yourselves occupied....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZS12RiBQ3o

[Toovalks]

Avanti... I haven't found the time to post the pics yet because I'm challenged at getting pics on this site. Any one who wants them, I will forward OKE's Emails ...just let me know. Maybee one of you can post them...  My email....  tgreer2001@gmail.com

[Toovalks]

Obviously , having read further down...(my bad)  some of you have seen the pictures. My offer still stands if any are interested.

Back on topic however... we seem to be focusing primarily on how much power  FI may add.  I know that my reasoning for starting down this road may not be motivation for many of you. (obviously)
 A couple things come to mind here OKE has done a beautiful job of implementing the method of using  off the shelf parts from the GL1800. He has done what I just realized was possible. He has solved the mechanical mysteries that I would have been facing. Ironically the adapter he made is almost identical to the one that my machinist is working on from My wood mockup. I'm still hoping OKE can supply me a cad drawing for the adapter (hint-hint) so my CNC guy doesn't charge me an arm and a leg to create the part. The 6 adapters between the manifold and the intake on the head are probably the key to making this all work. I really liked the air box solution Oke built as well. In all of our correspondence so far OKE has yet to mention or show pictures of any O2 sensors. Maybe that was in his future plans. I don't profess to know nearly as much as  the great minds on this site, but I believe that adding the O2 sensors to the work that has been done will  or should be step one in getting the A/F ratio toward the Ideal 14.5 or so.
 If that happens,with a programmable FI ECM then maybe the debate about performance goes away.

But back to other reasons to do this....( I have rebuilt  3 sets of Valkyrie carbs now..PITA) no more worry about hydrolock, Danmarcs, leaky petcocks,down hill sloping fuel lines, inline fuel filters, carb syncing,
clogged idle jets, functioning chokes,cold starts..... I know FI is more complex and has it's own set of problems , but there has to be a reason it has been adopted  so universally. I think "WE" have a gem here.....thanks for reading my late night rant.

I reiterate an earlier question. I'm not really familiar with the Valk exhaust system. Is there a collector area between the header pipes and the muffler area where the O2 sensor bung could be installed???

[RonW]

this is from my Valk library. Other members posted the photo and graphic.

[oke]

Thank You for your kind words, I enjoyed doing it. 

[pancho]

Here are Finn Oky's pictures,,

Before FI




I have thepictures out of their original order



















After dyno runs





Converter

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ivs=1&q=77+kilowatts+is+how+many+horsepower

[pancho]

I somehow managed to get the pictures out of the original order       but you can get the general idea.

The HP curve on the after dyno report looks like a different machine!!, not only 20 more HP, but the smoothness of the curve compared to the before....   if you believe what the charts say despite the discrepancy CA pointed out.

Interesting

[Icelander]

I'm concerned less with torque and HP if they're comparable to stock. what kind of mileage do you get with this setup? I'm more concerned with how many mile I can cover before I have to refill.

thanks!

Icelander

[98valk]

I don't profess to know nearly as much as  the great minds on this site, but I believe that adding the O2 sensors to the work that has been done will  or should be step one in getting the A/F ratio toward the Ideal 14.5 or so.
 

the only thing 14.7 A/F ratio is good for is EPA testing. IT is too rich (so the catalytic mufflers stays hot enough by burning raw fuel to be a few PPM cleaner) for best MPG and too lean for Max HP.  It is a lab number, and not for real world engines if one wants best mpg and power.

[pancho]

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/innovate-air-fuel-ratio-meter/

[oke]

Icelander
It never even came to my mind to check how thirsty the boy was. I just enjoyed the good ride and the feeling that  it was running well. And because we used a fuel outlet/inlet, that was meant for HD, there was no resev tank at all. So I had to fill him up often not to ran out of gas. I had no idea at all how much gas it used. And I still don´t know.
20181128_205330.jpg
20181128_203305.jpg

[oke]

Maybe I´m getting it. Photos of fuel tank and temporary lambda connection.

[JimC]

I can turn a wrench, have been doing it my whole life on hot rods and classic cars etc.
BUT some of you guys amaze me with your talents.

Jim

[RonW]

how true, and some years we even have time to wash the bike.

[Toovalks]

OKE ,...So I was wondering ??? did you use batch injection, if so ,was it side to side?? I assume that you did not add a cam position sensor. If you did, please tell me how. I was surprised to see that you must have put a 02 sensor bung in your front pipe??? was it a narrow band. I need to learn more about the Hestech ECU... was it expensive??... How did you go about getting the adapters made. My machine shop guy says that this first batch of 6 is going to cost me between $500 to $600 to cover the cost of creating the MASTERCAM file. Any info you have would be terrific...TG

[oke]

Hestec replyed:
 "Injectors are controlled as pairs. Injectors are fired at 360deg intervals. Because injection / ignition is controlled as pairs, you dont need cam sensor.  Hestec uses original crank sensor/trigger wheel.   It is possible to use external wideband lambda for hestec (0-5V input), and wideband is recommended for tuning. "

[indybobm]

If the fuel is injected in pairs, as in the spark, then fuel is being injected on the exhaust stroke 1/2 of the time. Would that not be detrimental to gas mileage and cylinder wear?

[oke]

Perhaps, if it was direct injection.

[Jersey]

Oke... based on your design, etc.   what would you say would be the total cost... approximately?

[indybobm]

Perhaps, if it was direct injection.

I guess that i am confused. Is'nt this direct injection? Injectors would normally be fired every 720 degrees of crankshaft rotation?

[dago mooserider]

I been peeping this thread because my carbs have piss me off several times. Um, could be just a really, really conservative Dyno but....did anyone notice 81 horsepower on the first sheet? That Valkyrie proly had something wrong with it B4 he went to injection. Lowest of the low is usually 85-90. Good running valks should be mid-90's

[98valk]

I been peeping this thread because my carbs have piss me off several times. Um, could be just a really, really conservative Dyno but....did anyone notice 81 horsepower on the first sheet? That Valkyrie proly had something wrong with it B4 he went to injection. Lowest of the low is usually 85-90. Good running valks should be mid-90's

its not SAE its in metric. see my post for conversions.

[Toovalks]

There are actually 6 injectors one above each cyl. It is a two throat Throttle body, but not TBI. Indybobm you are correct to a degree, however the intake valve is closed ...so this actually acts as an advantage because the fuel injected behind the closed valve vaporizes and actually has the benefit of very slightly cooling the head. As far as fuel waste you would think that it is wasteful ,however if you think of the fuel charge from a carburetor that is in droplets  sucked out of the jets flying down the intake manifold and then the intake valve slams shut... the heavier fuel keeps moving forward as the air pressure wave builds and rebounds. That fuel ends up coating the intake manifold briefly..... the same basic action with injected fuel.
 According to the people at DIY Autotune (megasquirt) true port sequential injection only really benefits fuel economy up to about 2k RPM.because  the fuel injector can only get just so much fuel past the intake valve before it closes... this is what 98valk was referring to about different cams...different Dwell times on intake. As the RPM increases. the valve closes increasingly before the injector shuts off.
At higher rpm Throttle body injection is just as economical. I you do the math on the  number of Milliseconds that the intake valve stays open at various RPMs you will see that the injector ,depending on size(lbs. of fuel) can't get total volume of fuel past the valve. The computer can adjust the fuel  to get the proper AFR into the cylinder including the remaining fuel from the previous charge.

On another note... does our trigger wheel have a short lobe or  perhaps wider or narrower gap between lobes??? how does it determine the position in the firing order??? I know this is basic but I have yet to break in to the front end or actually have my hands on one of our TW's. Thanks...TG

[indybobm]

Trigger Wheel

[oke]

Here, in periphery, we call fuel injection when the fuel is injected to the intake manifold. If the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder(like it is in diesel engine, and some gasoline engines) it is called direct injection. But there must be brothers who know this better.I could be totally wrong.

[indybobm]

I do not want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am NOT throwing mud at this. I think it is a well done project and shows great workmanship. I'm just trying to understand it all.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I do not want anyone to get the wrong idea, I am NOT throwing mud at this. I think it is a well done project and shows great workmanship. I'm just trying to understand it all.

I’m with you. I don’t understand how 2 shots of fuel for each cycle of a four stroke engine could be efficient at all. The terminology I’m familiar with in these regards is  “throttle body injection “ and “multi port injection “.

[oke]

indybobm and others
I was trying to be funny. Evidently I failed.
What comes to my understanding of fuel injection, it´s as much as anybodies who has opened a cars hood and seen one. That´s why, after I had finished with the mechanical modifications, I handed it over to professional and said "Make it run". I myself know very little about fuel injecting. It is so massive and complicated area, that I am not sure if I even want to know too much.
Also,my vocabulary in technical English isn´t very good.

[The emperor has no clothes]

indybobm and others
I was trying to be funny. Evidently I failed.
What comes to my understanding of fuel injection, it´s as much as anybodies who has opened a cars hood and seen one. That´s why, after I had finished with the mechanical modifications, I handed it over to professional and said "Make it run". I myself know very little about fuel injecting. It is so massive and complicated area, that I am not sure if I even want to know too much.
Also,my vocabulary in technical English isn´t very good.

as Bob has said, you’ve done good work .

[Avanti]

Do not forget that just because there is fuel waiting in the intake for the valve to open, does not mean it is wasted fuel.
Fuel can only be considered wasted if unburnt fuel enters the exhaust.
The air fuel ratio is monitored on the exhaust side and is adjusted accordingly on the intake side.

[RonW]

yeah, oke, good job! Doesn't the ECM momentarily shut off the injectors when you roll off the throttle  coasting to a stop to economize mpg / miles per liter?

[Toovalks]

 As Oke and others have said ... there are essentially 4 main types of FI. Oldest and simplest , Throttle body...works most like a carburetor. Injectors are fired at the head of the manifold,timed to batch fuel any cyl downstream on its intake stroke.
Multiport, injectors fired at the intake valve, timed usually in groups.(this is what we are  doing)
Sequential multiport FI , same as multiport, except that Injectors are fired as Intake valve for each cyl. opens. This requires ECU knowing the exact cam position.(we don't have a cam pos. sensor). The GL1800 does.
Finally, direct FI (just like Diesel), into the cyl.Most efficient.
 Avanti is right-on... even with a carb. there is still fuel in the air in the manifold headed toward the intake valve when it slams shut . That fuel ends up on the back of the valve till the next Intake stroke. The best thing about FI is the ability to meter the fuel "precisely",evenly , not using overlapping carb.circuits,averaging fuel charge based on RPM and vacuum. 
Each one of the Valks Cyls. pulls in 253.3 cc's  of fuel charged air on each stroke,If the volume of our manifold from the back of the slide to the Intake valve is 75 cc's...25% of the fuel is left behind in the manifold on each cycle.   This is a gross over simplification of course.

[oke]

RonW
The ECM can be adjusted as you wish. While coasting to a stop, ON or OFF, or anything between.
Usually rews over 2000 its off, and under 2000 then gradually comes on.

[VALKen]

I just obtained a 'carbless' Valk with the specific intention of adding Fuel Injection.

I started weighing up the options and came to the conclusion that with the same cylinder spacing, the GL1800 manifold and Throttle Body was the best starting point. Then I searched the forum for any information about injecting a Valk and so this is a VERY interesting thread to me.

How are the others of you who have done or are doing this handling the fuel pump etc? Early Honda systems use an external fuel pressure regulator (usually mounted on the Throttle Bodies) and hence 2 pipes connected to the tank (one flow and one return). But later ones use only a single pipe so the pump assembly has pressure regulation built-in. What's the thinking about this on an FI Valk?

What's the intake size on the Valk? How does that compare to the 1800 manifold? Same? Or does the adapter have to 'adapt' different diameters? If anyone's getting these made, I'd be after a set (or 2). Or is the idea to 3D print in plastic?

Regarding the power, there's no way a carb Valk made over 80 kW on the dyno. That's more than the standard 74 kW (Honda figure) and it's very low if only 80 odd hp, so those figures are somewhat suspect. However, although carb, the 1500 Wing uses a single central carb assembly and long runners to the heads, yet the only figures I can find state that it makes the same power with a significantly higher max. torque (at a lower rpm) than the Valk with its supposed superior 6 carb setup. Why was the Valk supposed to be the better performer? More torque at lower rpm sounds great to me.

[98valk]

However, although carb, the 1500 Wing uses a single central carb assembly and long runners to the heads,

the 1500 wing has two separate electronic carbs made to work like fuel injectors. each carb has its own intake manifold to that side engine bank. there is no connection btwn the left and right side intake manifolds.

[VALKen]

...the 1500 wing has two separate electronic carbs made to work like fuel injectors. each carb has its own intake manifold to that side engine bank. there is no connection btwn the left and right side intake manifolds.

Yes but that wasn't my point. There is a common belief that the Valk's 6 individual carbs closer to the head is better than one central assembly and long runners to the head, as per the 1500 Wing. However, the power and torque figures for the Wing are actually better than those of the Valk, so it seems to me that the choice of using the 1800's intake manifold with its central throttle body and long runners to the heads is actually quite a good one.

The fact that a relatively simple 'adjustment' of the 1800 manifold can line it up with the 1500's intake ports while still allowing the TB to fit is serendipitous in the extreme. 

So now looking for a complete 1800 manifold and TB assembly. Anyone?

[98valk]

...the 1500 wing has two separate electronic carbs made to work like fuel injectors. each carb has its own intake manifold to that side engine bank. there is no connection btwn the left and right side intake manifolds.

Yes but that wasn't my point. There is a common belief that the Valk's 6 individual carbs closer to the head is better than one central assembly and long runners to the head, as per the 1500 Wing. However, the power and torque figures for the Wing are actually better than those of the Valk, so it seems to me that the choice of using the 1800's intake manifold with its central throttle body and long runners to the heads is actually quite a good one.

The fact that a relatively simple 'adjustment' of the 1800 manifold can line it up with the 1500's intake ports while still allowing the TB to fit is serendipitous in the extreme. 

So now looking for a complete 1800 manifold and TB assembly. Anyone?

the 1500 valkyrie with its individual runner (IR) carb system makes more HP and lbfts than the 1500 wing.  an IR intake system will always make more power than a plenum manifold. An IR system is the closest system to a FI system without the expense. Pick up some books by David Vizard for some really good reads, esp this one https://www.amazon.com/Performance-Economy-David-Vizard/dp/0931472091/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?keywords=Performance+With+Economy+by+David+Vizard&qid=1557950684&s=books&sr=1-1-fkmr0

this is a website that is based on his work.

[Toovalks]

VALKen,toovalks here... You are correct . Oke has already gone down that road.  He chimed in months ago after I posted that I had discovered what you have. The 1800 manifold with minor modifications bolts right up to our Valks. The modification causes the throttle bodies to need to rotate in order to fit back on to the manifold (see Oke's pictures) the fact that this fits with the manifold halves offset, to mate up with the throttle bodies is a minor miracle.  I have Made adapters machined out of Aluminum  to mate to the Valkyrie. There is about 1 mm difference in diameter. Both the valk runner and the 1800  narrow in diameter as they approach the head. Oke also noted that the engine guard on top left , interferes slightly with the adapter on cyl.#2. I'm working to change the adapter design to mitigate this.
As to the fuel pump issue... the Gold wing pump was in the tank. The pressure regulator is on the end of the fuel rail has a vacuum line that must be attached on the underside of the throttle plate. The issue I have is the return line to the tank. It is easy to put a Walbro pump inline between our petcocks and the fuel rail  but inline pumps don't last as long as pumps cooled in the tank by the fuel. It would require a special fitting or a new bung installed in the tank to set up the return line. I believe that in order to eliminate the return line either the pump must run intermittently or there has to be an intank regulator that dumps fuel at any pressure above designed injector needs. I have designed a small pump tank to sit below the regular tank  but I haven't built one yet.
I originally set off on this journey because I Had an extra valk not on the road and I was struck by all of the carb problems and hydrolock horrors enumerated on this site.
I was hoping to do it economically and simply so that it could be easily duplicated by those that may be interested.
I want to take a slight exception to 98Valks comment... Individual Runners are the king in carbureted systems only, beating even throttle body EF injection(TBI) systems, when properly tuned.  It should be noted here that Honda had to heat the 1500 Wing manifolds in order to augment vaporization IE reduce potential pooling. We also should note that the cooler the fuel charge the more "power" can be derived from the same FR. Vaporization of fuel in the air stream does cause cooling ,slower velocity due to manifold volume causes condension...it's a delicate balance with Carbs or TBI.
 Multi port injection(MPI) is capable of more "power" and driveability   due to the ability to precisely control the  FR based on real time engine and atmospheric metrics.
We can't economically move to EFI on the Valk.  Without adding camshaft position sensing we must use
simple MPI batch injection which is less efficient than  sequential MPI.
Sooo... We may not be able to derive more  raw power than our short runner carbs but we should be able to improve driveability. Longevity may  be increased by using off the shelf components as well.