hobbsy
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 12:43 PM |
|
|
Converting Blade 919 to Injection???
Has anyone done this.
I'm interesting in doing it to give better control throughout the rev range when doing forced induction later down the line.
From a quick look I've noticed that the Hornet 900 uses the 919 engine but with injection (but its down on power to 108bhp - not sure what is
responsible for the drop). See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2001/11/08/emfhorn08.xml
So would a Hornet 900 intake manifold etc be a straight fit on a 919 and would it be worthwhile.
Looking here:
http://www.mcnews.com.au/Riders/StevenFisher/2002_Hornet.htm
I see the Hornet system TB's are 36mm vs 40mm on the 929 injected blade.
So could I fit the 929 FI system to a 919 without too many headaches?
Although then reading here:
http://www.sportsbikeworld.co.uk/magazine/roadtests/fireblade-2002/2002_honda_fireblade.htm
They seem to be critical of the 929 FI system in a review of the 954 (saying its a huge improvement).
So if it can be made to fit physically without too much trouble there's controlling it all.
The last article slates the Mk1 Honda PGM-F1 system (which I assume you can piggy back on to with a Powercommander).
I'm not ruling out a full standalone engine management system but its obviously more money to outlay initially and in terms of mapping but
ultimately more flexible.
Any thoughts please.
(I'll start another thread later about supercharging the blade which is one possibility I'm considering)
|
|
|
|
|
rayward
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 01:14 PM |
|
|
wouldn't it be easier to pull the carb'd engine and replace it with an injected 954??
Ray
|
|
|
hobbsy
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 03:06 PM |
|
|
I knew I missed something from my original post....
I can see that it perhaps would be easier to fit a complete later injected engine, but the chassis mounts are different etc and generally the later
engines cost quite a lot more.
The idea is to use a 919, add injection then add some fairly serious forced induction and if it goes bang I can get another 919 for not very much
money.
Whereas if I go the late blade / R1 / busa route I won't have as much power or torque unless I spent quite a bit tuning it and if those engines
go bang they cost more to replace.
Also if I fancy some class C racing action in the future I could easily unbolt the injection and forced induction bits and slap the carbs back on and
I'm back to a standard 919.
How different are the later engines?
Some of them also haven't been fully "proven" in a BEC without dry sumping? By that I mean beasted with sticky tyres on a track
with a wet sump.
[Edited on 5/10/05 by hobbsy]
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 05:54 PM |
|
|
the 929 engine is very similar to the 919, so I would think that sump requirements should be the same as a 919, but the engine mounts are slightly
different I believe. As to the 954, thats totally different.
However, I think the 929 has a different head with different port spacing so you'd probably need to make up some custom collars to adapt those
TBs to the right spacing, I dont think they are a direct swapover.
Also, it will probably be a pain even if they fit, the 919 wont have the sensors required for the EFI (cam position sensor for example) so
you'll probably have a lot of work to get it all working with the OEM injected ECU.
Why not fit a 2002/3 injected R1? You get a much newer (and so probably lower mileage) engine for £1200 or so, and although its maybe £500 more than a
blade package overall it probably wont cost you any more by the time you've bought all the 929 injected bits and modified it all to fit / work,
and you start off with a more powerful and slightly stronger engine that will cope with forced induction better, and will be eligible for Class B RGB
from next season onwards if you decide to go racing.
Chris
|
|
|
colibriman
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 07:19 PM |
|
|
quote:
Also if I fancy some class C racing action in the future I could easily unbolt the injection and forced induction bits and slap the carbs back on and
I'm back to a standard 919.
but if you lower the compression ratio for the turbo, what would it run like without it? would it still go ok?
need a bike engine? - www.colibriman.com
SVA ready Mk Indyblade possibly for sale.....if the offers good...!
|
NOTE:This user is registered as a LocostBuilders trader and may offer commercial services to other users
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
Good point, apart from anything else it would be illegal in the RGB as you're not allowed to change compression etc
Also its easier said than done going from forced EFI back to carbs, its not just a case of disconnecting the efi kit and bolting on the carbs.
You'd also need a total loom change back to the carb loom, obviously manifold change if turboing or changing back water pumps etc if using a
supercharger. Also the entire fuel system will need changing from injection pump back to a low pressure carb pump, plus probably some other bits that
we cant think of at the mo
|
|
|
hobbsy
|
| posted on 5/10/05 at 09:13 PM |
|
|
Ok so I oversimplified the conversion back to carbs.
I was looking for an R1 car originally but there aren't that many around.
I'm not sure that the R1 is stronger than a Fireblade. I have a friend who knows a lot about bikes and he said that the R1 internals are
fragile compared to the (relatively) bulletproof blade.
Obviously you'd have to drop the CR if using anything more than a few psi and it would be a pain to change it. You wouldn't try and be
competitive with a lower CR back on a standard engine as you'd loose a fair bit of power.
People have had quite good success with small turbos and carbs but I just prefer injection as you get pretty much total control. And I understand FI
very well whereas carbs are still a bit of a black art to me (I have a decent book on order  ).
What can be done with the ignition timing on a standard 919? As if I stick with carbs and accept the fuelling won't be perfect everywhere it
would be nice to sort the ignition as large gains can be made in driveability and power. Especially if dropping the CR.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 6/10/05 at 07:24 PM |
|
|
I would half agree, the R1 engine internals are probably a little lighter and weaker than the blade. However, by far the most common problem with the
engines in BECs are gearbox and clutch related, and from that point of view I think the R1 trumps the blade. The clutch on the R1 is probably 50%
bigger and the gearboxes seem to stand up to BEC abuse with less reported issues than the blades, which quite commonly round off dogs, bend selector
forks and chip notches out of their selector drums.
Im not sure there's a huge amount you can do with the ignition on the stock ECU, although I think you can get ignition retarders that might be
worth playing around with as they supposedly do improve things a little.
Chris
|
|
|
