Breaking the Silence
 

We've had a busy year and developing the FR-S project took a little longer than we hoped but that doesn't mean we haven't been making progess...

We're finally at a point where we have some good solid development work behind us and are ready to start putting some products out. After a year of prototypes, testing, and final revisions we are finally ready to put our hard work on the market. To help us continue our development of this platform we are now up and running with the new MoTeC M142 ecu which we will be using to extensively analyze our own products as well as any that we happen to use along the way.

We will shortly be offering our turbo kit, a direct injection delete kit, a front and rear Stoptech big brake package, and more. We will have some major updates shortly but in the meantime I just wanted to get back on the forums and make sure you all haven't forgotten about us ;)... A few teasers below to hold you over for the release threads...

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...Stoptech-1.jpg

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...urboKitEFR.jpg

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...lasko/FR-S.jpg

Rendering of the HPFP block off for our direct injection delete kit:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/029...g?v=1426647572

MoTeC M1 knock control testing:
https://scontent-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hp...84516306_o.jpg

Well that HPFP delete kit is one way to silence the crickets for good. LOL

Why would you want to delete the direct injection in the first place? Unless its just for tuning ease for your Motec system.

Doesn't make much sense. Motec's M1 should be fully FT86 compatible and seeing as the DI provides way more of the fuel than the stock PI and with the added knock resistance it gives, why remove it?

The only advantage I see is if you're building a beast of an engine where you won't know how they'll hold up.

Did you see the intercooler? I'm guessing their building that beast.

Why delete DI?

Dont mean to be "That Guy", but it doesn't seem that you guys have done the proper testing and research based on the products that you plan to bring to the market. Deleting the direct injection without offering a piston upgrade leads me to believe that you haven't looked into how doing so affects the way the factory DI piston design reacts to the extra heat. There is no problem with deleting the direct injection (though I dont see the reason for this other than tuners lack of ability), but doing so while utilizing the stock piston design will lead to a failure.

When I get back from the office ill point out some of the things that happen on a 2ur(ISF Engine) Piston when the direct injection is deleted and the heating/cooling dynamics change in the combustion chamber.

Very pleased to see a shop based in North Carolina supporting our platform! I'm looking forward to more formal announcements and details.

Awesome stuff. The advantage I see of deleting DI is simplicity. K.I.S.S.

This is why I rarely post on the forums. No offense but by doing the "proper testing and research" I assume in your case you mean reading a bunch of stuff on the internet? There is no reason to call someone out that is doing nothing but trying to help the platform by doing actual research because you read something.

When we talk about research we mean buying a brand new FR-S as soon as they are released, driving it straight from the dealership to our in house dyno. We had the car tuned on BRZEdit before it had 25 miles on it. From there we drove it just long enough to be bored and know the tune was safe. We went ahead and pulled the motor to get some hands on experience, we were going to need a clutch anyway.

While it was out the stories of failing DI pumps and injector seals started popping up left and right. Rather than waiting for a problem I figured I'd go ahead and find a solution just in case. We pulled the heads off and measured for a complete direct injection delete kit if it came to that.

When you look at the combustion side of the direct injector when installed in the head you will notice a lot of small sharp edges exposed. We were able to machine the injector blank to fill the dead space between those sharp edges effectively "softening" the combustion chamber.

We went ahead and put it all back together bone stock for testing purposes despite being so close to being able to build the motor. From there we started on our turbo kit, fan shrouds, catch can, and more.

When we got it back up and running we tuned it again on BRZEdit and the stock DI setup, we have also used ECUTek just for comparisons sake, and now run MoTeC just for it's extensive capabilities.

We were actually able to make more power, and run more timing WITHOUT the DI which even we were surprised about but after seeing the combustion chamber I understand why. It's very evident with MoTeC's knock monitoring that it's a safer combustion environment with the DI removed completely. We have actual data with each cylinder's knock level measured on four adjustable frequencies.

You're talking about a modification that takes away dozens of points of failure (some catastrophic), makes the car simpler, more powerful, lighter, more reliable, easier to work on, easier to tune...

Keep in mind I'm not saying all DI is bad, I am in the middle of building a DI flow bench to provide DI pump and injector data for aftermarket ECU's capable of driving them. I have tuned multiple direct injection vehicles including many FA20 vehicles, and I intend to continue DI testing even on the FA20, but the simple truth is this particular DI system as it comes from the factory just isn't worth it's weight.

He was being abrasive but you have to understand the skepticism. Another part of research is vetting sources. Obviously there are better ways than being rude, though. The benefits of DI are well known and the idea of Toyota/Subaru designing a CC that's reportedly very good, but failing to smooth those edges to prevent hot spots is surprising. Im sure you were surprised at first as well. Thank you for sharing you findings with us, I can't wait to see your release posts and hopefully some before and after results.

Is there any application where you would say keeping the DI would be better on this car?

Is there any possibility of keeping the DI but smoothing the CC? Possibly adding material to the head and then machining the area to better fit the injector?

Did you notice any significant change in milage without the DI?

I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say I'd love to see pics of what you talking about.

What kind of power are you looking to make?

Lol no. Considering the ISF guys have been there and done that, I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm still not home so I can't just grab a piston from one of my 2ur's to show you where the piston is going to overheat so let me find something readily available on the Internet.

Sorry if you took it the wrong way, but the issue has already been funded, researched, and overcome.

Consider their definition of good is mostly in regards to emissions. Performance wise the FA20 is way behind the times. 2.0l engines have been making way more power without DI, or variable cams for years even straight from the factory.

At this point no but like I said we will continue developing the DI and with the MoTeC controlling it we can do some potentially interesting things with it so I may have to go back on this one.

This is definitely possible but at that point personally I would build the motor with some custom non DI pistons.

We didn't see any measurable difference in fuel economy. I've attached a picture (not mine I just circled what I'm talking about).

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/.../FA20%20DI.jpg

When you see all these new technologies keep in mind they aren't optimized for performance, they are optimized for; cost, emissions, and fuel economy, generally in that order.

I think the IS-F is a completely different setup. You're not comparing apples to apples and you have done zero research on the DI/PI hybrid system on the FA20.

You're opinion isn't worth much. Do the same research as the OP and come back and refute their findings, otherwise move along and stop vendor bashing.

I'm not vendor bashing and you apparently have no idea what your talking about. The op was right on when he responded about the sharp edges and dead spot caused by removing the Direct Injector. It's evident that the op has done research and good development with the plug. That said, my comments are focused on how the piston is affected when this is done and just what was done to get around the design of the piston. Max Orido failed and it took my team a bit to figure it out, so if the op has been able to run the setup under race conditions without failure I give him all the props in the world and would love to know just why it works.

Factory piston from my ISF

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2835/9...0df7c8e3_c.jpg

Factory piston from a Fa20 on the left.
http://www.revvolution.com/image/alb...jpg?layout=980

The piston designs are very similar. Problem we were having was that after the head work the piston was still getting extremely hot and failing In the same spot that Orido was


I'll exit the thread here because I'm not looking to hurt anyone's business or attack anyone. I'm just interested in how the op got around the issues that come with DI removal.

Sent from my phone so sorry for any typos

Don't discount anyones work before you've even seen what research has been done next time.:)

I want to point out something I may have not made obvious. DO NOT run the stock DI system and just turn the injectors off. That is what Max did when he had failures with his drift car and it would be the same case in the FA20. If you leave the stock DI injectors in you MUST run at least some volume of fuel through them.

It's also worth noting that the stock piston is obviously designed to run a DI injector and of course I would recommend an aftermarket piston properly designed for the application.

Pistons melt from prolonged knock or pre-detonation not because they aren't being sprayed with fuel. Granted the stock piston has a lot of hot spots that will make a potential knock scenario worse but they are present with or without the DI.

Interesting!

So this was your test:

Motec + DI = more knock prone
Motec + DI deleted = less knock prone

Or was it:

Stock ECU + DI = more knock prone
Motec + DI deleted = less knock prone

I really like this thread. Please keep up the great work team, I look forwarding to seeing your products on the market.

Please don't exit the thread. You extracted a lot of information already from OP that we wouldn't have otherwise gotten. I'm not educated enough to be able to challenge OP into sharing information that we all of course want, so we need people like you.

And thanks to Carolina Dyno for sharing your findings. I love reading responses to challenges, such as the ones above. We all learn.

Or at least I do.

I don'r understand the fuss some are making. From what I've read, when going full out with a FI system (built motor level) it's pretty much standard procedure to lower the compression (piston replacement ), dramatically increase the injector capacity and delete the DI system. The OP's company just developed a kit to do that for the twins.
I thought replacing the pistons went without saying.

How's the area under the curve of this motor compared to other high output 2.0Ls? Do you feel that the FA20's combustion chamber is the biggest hurdle in the quest for power, or are the head ports and manifolds what's holding back this motor?

Forgive me, but that looks like it could be fixed with a file and a few seconds if the heads were already out. Will your DI delete kit require the heads be removed?

Agreed
if the sharp edges in the chamber are such a problem did you try some heads with everything smoothed out?

also does the standard head gasket leave any voids/ places for dead gas to sit? As it looks like the gasket impression is a way off the valves and edge of the chamber

If we're honest it's pretty bad, compare it to any Honda motor and it's down on power by a huge margin BUT it does have a lot of potential. The intake ports are huge and don't need a whole lot of work, the exhaust ports are ok at best but can be improved. IMO the combustion chamber isn't great, the piston is terrible, the crankcase evacuation is poor, and the cams are awful. That said the valvetrain is great and the engine architecture is excellent. The platform will come a long way but it's going to take some new parts.

No you will not need to remove the heads, we only did so for the design of the part. Our kit is installed just like a standard pump and injector R&R.

You could file those spots down but at that point I personally would just weld it up, smooth it out, and put a non DI piston in it.

I will but I have to test these first believe me I would have loved to build the whole thing right from "go" :burnrubber:

It looks like that but in reality it's fine and it's a super thin head gasket, I can see why some people have had issues although ours was fine and we haven't seen any failures locally yet.

the reason for asking was I note Cosworth sell these

http://www.karperformance.com/Produc...jc=&ProId=NTQ0

which come right up to the edge of the chamber, do you think there's any benefit to this?

In for updates! Which efr is that?

I would say it's probably marginal at best, that said when we do built the engine we will likely be using those gaskets.

It's the EFR 7670 with the T4 divided externally gated housing.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I'm not so active on this forum these days. If the logic is, "this DI system wasn't optimized for a turbo, it's easier to just get rid of it when you go that route if you can control knock" then I agree with that. If you're arguing for deleting the DI on any but the most extremely modified n/a applications I just don't agree with that. This combustion system was designed for n/a operation.

A few points:

1) if you've got a boosted engine with something suppressing knock (straight E85 for example), the DI is probably superfluous at best and a liability at worst.

There's a lot of mixing and wall wetting problems avoided by just getting rid of it.

2) Whatever this other person who turned off the DI in the ISF did, we don't know what injection timing he was running on the PFI injectors. If that was more optimized his problem could have potentially been avoided.

3) Toyota already has a turbo DI version of D-4S in production. It's in the Lexus NX. It's significantly different from this engine.

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/attac...1&d=1427818908


4) Knock limit is mostly opinion, unless you can hear the engine rattling with the naked ear. Then it's self-evident.

You would need to provide details on how you set your center frequency, gains, and other filtering parameters. "It knocked less because Motec said so." With the stock ECU you are trusting the decisions of whoever set the signal processing at Subaru, but now with an aftermarket system it's just guesswork at best.

any update?

Sounds like silence to me.

Those exhaust ports on that DI system :wub:

that'll be for an integrated exhaust manifold so the turbo bolts directly to the head

Interesting

What's next Fuel injection delete for those that want to go Carburetor?!?!?


Deleting the Direct injection doesn't serve any practical purpose (other than allowing for easier tuning for those tuners who fail to understand how to tune Direct Injection).

ABSURD!!

You mean like when fuel injection first came out and the best thing to do for power, reliability, and racing was to swap a carb back on?

I assume you think I did this because I don't know how to tune a DI car, but that's far from the truth. I initially tuned this car with the factory ECU and DI. I then replaced the factory ECU with a MoTeC M142 for development purposes and data collection. I then tested with and without the DI extensively. I have written custom firmware to control DI cars on the M1 platform so not only do I understand the tuning I understand the fundamental operation down to the actual fueling calculations and I/O logic. I even wrote extra maps and control strategies for the DI just to give it every chance.

When you say deleting the DI serves no practical purpose I have to laugh, here's a few you can't even debate.

1) Weight reduction: In a serious race effort weight is hugely important, the lightest cars out there don't get that way by removing one 500lb object, they remove hundreds of objects that weigh a couple ounces. This system is actually pretty heavy considering.

2) Reliability: Sure if everything is perfect the DI can work perfectly fine and we have plenty of customers running it with no issue. On the other hand removing the system removes no less than 10 potential points of failure, two of which are some of the most common track failures hands down. Long term getting rid of the DI will help reduce cylinder wall wetting, ring wear, and damage to the bore surface.

3) Parasitic Loss & Cams: Removing the DI directly takes parasitic load off the cam, reduces chain stretch & wear, eliminates cam timing errors, etc. It also opens up the potential for custom cams from a variety of manufactures that otherwise wouldn't touch the platform.

4) RPM: For guys planning serious builds that want more RPM out of the motor the piston style DI pump is a major issue, I shouldn't even have to go into detail about why.

Our car with the current turbo setup made more power without the DI than with it and was less prone to knock even with more timing. Results below.

Graph of knock, timing, and load for DI/PI.
http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...lasko/PI_1.jpg

Graph of knock, timing, and load for PI only (note overall timing is 1 degree higher with less knock).
http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...lasko/PI_2.jpg


Here's the resulting difference in power, as you can see the main advantage to DI was a knock deterrent at low RPM which is expected.
http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...asko/Power.jpg


A small glimpse into the actual firmware controlling the DI/PI that we developed for a BMW race car. Keep in mind on this car we did the exact same DI vs PI test on this car and determined the DI was extremely beneficial to this application. The major difference in the two systems was the HPFP and the DI spray pattern. The N54 in this BMW makes 600whp on the DI alone and close to 700whp with just enough PI to keep the DI pump from losing pressure.

http://i1185.photobucket.com/albums/...el%20Calcs.jpg


Video of the above car:
https://www.facebook.com/salaskoraci...40922/?theater

Forums like this are in a sad state, everyone wants to knock someone down despite having absolutely no experience in the field. Next time you post consider whether you are helping the community or just being a jackass to make yourself feel cool.

If you actually want to educate yourself on the topic there are numerous SAE papers that discuss in depth the pro's and con's of DI fuel systems in various applications.

You should really break the silence more often.

I was lead to believe that the valves were long enough that if any extra lobe was added it would run some serious interferances. Please tell me the interferance is from the DI injectors instead rather than the actual cams (I was heart broken when i talked to kelford cams about this).

Cutting edge! I would love to see what comes of this in the end.

Weight reduction... in this case, i can think of lots of things that aren't necessary.. like glass, doors, hood, trunks, lets start drilling holes in sh!t while we are at it too...

This is a ridiculous point

reliability The reliability issue argument can be made by just about every system on the car. The bases for your arguement was defeated by yourself. "Lets remove DI so we have ten less points of failure, but add F/I which adds a multitude more "points of failure."

parasitic loss.. well this "would" be a valid argument if there were specific requirements for your class that allowed removale of this system to free up horsepower but didn't allow much other forms of adding power. otherwise this is ridiculous. Direct injection paired with port injection has far more benefits than detriments. burn efficiency and combustion chamber temps are two big ones that come to mind.

RPM.. This isn't a direct injection issue as much as it is equipment issue. If we can tune these cars ti fire multiple pulses of fuel with in the micro seconds of a single stroke at 7krpm I'm sure it can handle single pulses at 9k rpm just fine. F1 cars use Direct Inject at 15,000 RPMs... yes thats right .. Fifteen thousand rotations per minute.. http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/d...injection.html

But i will digress, you are here to sell a product and if you can provide information to the extent that someone benefits from your product go ahead. There was a time like you said when people though EFI was shit and ripped it off for Carbs. Same goes for turbos, superchargers etc. The reality is we as humans are resistant to change and until direct injection has been around 15 - 20 years and gains the acceptance of the aftermarket it will be treated like a bastard child by those who don't understand it.


So when can we expext a carb intake manifold with EFI/DI delete kits included? We'll also need a new peddle and throttle cable unless you plan to release a drive by wire carburetor.