284 replies to this topic

[BlackT5]

Captain Bondo, on 12 January 2010 - 05:37 AM, said:

I wonder how the coil on plug will work - I guess it will use some spare outputs on the Me4 ECU and you'll have to wire them to ignitors or something. Doesn't seem like it would be straightforward to me...

There's a guy in Sweden? offering to convert 4.3/4.4 ECUS to have 5 COP outputs.

http://translate.goo...p?f=66&t=224518

[lookforjoe]

BlackT5, on 17 January 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

There's a guy in Sweden? offering to convert 4.3/4.4 ECUS to have 5 COP outputs.

http://translate.goo...p?f=66&t=224518

That's cool. TurboTuner will have built-in COP support soon (this spring he says)


EDIT - wonder where you can buy this circuit board, or if he's fabricating them himself/....

[Captain Bondo]

[quote name='lookforjoe' date='16 January 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1263695132' post='1712598']
That's cool. TurboTuner will have built-in COP support soon (this spring he says)


[/quote]


Yeah we were discussing this withing the context of Turbotuner and how it might be handled hardware-wise


[quote]
EDIT - wonder where you can buy this circuit board, or if he's fabricating them himself/....
[/quote]



His name is Jorgen G. and the circuit board says "JG Ignition" on it so I am guessing he makes them himself and is probably the only source for them.

Pretty slick!




[/quote]

[Johann]

BlackT5, on 17 January 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

There's a guy in Sweden? offering to convert 4.3/4.4 ECUS to have 5 COP outputs.

http://translate.goo...p?f=66&t=224518

It's appears it has lots of ups an no downs..

[lookforjoe]

Johann, on 17 January 2010 - 05:49 PM, said:

It's appears it has lots of ups an no downs..

What does that mean?

Captain Bondo, on 17 January 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Yeah we were discussing this withing the context of Turbotuner and how it might be handled hardware-wise

His name is Jorgen G. and the circuit board says "JG Ignition" on it so I am guessing he makes them himself and is probably the only source for them.

Pretty slick!

I tried to join that forum to ask about it - couldn't get past the anti-spam registration code

[Johann]

lookforjoe, on 17 January 2010 - 06:43 PM, said:

What does that mean?

Did you read that thread?

[lookforjoe]

Johann, on 17 January 2010 - 07:08 PM, said:

Did you read that thread?

Yes, I didn't know what you meant!

I assume you mean the mod has only positive effect.

[BlackT5]

I think he was referring to the fact that almost every post says "UP" because of the guy bumping his thread

[lookforjoe]

BlackT5, on 18 January 2010 - 03:18 PM, said:

I think he was referring to the fact that almost every post says "UP" because of the guy bumping his thread

Duh.

Anyway, conversed with Adam @ TT about this - the TT incorporation of COP features will also include VVT control - seems like a more complete solution for both later engines & earlier cars that want to run later VVT heads

[Ipd]

The circuit board in question isn't purpose built from what I can tell, meaning you can't just find it off the shelf ready to go.

However the idea is easy enough...

Use a microcontroller to grab the RPM and CAM signal, some internal code to determine when #1 comes around, then distribute the primary ignition signal out according to the firing order to the remaining 4 coils.
Since the OE Volvo coils have built in power transistors you don't need much beyond a line buffer to keep the signal clean.
So total parts cost is likely under $20 for DIY or $60 for a PLC (BasicStamp or similar) that you can just code and go.

Point being, not too tough. Although given the moderately high failure rate of OE coils maybe use something aftermarket from MSD or otherwise.
I have HD coils in the works for coil on plug cars, test samples shipping later this week. So maybe that would make it more attractive.

[randomdude]

dang lucky, you have all kinds of irons in the fire lol. are they going to have increased output or anything?

[Ipd]

Dat's the idea. Iz gonna be like lightning bolts in the cylinderZzz

Actually since the coils have the power transistors integrated we can increase the primary current draw and spec a heavier duty PT to account for the load which provides much better spark, all without adding any appreciable load that might otherwise wear out components prematurely.

[lookforjoe]

Ipd - Lucky, on 18 January 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

The circuit board in question isn't purpose built from what I can tell, meaning you can't just find it off the shelf ready to go.

However the idea is easy enough...

Use a microcontroller to grab the RPM and CAM signal, some internal code to determine when #1 comes around, then distribute the primary ignition signal out according to the firing order to the remaining 4 coils.
Since the OE Volvo coils have built in power transistors you don't need much beyond a line buffer to keep the signal clean.
So total parts cost is likely under $20 for DIY or $60 for a PLC (BasicStamp or similar) that you can just code and go.

Point being, not too tough. Although given the moderately high failure rate of OE coils maybe use something aftermarket from MSD or otherwise.
I have HD coils in the works for coil on plug cars, test samples shipping later this week. So maybe that would make it more attractive.

Not too tough, if you have the electronics skills! I could certainly build such a thing with a schematic, but I sure as heck couldn't design it!

Ipd - Lucky, on 18 January 2010 - 09:46 PM, said:

Dat's the idea. Iz gonna be like lightning bolts in the cylinderZzz

Actually since the coils have the power transistors integrated we can increase the primary current draw and spec a heavier duty PT to account for the load which provides much better spark, all without adding any appreciable load that might otherwise wear out components prematurely.

sounds interesting.... need someone to test em?

[wizzard_al]

As a note for those who want to use later engines/heads, and have heard that NA cams give better power due to more lift, there are a few problems. VADIS says that solid lifter heads started in 2000. Turbo engines then had VVT on exhaust, as noted in a post above. Also, at the same time, Volvo changed from type 55 NA engine to type 61 NA engine (type is the 6th and 7th digit of the VIN). According to VADIS, type 61 NA engines ALL had VVT on the intake cams. So there is apparently no solid lifter intake cam that would fit any engine that was a solid lifer turbo engine from 2000 and later, without making some modifications to allow the cam to fit, except for dual VVT heads from 2003 or later.

But there's more!
Take, for example, my '01 S60 T5 (B5234T3), I could get an exhaust cam from the later NA type 64 engine (available in 2003 or later), but I found out I would NOT get more lift (9.05 mm lift on my exhaust cam, 8.80 mm on the NA VVT cam!), and would be unable to use a type 64 NA intake cam for my car (anyway, going from lift of 8.40 mm to 8.65 mm is not a huge jump.) Unless I could get the earlier style type 55 NA engine hydraulic cam to work with my engine, a task I have doubts about undertaking. Thought of several possibilities that might make any conversion simply too hard, including different lengths of valves or springs, different thickness of tappets betweeen hydraulic and solid lifters, etc. VADIS was valuable for checking that out. turns out I was wrong on all of my ideas, and the answers are much simpler.

Hydraulic Lifters
1999 B5244 NA
Intake valve length and lift
104.05mm + or - .2mm 8.65mm lift
Exhaust valve length and lift
103.30mm + or - .3mm 8.80mm lift
1999 B5234T3 Turbo
Intake valve length and lift
104.05mm + or - .2mm 7.95mm lift
Exhaust valve length and lift
103.30mm + or - .3mm 7.95mm lift
spring length for both 43.3mm + 1.5mm or - .5mm

Solid Lifters
2001 B5244 NA
Intake valve length and lift
104.25mm + or - .25 mm 8.65mm lift
Exhaust valve length and lift
103.30mm + or - .25mm 8.80mm lift
2001 B5234T3 turbo
Intake valve length and lift
104.25mm + or - .25 mm 8.40mm lift
Exhaust valve length and lift
103.30mm + or - .25mm 9.05mm lift
spring length for both 45.1mm + 1.5mm or - .5mm

NOTE: B5244T3 engines had 8.45mm lift on the intake! (LPT from 2001-2003)

Results, the valves are virtually identical in length. The springs are even shorter on hydraulic cam engines. Neither theory worked there, either.

These results imply to me that the supposed dramatic gains in performance from using a NA cam on our engines is not likely to be very important on 2001 and later engines, and even then, only on the intake cam. For earlier engines, there is .7mm to .85 mm more lift on a NA cam, which is likely to show up in your performance.

The reason for a VVT head is to get the ability to phase the cams for better low end torque, better emissions, and then better high end power, by varying what is known as the LSA (Lobe Separation Angle). The V8 crowd watches this closely, because it means the difference between high end power and poor idle, or good idle and mid-range, but mediocre top end power. Only lately are Detroit Iron getting with it for VVT cams.

The only option for me to get a better intake cam is to get a cam from a B5244T3, or a head from a later engine with dual VVT, and then try to figure out how to control the intake VVT with my ME7.x system. If iPD doesn't allow that to be done (unlikely they could add that functionality), then I'd have to wait for TurboTuner to release a system for the ME7.x cars, and see if I could wire the system to the additional intake VVT cam. Somehow, it doesn't seem worth the effort for .25mm of extra intake cam lift.

[austenw]

My S60 5 cyl 2.0 T VVT head just made some good numbers

Using 4mm larger valves (35mm inlet 31mm exhaust) with 6mm stems, solid lifters

240cfm @ 0.5 inch lift

240CFM @ 25 inches is very good (the head haas a peak flow of 267.8CFM?). It means the engine has the potential to make around 65 BHP per cylinder NASP - 325 BHP in total. That doesn't mean I will achieve that power - I need to get a lot of other things right and I need some extreme engine speed.

[lookforjoe]

austenw, on 20 January 2010 - 04:28 PM, said:

My S60 5 cyl 2.0 T VVT head just made some good numbers

Using 4mm larger valves (35mm inlet 31mm exhaust) with 6mm stems, solid lifters

240cfm @ 0.5 inch lift

240CFM @ 25 inches is very good (the head haas a peak flow of 267.8CFM?). It means the engine has the potential to make around 65 BHP per cylinder NASP - 325 BHP in total. That doesn't mean I will achieve that power - I need to get a lot of other things right and I need some extreme engine speed.

I guess 320BHP isn't too shabby for a 2.0l. But, I'd have thought higher?.... 2.3L w/old style heads can make over 400BHP.....

[Hanks]

Hes talking about an NA engine.

[BlackT5]

Exactly

Good data thouugh

I'm not sure what year motor this is, but it's using 34mm intake and 30.5 ex valves and flows 290cfm/260cfm with 28". I don't know the lift of what cams they are, maybe cat cams?

Looks like maybe there was only VVT on the intake side?















/engine porn

[lookforjoe]

Hanks, on 20 January 2010 - 05:05 PM, said:

Hes talking about an NA engine.

BlackT5, on 20 January 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

I believe that is without a turbo

ahhh..... is very nice, then

[austenw]

lookforjoe, on 20 January 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

ahhh..... is very nice, then

Yes I'm running my engine N/A

I'm amazed by the flow figures of the head above

My head is exactly the same running larger valves with a flow coefficient of 0.62 which is about at its max for an OEM casting

The British touring car head was 0.67 efficiency with a £15'000 custom head, that ran 325bhp at 8500rpm

I'm amazed you managed 290cfm with smaller valves than me, 50cfm is a huge difference for the same head at similar pressures

Can you post up flow results