Re: [DML] Electromotive anyone? Yes.

["David Teitelbaum <jtrealty@xxxx>" <jtrealty@xxxx>]

There is another way. You could try to get one of the newer Bosch
systems that were in common usage in the late 80's early 90's.
Something with engine management and sequential fuel injection (like
the Motronic). Also consider what JZD was doing in the way of the
turbos. I think a combination of these strategies could be awesome and
still have the stock appearing PRV. Of course you would have to do
something with the intake and exhaust to improve breathing and you
would have to lower the compression and change the cam. I am just
guessing but you could probably get 50 HP and 50 ft/lbs torque without
much boost at all. None of this is going to come cheap though which is
why I suggest trying to use common parts that you could get off an old
donor car once you determine what that donor car should be.
David Teitelbaum
vin 10757


--- In dmcnews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Pete B <zamphyr2000@xxxx>"
<zamphyr2000@xxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the info Jen...
> 
> Actually my soon-to-be-inherited Baby is currently a dead vehicle, 
> with a history of heat and moisture related problems (Houston, Texas 
> you know...). I am used to 300HP+ V8's but I also think the concept 
> of the PRV is in the right place, they were just so far ahead of 
> their time that they couldnt get the correct parts (aka EFI in place 
> of MFI). It would be part of a major rebuild anyway, and why not 
> take what JZD did and try and improve on it a bit?
> 
> The reasons for the upgrade are:
> 
> 1) Modernization - I am a systems control engineer and think my 
> laptop can handle the fine tuning... I love optimizing systems and 
> trying to make the inconceviable actual.
> 
> 2) Power and Torque increase. The (pathetic) stock HP and torque are 
> substandard in my book. The silver streak should be able to back up 
> its looks with action. An EFI and ignition control system to replace 
> the ECU in the D is a significant improvement (read vacuum tube to 
> silicon transistor differential) that will allow for wide variations 
> in daily parameters to be compensated for. An automotive engine is 
> in reality a giant air pump. If you can optimize the work out by 
> enabling a greater unit of mass (air) through the system and 
> increasing the combustion efficency (chemical mass and energy in), 
> then the same piece of equipment can do much more. The D stock block 
> and heads are so well engineered, I dont believe engine swaps are 
> necessary, and turbos should only be used to eek out that extra after 
> the system is finely tuned....
> 
> 3) Fuel economy - $ - enough said...
> 
> 4) Pride... if I can take a car that was designed in the 70s, built 
> in the 80's died in the 90's and make it run better, faster and 
> stronger than it ever did, I would be pretty content with myself for 
> some time.
> 
> 5) the KISS principle - keep it simple, sucker... the fewer 
> mechanical parts in a vehicle, the less that can go wrong with it 
> from normal wear and tear. Replacing the mechanical parts with non-
> contact equivalents improves engine efficency, total vehicle weight 
> (tho only by an estimated 100 pounds) and eliminates many of the 
> common problems with the D.
> 
> My current plan is as follows:
> 
> a.) Strip engine out of car
> b.) Eliminate all archaic low efficency parts (MFI system, 
> Distributor, engine management system, failed electronics, and fuel 
> management system)
> c.) Install engineered more efficent throttle body and intake 
> manifold (from Hennessey, engineered by yours truely for optimal 
> flow) that is capable of Forced Air Induction (turbo or supercharger) 
> for future improvements.
> d.) Have the Stage I improvement installed from DMCH
> e.) Install TEC3 system and Fuel Management hardware
> f.) Tune (OK this one will honestly be the longest part) for use as a 
> daily driver...
> g.) Drive car....
> 
> OK I also have a little question... why would you not want to 
> optimize the PRV.. it is a genuinely awesome engineering marvel as 
> the block and concepts go. Theoretical maximum HP and torque should 
> be 125hp/L and 100ft-lb of torque per liter naturally aspirated. 
> Achieving 85-90% of that (instead of 50% the stock D came with) would 
> be a significnat improvement in my book.
> 
> In other words, I want a project car that will act as good as it 
> looks, but I recognize it will be a PROJECT!
> 
> Pete