# USRT CIS ITB Teaser



## jettred3 (Aug 5, 2005)

ITBs on CIS engine management from [email protected] on Vimeo.


----------



## jettred3 (Aug 5, 2005)

[No message]


----------



## antichristonwheels (Jun 14, 2001)

photoshop poser...


----------



## hantonyc (Sep 27, 2010)

cool ! but the question im sure everyone is asking themself... why?


----------



## ps2375 (Aug 13, 2003)

hantonyc said:


> cool ! but the question im sure everyone is asking themself... why?


And is it any better than the stock setup? Still going thru the CIS metering plate and seems to have a plenum (although it is before the throttles)....benefits?

I wonder if you can run bigger cams and not upset the CIS? That would be a nice benefit.


----------



## DjBij099 (Jul 21, 2003)

Will be watching this


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

What throttles were used?
What gains are expected?
Do you still get the throttle response benefits with the runners being after the throttles?
What was the reason for the throttle placement?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

antichristonwheels said:


> photoshop poser...


LOLOLOL :beer: :laugh:



Sycoticmynd29 said:


> What throttles were used?
> What gains are expected?


These are Extrudabody throttle units and we started with no expectations. In fact, we weren't even sure if we could make the car drivable. Good news is that it RIPS. The torque curve is more like a "torque flat". With such long intake runners, the torque comes on linearly from low rpms all the way up to redline. Are we about to release dyno numbers? No, we're not. We haven't gotten there yet.



> Do you still get the throttle response benefits with the runners being after the throttles?


We had concerns about air flow changes being too fast for the CIS air flow metering plate to keep up. So, for that and packaging reasons, the throttles were positioned as they are. They fit nicely, we got to retain the lower manifold section (which guarantees injector alignment and such), and the archaic engine management is left happy with life. Throttle response is nice and sharp.

Is this a product that's ready to market? No, it's a proof of concept. ITBs can run perfectly well on CIS engine management. If USRT had more working capital to throw around, we'd have gotten to this point 5 years ago or more. Give us enough time, though, and we'll crank some interesting stuff out. eace:


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

Are you working towards ITB's on any other OEM management?

I feel like if you were to use a plenum, the only real challenge would be the TPS and tuning for the improvements.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> Are you working towards ITB's on any other OEM management?
> 
> I feel like if you were to use a plenum, the only real challenge would be the TPS and tuning for the improvements.


Oh, HECK yes. This CIS set up was more for giggles than anything else. Doubters kept saying "it can't be done" or "it won't ever work well" and "it's pointless". We like to ignore conventional thinkers around here decided to "do". So, we "did".


----------



## jettred3 (Aug 5, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Oh, HECK yes. This CIS set up was more for giggles than anything else. Doubters kept saying "it can't be done" or "it won't ever work well" and "it's pointless". We like to ignore conventional thinkers around here decided to "do". So, we "did".


:thumbup: ABAs should be next Scott.


----------



## Sycoticmynd29 (Jan 17, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Oh, HECK yes. This CIS set up was more for giggles than anything else. Doubters kept saying "it can't be done" or "it won't ever work well" and "it's pointless". We like to ignore conventional thinkers around here decided to "do". So, we "did".





jettred3 said:


> :thumbup: ABAs should be next Scott.


I agree with Jettred, and I'm willing to offer my car as a test subject


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

Hmmm... (scratches chin) We're known to be VERY 8v friendly (Mk3 *&* Mk4). That could happen to a test car around here sooner or later...


----------



## jettred3 (Aug 5, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Hmmm... (scratches chin) We're known to be VERY 8v friendly (Mk3 *&* Mk4). That could happen to a test car around here sooner or later...


opcorn:


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 1, 2011)

Sycoticmynd29 said:


> I agree with Jettred, and I'm willing to offer my car as a test subject


:thumbup: that is good to know


----------



## DjBij099 (Jul 21, 2003)

What would people be looking at price-wise for something like this?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

DjBij099 said:


> What would people be looking at price-wise for something like this?


We haven't priced out the CIS set up. R&D costs were paid by the first customer. However, anything we build next will still be hand-crafted vs. mass produced. Costs would drop significantly if we had a line of folks interested. Of course, we'll never got such a group together until we release prices. It's a chicken vs. egg thing and right now we're busy working on other stuff. Just to throw a number out there, though, it'd *have* to cost over $2k.



ps2375 said:


> And is it any better than the stock setup?


Yes, the torque comes on harder down low and earlier. Peak power has risen



> Still going thru the CIS metering plate and seems to have a plenum (although it is before the throttles)....benefits?


The CIS plate blocks flow and with its removal a LOT more peak power would be delivered. The engine would rev faster, too. The plenum is a requirement for CIS (or a MAF sensor) to function at all. Plenums are actually superior to open stacks with sock filters. Richard Jenvey taught me that years ago when I visited the company in the UK.



> I wonder if you can run bigger cams and not upset the CIS? That would be a nice benefit.


I don't believe that this benefit would come with the addition of ITBs. CIS gets cranky with big cams because the air pulsations bounce the plate up and down. This is going to happen regardless. As far as USRT is concerned, our CIS achievement here is a great thing for the chap who wants to get up and running now and convert to full EFI later. Ultimately, that's the way to really make the most of the investment.


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

Hi Scott,

The frankinjection stuff that we were experimenting with on the road race car works well. We ran the car all season on a Megasquirt 3.

No flow plate, metering fuel via electronic injectors to feed the CIS-E lines and injectors.

Finally got the thing to run well from 2000-9000rpm, rather than 5800-9000 as it was with CIS-E.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

chois said:


> No flow plate, metering fuel via electronic injectors to feed the CIS-E lines and injectors.


Photos or it never happened. 



> Finally got the thing to run well from 2000-9000rpm, rather than 5800-9000 as it was with CIS-E.


Hmmm, 2000rpm, eh? Are you running some wild cams in there? I'd like to know more about this. Also, why didn't you just run the EFI injectors in the port location vs. stick with the CIS bits?

Cheers to out of the box thinking! :beer:


----------



## ArsenicPants (Apr 6, 2008)

maybe you guys can shed some light on my project
I'm running a custom ITB setup with CIS basic and I have yet to have the engine fire up at all. I've hooked an air compressor up to the intake to check for air leaks, found them, eliminated them, and although the engine *sounds* like it's trying to at least fire, the metering plate is still not lifting up










you mentioned that you were afraid that the intake ports after the throttles would be too short, so you left them long and basically identical to a stock intake. Did you find any truth to this?
i've seen another 16v scirocco with a setup almost identical to yours, except using GSXR throttles and a hacked upper 16v plenum instead of your custom one, and it seemed to work.
is my design simply not CIS friendly? can you explain to me why longer intake tubes will keep the air pressure from 'fluttering'?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

ArsenicPants said:


> the metering plate is still not lifting up


Then, there must still be a leak. The engine's rotation (whether by it's own power or via starter) creates a vacuum and that vacuum sucks the metering plate up. If your plate doesn't lift, then there must not be a vacuum. Why's that? I don't know, of course.



> you mentioned that you were afraid that the intake ports after the throttles would be too short, so you left them long and basically identical to a stock intake. Did you find any truth to this?


What we found was that the arrangement we did worked. We didn't test with conventionally short runners and thus have nothing to compare to.



> can you explain to me why longer intake tubes will keep the air pressure from 'fluttering'?


Sure, but it's not the length that makes the difference, really. It's the runner volume (which comes with length). Consider that the engine produces a certain amount of vacuum per rotation. With intake and exhaust cams opening/closing with a bit of overlap, etc, pressure variation will dip and spike. With more runner volume between the valves and throttles, those variations become a lower relative percentage of the total volume. For example, let's say you've got 500cc amount of air fluctuating up/down. If the runner volume is 500cc, then you're going to evacuate 100% of it during the vacuum event. On the other hand, if the total runner volume is 2000cc, then you're only removing 25%. What we want is a smooth and linear vacuum/pressure so as to not bounce the metering plate.

All that clear as mud?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

Btw, here's the latest from our designer, Kevin Kreisa:

_"Just FYI... started the car up from stone cold to see it's characteristics... was satisfactory. It's like any old CIS car/hot rod... needs warming up before it really smoothes out. BUT, I took it for a ride to show a buddy... and I stomped it from a slow roll and it was trying to break the tires loose all the way to redline (from just above idle). Car has some scoot for sure. It feels like it does come on a cam around maybe 4-4500... and gets even healthier. so. it's pretty cool... Our client is scheduled to pick up tomorrow. Interested to get his feelings on it."_


----------



## bimmerboy02 (Oct 2, 2005)

ArsenicPants said:


> maybe you guys can shed some light on my project
> I'm running a custom ITB setup with CIS basic and I have yet to have the engine fire up at all. I've hooked an air compressor up to the intake to check for air leaks, found them, eliminated them, and although the engine *sounds* like it's trying to at least fire, the metering plate is still not lifting up
> 
> 
> ...



Whenever my brother or I fire up a CIS car for the first time after a big mod (including the scirocco 16v you mentioned) we always resort to manually raising the flap and the throttle...simply remove the intake boot and pull the flap up a very small amount and just crack the throttle while someone cranks it, adjust till it starts. This ensures the plate is not stuck, and that it's not something electrical. If you can get it to start this way you know it's something intake related and can move on to checking that out. I'm guessing either something electrical isn't hooked up or your throttles are completely shut at idle, as some EFI engines are setup like this.


----------



## DjBij099 (Jul 21, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> We haven't priced out the CIS set up. R&D costs were paid by the first customer. However, anything we build next will still be hand-crafted vs. mass produced. Costs would drop significantly if we had a line of folks interested. Of course, we'll never got such a group together until we release prices. It's a chicken vs. egg thing and right now we're busy working on other stuff. Just to throw a number out there, though, it'd *have* to cost over $2k.


How bout $200 :laugh: Well I'd surely interested if you were to start mass producing and are in the price range of what your short runner intake manifolds go for, if not just a little more.


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Photos or it never happened.
> 
> Hmmm, 2000rpm, eh? Are you running some wild cams in there? I'd like to know more about this. Also, why didn't you just run the EFI injectors in the port location vs. stick with the CIS bits?
> 
> Cheers to out of the box thinking! :beer:



This is for the SCCA F Prod motor that we discussed a few years ago. Rules required retaining stock type injection, and we really needed programmable control. 1.5 with "big" gti valve sizes, lots of cam and compression. Runs on 112. Need to dig a closer picture out of my phone, but you can just see it tucked under the intake tube tucked against the firewall. .


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

DjBij099 said:


> How bout $200 :laugh: Well I'd surely interested if you were to start mass producing and are in the price range of what your short runner intake manifolds go for, if not just a little more.


Uh, right. Yeah, that is NEVER going to happen. A set of throttles alone costs more than a short runner intake manifold. :facepalm: 




chois said:


> This is for the SCCA F Prod motor that we discussed a few years ago. Rules required retaining stock type injection, and we really needed programmable control. 1.5 with "big" gti valve sizes, lots of cam and compression. Runs on 112. Need to dig a closer picture out of my phone, but you can just see it tucked under the intake tube tucked against the firewall. .


Ah, yes! I remember looking into that. So, it all worked out well or "well enough"? Did anybody protest your unfair advantage? Please get us some close up shots that reveal the deep and dark secrets.


----------



## DjBij099 (Jul 21, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Uh, right. Yeah, that is NEVER going to happen. A set of throttles alone costs more than a short runner intake manifold. :facepalm:


:sly:.......one day..........it'll happen :laugh: I am curious to see dyno graphs of what this mod has done as far as the torque curve goes.


----------



## antichristonwheels (Jun 14, 2001)

This is pretty cool. lots of throttle blade area so it would get better the bigger the engine requirements.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 13, 2005)

DjBij099 said:


> :sly:.......one day..........it'll happen :laugh:


Well, get on it *immediately*. If you can supply us with a $700 drop-in ITB kit for CIS, we'll commit to a 50-piece production run. :beer:



> I am curious to see dyno graphs of what this mod has done as far as the torque curve goes.


If our old man customer is interested, we'll do it. Again, this is more a proof of concept and "because we can" than an unveiling of new product line. There's probably 50 CIS kooks out there that'd love this... but want to spend $200 on it. The juice has to be worth the squeeze.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

CIS is great until it can't do what you want. It has the innate ability of limiting your airflow to what it can fuel. It's beautifully simple that way. 

Many, many moons ago I hacked the MS code to handle my CIS lambda valve (needs fixed freq). Totally computer controlled AFR on the stupid cheap. CIS-E would be harder to hack with how the CPR works. 

Interesting idea, but I would argue that an EFI conversion and stock intake would likely drive better and make more power. But to each his own.


----------



## chois (May 12, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Ah, yes! I remember looking into that. So, it all worked out well or "well enough"? Did anybody protest your unfair advantage? Please get us some close up shots that reveal the deep and dark secrets.


It actually worked well, once we got beyond our own learning curve of making programmable control work 

Never an issue with legality. We were open about what we were doing with the rulemakers and have told other competitors what we did. We also realized after making it work that no one in their right mind would ever even try this, and we asked for an allowance for all fuel injected cars to switch to electronic injectors, otherwise you would not see any VWs that only came with CIS other than this one racing in this class.

So - next year we can swap the injectors and turn the fuel pressure down a bunch.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

Scott,
This may be of use as a simple way to tune proper fueling and quick response fuel for your CIS setup. Scientific Rabbit is developing this wiring harness for CIS k-jet injection to be controlled and tuned by a wideband O2 & controller. I have this on my car now with the high quality wiring harness they built and love it. They don't have it listed on their site yet.


----------



## antichristonwheels (Jun 14, 2001)

"I touch myself"


----------

