# Not bad for an antiquated fuel system...



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

Hi Folks, 
As some of you know I'm a CIS die hard and have been working with Volvo 240 turbo CIS lambda system on my Cabby to extract maximum fuel. Its been an ongoing project and a well motivated one since I cannot boost further if I don't have the fuel to keep things nice, rich and safe.
The last series of test flows more than a few months ago I managed 340-350cc/min per injector.
I'm happy to say that with the additional tweaks I did manage to exceed my goal of 400 cc's per minute per injector. Final flow values were 414 cc/min/injector...with one injector hitting 430cc/min about equal to a 46# pulsed injector at 85% duty cycle.
All I can say - not bad for an absolutely antiquated fuel system and this is at stock 81 psi system pressure. I'm looking forward to a few more tweaks and upping the system pressure to 90 psi... at this point I have to say that I would be suprised if this CIS is not capable of 460cc/min/injector or good enough for 312 boosted (approximately 12.5 afr) crank hp!
Hope this is helpful for those of you boosting with CIS...
A pic of a 30 second flow...











_Modified by Peter Tong at 1:39 PM 5-14-2005_


----------



## MattyDVR6 (Dec 8, 2002)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

very nice dude. What fuel pump are you running?


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (MattyDVR6)*

Bosch 0 580 254 957
This is the stock Rabbit pump rated at 128 litres per hour at 5 bar...


----------



## vdubspeed (Jul 19, 2002)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Peter...you're awesome. Plain and simple http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (vdubspeed)*

Don't look at me... this CIS fuel system keeps on amazing me... I thought I'd run out of fuel a long time ago... but I keep on finding ways of pulling more fuel. 
The main problem is that I'm going to have to get a larger container to dump the fuel back into the tank.
I think the next test flows I'll be hooking the pressure gauge back up to make sure my system pressure is staying up there (if the stock pump is rated at 2.16 litres per minute, then I'm getting close to its flow limit)... might be time to upgrade to a "984" pump (228 l/per hour @ 5 bar) soon...
The frequency valve bypass is working just great as well... allowing full/precise control of boost enrichment... I should be able to flatten out my afr curve next dyno session. Thanks for the props though!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Peter, way to keep pusing the CIS envelope instead of giving up. Makes me want to put CIS in a car again.. er, maybe not


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (need_a_VR6)*

Paul,
Whats funny is this is still a 4 cylinder unit... A V8 CIS-Lambda fuel distributor would likely deliver about 18% less per fuel port, but even so you'd be up around 2.2 litres per minute with a V8 unit... or about equivalent to 4 x 64# injectors at 85% DC...
Basically its looking like I won't have to upgrade this fuel system to SDS after all... got other plans for the SDS EM-4E though...
CIS is certainly cheaper... next goal is 460cc/min per injector... I'll also be pulling the flow meter to see whether the flow housing is not allowing the arm to push the fuel plunger up to its absolute limit...and machining it if necessary to allow that...
Take it easy,
Peter Tong
PS: I need to give credit to Stephen Webb here too...another die hard CIS nut that I appreciate. He sent me an extra Volvo 240t frequency valve (the larger flowing one) without my even asking...


_Modified by Peter Tong at 2:33 PM 2-20-2005_


----------



## Agtronic (May 14, 2001)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

That is awesome. I love guys like you. Working hard at something they feel strongly about, and seeing results. Most people gave up on CIS in the 90s, and you're using it to make 300+ whp with a good controlled AFR. That's amazing!
Only problem is, not just anyone can do this, you need a Peter Tong brain to pull it off. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Agtronic)*

Hi Agtronic,
I should have done research on this long ago but I don't know the general band of bsfc for the 8v VW motors under boost. If any of you folks out there know what the bsfc for the Audi 5kt motors was that might be a good starting point. I presume its around .6 but that is a conservative guess...
I generally use 170 crank hp per litre flow per minute for boosted apps. What do folks generally use? 1.6 litres would be good for 275 at the crank by that measure still far short of 300 wheel horsies.
regards,
peter t.



_Modified by Peter Tong at 5:54 PM 2-20-2005_


----------



## liquidtension (Mar 25, 2004)

awesome! are you ever going to post a thread about the whole process and a HOW-TO ? 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Longitudinal (Nov 13, 2004)

Peter,
Are you tinkering with the flow rates of the injectors themselves, or tinkering with your system's ability to supply fuel to them (control pressure and pressure drop at the slits)?
In other words, the increase from 345cc/min to 414cc/min was a result of modification to the injectors or to the fuel distributor?


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Longitudinal)*

I don't bother with control pressure anymore...although the Volvo CPR is still doing its thing when it sees boost.
I was originally varying the control pressure, but found it pointless after I hit the fuel plunger limit on the dyno (around 164 whp on my car due to the Lysholm - it would be higher for a turbo car).
The increase to 414cc/min isn't due to the injectors (i was running the same injectors at 345cc/min), but due to using the Volvo FV on my frequency valve bypass...setting the boost a pump to 50% additional voltage, and jumpering the cold start enrichment on the Lambda.
I did further flows to seperate out the effects of each. By far the largest gain was due to the larger Volvo FV and setting it to 100% duty cycle - which got me up to 380ish cc/min... jumpering the KenneBell boost a pump pressure switch (with the BAP set to 50% gain in fuel pump voltage) got me just past 400cc/min... then jumpering the stock lambda enrichment so the stock FV would go to 80% (normally set to 0% by the lambda box under boost since its trying to correct the rich situation the lambda sensor sees under boost), got me to 414...small gain...
System pressure is at 81 psi... i haven't shimmed it up yet...
I didn't have the CIS pressure gauged hooked up so I don't know if my top end system pressure was starting to fall off...



_Modified by Peter Tong at 10:16 PM 2-21-2005_


----------



## der_panzer (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Peter,
What is the position of your fuel distro's metering plate during your tests?
Are you using the special tool designed to simulate WOT, or are you using another measurement?
I'd like to learn as much as I can about maxing out a CIS system because I plan to turbocharge a CIS car soon. I'd like to get away with using my existing VW Motorsport CIS distro if possible.
Thanks!


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (der_panzer)*

Hi Panzer,
I just lift the flow plate all the way to its topmost limit...
I would flow test your VW motorsport CIS basic setup and see how much fuel you have right now as a baseline then start fixing problems from there... you might post your results as well as I haven't seen anyone post their VW MS CIS flow results yet...


----------



## der_panzer (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Thanks, Peter!
I'm kind of curious myself as to what it will do.
On my 2.0 ABA-hybrid, it is dramatically stronger on the upper end than the 1985 CIS-E stocker system that it replaced. On that N/A motor, it is plenty rich when it needs to be.
I'll perform the tests before I put the turbo engine in and post the results. It might be a while, though








As for problems, I'm pretty sure that my injectors are tired, so I will probably end up replacing them in the swap over.
Any suggestions as to the CIS injector that I should use for best flow?
Thanks!


----------



## sdezego (Apr 23, 2004)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Nice!
Keep it going.
S


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (der_panzer)*

hi Panzer,
Please feel free to flow your setup and post. Stephen Webb and myself have flowed the Volvo 240t setups extensively, but AFAIK nobody has test flowed the VW Motorsport injection and posted their results.
Since the VW Ms setup is CIS-Basic you should have at least another 8% or so on top of the equivalent CIS-Lambda system. 
As far as injectors - have you dyno'd your car with an AFR with the VW Ms injection?


----------



## vdubspeed (Jul 19, 2002)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Peter...
I'm doing a 2.0 16V swap into a rabbit and will be staying CIS. I'm hoping to convince the customer to to go VWMS CIS and I will do some tests.
I'd really like to hook my zeitronix wideband up to it and get some nice pulls to see how well it fuels.
CIS is cool








Jason


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (vdubspeed)*

Hi Jason,
Given how old the extant Volvo 240t units are and the fact that new VWMS units are purchasable, if you tested the VWMS setups and found equivalent flow I think they would be a low cost viable option. The downside is the lack of a lambda circuit to preserve the cat/keep emissions down while keeping the mixture at stoichiometric during freeway/part throttle running. The upside is CIS-basic outflows CIS-Lambda.
Who knows, you might find that the VWMS unit outflows the Volvo 240t unit. So please test.
best regards,
peter t.


_Modified by Peter Tong at 12:07 AM 2-22-2005_


----------



## Cabby-Blitz (Sep 2, 2002)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

But the VWMS unit seems to be more expensive then the Volvo unit. They seem to go for $150 and I have seen Volvo's go for about $50 on average.
Congrats on the higher flow numbers. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Cabby-Blitz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cabby-Blitz* »_But the VWMS unit seems to be more expensive then the Volvo unit. They seem to go for $150 and I have seen Volvo's go for about $50 on average.
Congrats on the higher flow numbers. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Thanks Cabby-Blitz...
This is true...the VWMS units are new however...whilst the Volvo units are just about always used - and at least 20 years old at that...







And as you know used stuff is sometimes hit and miss...


----------



## der_panzer (Apr 28, 2003)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Peter Tong* »_hi Panzer,
As far as injectors - have you dyno'd your car with an AFR with the VW Ms injection? 

No, not yet. I probably won't get around to doing anything like that until after the turbo motor is in place.
I can only testify to "seat of the pants" experience. I've run the same VWMS distro and CIS-E distro on two engines:
The first, a .020" over HT (1985 1.8 hydro 10:1) with an Autotech Sport Hydro 270 cam and the same exhaust system as I use on my current engine. The results on that engine were that I gained little to nothing (maybe a slight loss on the low end, and maybe a very small gain near redline) versus the CIS-E setup.
The second, my current engine (see sig) was that the 2 fuel distros feel pretty much the same at low RPM / part throttle driving. But, downshift and hammer it and there's a big difference - and the higher the engine RPM the bigger the difference. Instead of flattening out around 6400-6500, the engine now seems happy to zing up another 1000 RPM. Seat of the pants, I'd say it is good for an extra 10-15 HP on my setup.
That kind of behavior seems to portray a way more aggressive fuel metering profile (richer up high?). 
Combing Ebay and the junkyards for old hardware is fine, but it is nice to have a brand spanking new fuel distro, and it is even nicer to have access to more new distros for a reasonable amount of money (like the VWMS).


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (der_panzer)*

Excellent work Peter http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I guess this means when your done you wont be "giving" away the information or would you


----------



## Stephen Webb (Apr 12, 2001)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Wow -- great results, Peter. Now that my car is back on the road, I plan on a dyno session or two so I can get an idea of my fueling situation. I may have to pull out a few of your tweaks to get my top end fueling in line. Impressive results, for sure.
-Steve


----------



## 85roccoZ400 (Jan 27, 2002)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (Peter Tong)*

Hey Peter,
I'm very glad to hear the news. It so sick how everyone says you can't run the CIS and there are a hand full of guys that do it and do it well..
You are the man. I haven't got a chance to test flow my Euro CIS setup yet but I will be once it gets alittle bit warmer. 
Peter also i see you are running the 81 psi still. By upper the PSI pressure you will have alittle bit more fuel. I was running my Scirocco at 15 pounds of boost with 85-87psi. That was one very little shim.. 
Anyway I will post numbers once I flow test my Unit.


----------



## Peter Tong (Jun 17, 1999)

*Re: Not bad for an antiquated fuel system... (85roccoZ400)*

Steve, 
Let me know how your afr fares on the dyno... 
Based on Brians suggestion I'm thinking of breaking out the replacement system pressure regulator and shimming things up just to see if I can hit 460cc this coming weekend. I don't know why I would do that, but seeing as I'd have the fuel I might as well slap on the 53mm Lysholm pulley. Having the fuel flow is nice, but instead of looking at graduated cylinders I'd rather being enjoying the power








The only thing I don't like about raising the system pressure is I might run a bit too rich in the midrange...
I'd be curious to see flow data for both the Euro injection and the VWMS setup...
One other thing - Steve, if you find you need the special CIS metric double banjos to plumb in a frequency bypass let me know...I've got some extras. What I ended up doing was to move the stock CIS frequency valve connector coming from the lambda box over to the frequency valve bypass that I had plumbed up (this used a stock VW FV)... I then moved the connector that was on my FV bypass to the Volvo valve. That worked great in getting the extra fuel... stock CIS lambda box works just like stock...AND I get the extra fuel I want under boost.


_Modified by Peter Tong at 11:18 PM 2-22-2005_


----------



## 8v-of-fury (Jul 15, 2008)

I am sorry for the 6 year thread bump, BUT DAMN this is awesome. 

I WANT TO TURBO CIS SO BADLY. :beer::beer:


----------



## Hoffa (Jun 7, 2001)

Decade plus bump!


----------

