7a 20v on KV distributor

[msh]

Originally Posted by Audi-Ant

K-Jet for cheapness... People are far too quick ti dissmiss k-jet

You wanted to say - initial cheapness - as we have already found out, you will pay off your savings in fuel. While I'm not totaly against mechanical fuel injection, I also dismiss K-jet - it's unrefined and inefficient. These shortcomings at least were fixed for KE-jet and K-lambda, unfortunately, for different applications than intended for without proper remap they ar just as inefficient as K-jet or even worse. Ignition in any case should be electronic.

In any case, if you're talking about performance, I don't understand why you want K-jet, with it's air metering flap that doesn't improve air flow. It is known that 2.3 10v is capable of 150 zs in pure stock form, just management swapped for programmable ECU - that's 15 hp just from nothing. If 20v with added K-jet loses nothing then it's just because it's stock MAF is just as restrictive as K-jet metering flap

In any case I doubt that anyone of those who have tuned 7A past 200 bhp mark have used anything but programmable ECU's.

[Audi-Ant]

Originally Posted by msh

You wanted to say - initial cheapness - as we have already found out, you will pay off your savings in fuel. While I'm not totaly against mechanical fuel injection, I also dismiss K-jet - it's unrefined and inefficient. These shortcomings at least were fixed for KE-jet and K-lambda, unfortunately, for different applications than intended for without proper remap they ar just as inefficient as K-jet or even worse. Ignition in any case should be electronic.

In any case, if you're talking about performance, I don't understand why you want K-jet, with it's air metering flap that doesn't improve air flow. It is known that 2.3 10v is capable of 150 zs in pure stock form, just management swapped for programmable ECU - that's 15 hp just from nothing. If 20v with added K-jet loses nothing then it's just because it's stock MAF is just as restrictive as K-jet metering flap

In any case I doubt that anyone of those who have tuned 7A past 200 bhp mark have used anything but programmable ECU's.

KE-Jet better than K-Jet ???? Your having a laugh! A KV would kill the NG thats in it now... 6a/ace has nothing on a KR valver golf either. Useless!
A cammed 9a 16V on K-jet will do 190hp, so theres no reason why you wouldnt do 180 with a standard cammed 7a. I dont want to change cams or anything like that. Its got the 5-branch and a 2.5inch system. Just want it to be what it should have been, with the power and throttle response that a poxy Hitachi ecu set-up simply doesn't give. We'l agree to disagree on this i think...

[Audi-Ant]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Good project, should be kinda easy to set up once you have the spark sorted,
The old quattros had 200bhp on K-jet so should be very feesable.

I was in a Mk2 16v golf with a tuned k-jet TSR 1800 lump, chap said it dynoed at nearly 170hp and a few runs around a track I believed him

I love my k-jet, its so feking reliable, after I removed the ISV she behaves what ever the weather.

I don't see why it it should be a gas guzler either, all you would need it a adjustable fuel (control) pressure regulator so you can set it to run daily sensible power or weekend toy


Ps, get some pic's up !

Fair-Play to it! Cant beat the revvy excitement of an 1800! Mine grunts better, but isnt as revvy with the longer stroke...
I have a mk2 golf 16v, 9a bottom-end, with a ported head, 4-branch and a modified K-Jet metering head. It only has standard KR cams, that hold it back allot, but it did 155 on Maynards rollers before the modded K-Jet and 4-branch, and its allot faster now

Know what you mean about ISV my mate used to run 90Q with it unplugged, mega slow tick-over when cold... But it tickled along happy enough
Its the everyday reliability and throtle rersponse that im looking for, that where k-jet shines for me. They respond almost before you plonk your foot, my golfs so snappy i love it! Just want the same with 5-pots. Ex has a 1.8 8v didgyfant mk2 and its laggy as ****! Awfull compared to the K-Jet 8v she had before and my 16v. The 7a set-up is just the same, and there almost different everyday. Some days fit, some days not. Great on a good day, byt thats not every day. You dont have any of that with k-jet. People knock tham, because they dont understand them, or how to set them up. Far too easy to do it all with a laptop these days...
Old addage... "I cant do it, so theres no way that you can"

[msh]

Originally Posted by Audi-Ant

KE-Jet better than K-Jet ???? Your having a laugh! A KV would kill the NG thats in it now... 6a/ace has nothing on a KR valver golf either. Useless!
A cammed 9a 16V on K-jet will do 190hp, so theres no reason why you wouldnt do 180 with a standard cammed 7a. I dont want to change cams or anything like that. Its got the 5-branch and a 2.5inch system. Just want it to be what it should have been, with the power and throttle response that a poxy Hitachi ecu set-up simply doesn't give. We'l agree to disagree on this i think...

I can imagine explanation to our different views - while I'm looking at any 25 years old engine as to powerplant that should consume adequate amount of fuel per 100 kilometres driven first and have some fun potential second, because I've only one car and it is powered by one, while you're looking at just fun potential, because you apparently have some modern diesel hatchback as a daily and having those 25 years old cars just as weekend fun so you doesn't care about fuel mileage. So while I need precise fuel metering and precise spark timing to get both fuel mileage and maximum performance, you prefer pouring in additional fuel to compensate for imprecise vacuum ignition and probably get some additional horses So while such tuned KV might beat my AAR slightly, it won't beat my 40 mpg mileage on road - with VEMS no stock hardware KV will be able to beat my AAR but I'll still keep that mileage. I have no opinion about 16v engines, never had a chance to drive a good one, but I would prefer 8v, as it has at least as much torque in driving range and at the same time noticeably less thirsty than 16v. So on this note we can end, because you will still prefer extra fuel poured in by K-jet while I will prefer EFI

[Eddy]

http://www.classic-audi.co.uk/forum/...ad.php?t=24571

Still working good

[Audi-Ant]

Originally Posted by msh

I can imagine explanation to our different views - while I'm looking at any 25 years old engine as to powerplant that should consume adequate amount of fuel per 100 kilometres driven first and have some fun potential second, because I've only one car and it is powered by one, while you're looking at just fun potential, because you apparently have some modern diesel hatchback as a daily and having those 25 years old cars just as weekend fun so you doesn't care about fuel mileage. So while I need precise fuel metering and precise spark timing to get both fuel mileage and maximum performance, you prefer pouring in additional fuel to compensate for imprecise vacuum ignition and probably get some additional horses So while such tuned KV might beat my AAR slightly, it won't beat my 40 mpg mileage on road - with VEMS no stock hardware KV will be able to beat my AAR but I'll still keep that mileage. I have no opinion about 16v engines, never had a chance to drive a good one, but I would prefer 8v, as it has at least as much torque in driving range and at the same time noticeably less thirsty than 16v. So on this note we can end, because you will still prefer extra fuel poured in by K-jet while I will prefer EFI

U got me all wrong. No diesels here! I cant stand them...
I have a mk2 golf GTi 16v as a daily
I would love mappable ignition for the 7a, i realy would and the golf. Would make it even faster!
Im only thinking KV dizzy for a quick solution to get it running. I was eye'in-up mega-jolt kits today for it because i do appreciate how un-precise an old bob weight dizzy is. Trouble is, once you mention 5cylinders, people dont want to know
I would also take the trouble to set the k-jet up properly. Equalise injector rates, check the spray patterns, set the system and controll pressures.. All the things that most people neglect to do. I appreciate its never gonna be as efficient as efi, but ive never met an efi system that responds in the way k-jet does... But i live in hope
I take it the AAR is a audi 100 version of the NG??? I hope your having allot better sucess with it than that coupe did. It was flat as a fart, thirsty and unreliable. The best thing that ever happend to it was changing the metering head for a KV one. But it still had a terrible ignition map. Pulled the same at 4000 as at 2000, all done by 5000. It was awfull
If yours is good, mine must have been realy ill somewhere...
As for 8 and 16v golfs, the torque figures are identical to a point, then the 16v stomps away from an 8v. People just think there slower at low revs than an 8, because there that much better past 4000revs...
I do appreciate your view, 22mpg would frighten me to death!

[msh]

Yes, AAR is C4 version of NG/NF. It happened that I changed my early NG to AAR because my NG had rattling main bearings - it would have been better to change them instead, that AAR happened to have 2-3 bars less compression. As for running, it does like it should. On road it consumes amount of fuel that manufacturer has prescribed, with 98 in tank it pulls strong enough that I've only two gears for moving car in city - 3th and 4th - after all, it starts pulling right from 1k rpm. I doubt that the fact that it runs out of torque after 4,5k rpm is caused by ignition - rather the fact that 2.3 engine is tuned for driveability and low rev torque, not high end power - but thanks to ignition it is capable of running on 95 or pull strong on 98 while being noticeably more economical. In some future I'll change it for MC, but first I'll learn how to adjust VEMS by installing it while AAR is still there, as it is very forgiving engine. Actually I don't know how I'll manage to adapt to that engine, as I've been used to one that could be used from 1k rpm to redline, without any turbo lag...

[Audi-Ant]

Originally Posted by msh

Yes, AAR is C4 version of NG/NF. It happened that I changed my early NG to AAR because my NG had rattling main bearings - it would have been better to change them instead, that AAR happened to have 2-3 bars less compression. As for running, it does like it should. On road it consumes amount of fuel that manufacturer has prescribed, with 98 in tank it pulls strong enough that I've only two gears for moving car in city - 3th and 4th - after all, it starts pulling right from 1k rpm. I doubt that the fact that it runs out of torque after 4,5k rpm is caused by ignition - rather the fact that 2.3 engine is tuned for driveability and low rev torque, not high end power - but thanks to ignition it is capable of running on 95 or pull strong on 98 while being noticeably more economical. In some future I'll change it for MC, but first I'll learn how to adjust VEMS by installing it while AAR is still there, as it is very forgiving engine. Actually I don't know how I'll manage to adapt to that engine, as I've been used to one that could be used from 1k rpm to redline, without any turbo lag...

Fair-play to you and it... I wasnt so lucky... I'l look into vems