Go Back  Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats. > Performance & Tuning > Engine Performance
Reload this Page >

The Definitive "VVT swap into 90-97 chassis" Megathread.

Engine Performance This section is for discussion on all engine building related questions.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

The Definitive "VVT swap into 90-97 chassis" Megathread.

 
Old 05-24-2015, 07:28 PM
  #161  
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,296
Total Cats: 2,005
Default

Just fielded a tech question on this topic and the answer is worth adding to this thread.

e: He is using a USDM 01-05 manifold with the VTCS system.

Originally Posted by Savington
Originally Posted by amaff
Using the 99 fuel rail, the feed line interferes with the VICS opening on the manifold, and the 1.6 FPR attempts to occupy the same airspace as the top half of the manifold.
I just encountered this myself about a month ago. I think there are multiple versions of the '99 fuel rail. The easy way to deal with this problem is to remove the VTCS butterflies, slide the shaft out of the manifold, and then drill/tap/plug the hole in the end, or have a welder weld up the end. You don't have to worry about the holes between the cylinders. The little stud that locates the VTC S butterfly pivot will pull out of the manifold with a pair of pliers and some effort. That will give you the clearance you need to run the '99 rail and your 1.6L FPR.
__________________
Trackspeed Engineering
High-Performance Turbo Specialists - Sunnyvale, CA - 650-701-7223 - Email us!
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
Basically I've come over to the camp of "If something is a reliability problem on the track, just ask Andrew and do what he says".

Last edited by Savington; 05-24-2015 at 08:19 PM.
Savington is offline  
Old 05-24-2015, 08:04 PM
  #162  
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
 
curly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 12,790
Total Cats: 683
Default

He asked about VICS, you talked about vcts...
curly is offline  
Old 05-24-2015, 08:18 PM
  #163  
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,296
Total Cats: 2,005
Default

Originally Posted by curly View Post
He asked about VICS, you talked about vcts...
I over-clipped his PM, but he is using a 2001 manifold. He said VICS, I knew he meant VTCS, so I misspelled it as VCTS.
__________________
Trackspeed Engineering
High-Performance Turbo Specialists - Sunnyvale, CA - 650-701-7223 - Email us!
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
Basically I've come over to the camp of "If something is a reliability problem on the track, just ask Andrew and do what he says".
Savington is offline  
Old 05-24-2015, 08:22 PM
  #164  
Cpt. Slow
iTrader: (25)
 
curly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon City, OR
Posts: 12,790
Total Cats: 683
Default

Ah, good then. I've plugged the holes before, good to know I don't need to do that.
curly is offline  
Old 05-27-2015, 11:29 AM
  #165  
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
 
shuiend's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 14,422
Total Cats: 1,337
Default

Originally Posted by Savington View Post
Just fielded a tech question on this topic and the answer is worth adding to this thread.

e: He is using a USDM 01-05 manifold with the VTCS system.

Originally Posted by Savington
Originally Posted by amaff
Using the 99 fuel rail, the feed line interferes with the VICS opening on the manifold, and the 1.6 FPR attempts to occupy the same airspace as the top half of the manifold.
I just encountered this myself about a month ago. I think there are multiple versions of the '99 fuel rail. The easy way to deal with this problem is to remove the VTCS butterflies, slide the shaft out of the manifold, and then drill/tap/plug the hole in the end, or have a welder weld up the end. You don't have to worry about the holes between the cylinders. The little stud that locates the VTC S butterfly pivot will pull out of the manifold with a pair of pliers and some effort. That will give you the clearance you need to run the '99 rail and your 1.6L FPR.

I just want to also confirm that there are 2 different fuel rails for the 99 miata. I encountered this a few years ago and went out to PanicMotorsports and looked at multiple 99's Steve had in stock. Some of my older posts scattered around show the exact differences.
shuiend is offline  
Old 05-27-2015, 12:00 PM
  #166  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melissa, TX
Posts: 172
Total Cats: 20
Default

Originally Posted by Uncle Humjaba View Post
Rev said to route that wire over to the db37 pin 10 as well. I have to wonder though, if it's already on the ecu, why not can't it use the pin that's already there?

I just saw this. I would assume it's because for a plug and play ECU, the pin on the ECU connector is a tach input, the ignitor generates the signal, though I don't know why the ECU would care other than to verify the ignitor is actually working.

The ignitors on the VVT coils don't generate this signal, so the responsibility for it falls to the ECU, which is now outputting instead of receiving, different circuitry behind there. It would be handy though if he had a jumper on the board that would let you switch on an output on that pin though,and I doubt it's doing anything when it's connected to a non-swapped 90-93 chassis.
Ziggo is offline  
Old 05-28-2015, 10:34 PM
  #167  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Greenville SC
Posts: 356
Total Cats: 22
Default

Originally Posted by shuiend View Post
I just want to also confirm that there are 2 different fuel rails for the 99 miata. I encountered this a few years ago and went out to PanicMotorsports and looked at multiple 99's Steve had in stock. Some of my older posts scattered around show the exact differences.
Another here - mine would have been very tight. By orienting the FPR so that the line comes out the bottom I was able to route it around the VTCS opening by bending the tube slightly but I ended up getting a flat top intake so that was moot


Originally Posted by Ziggo View Post
I just saw this. I would assume it's because for a plug and play ECU, the pin on the ECU connector is a tach input, the ignitor generates the signal, though I don't know why the ECU would care other than to verify the ignitor is actually working.

The ignitors on the VVT coils don't generate this signal, so the responsibility for it falls to the ECU, which is now outputting instead of receiving, different circuitry behind there. It would be handy though if he had a jumper on the board that would let you switch on an output on that pin though,and I doubt it's doing anything when it's connected to a non-swapped 90-93 chassis.
That makes sense. Would be nice to make it switchable though, though I guess beggars can't be choosers.

In any case, my car is running, most things have been sorted out. Playing with the VE tables to get everything right, and still on Reverent's base map AFR targets and timing. I'm running the entire 95 intake with the exception of the top half of the 02 airbox, so I had a place to put the IAT. It's not ideal, but it's what I have for now. Thanks everyone in this thread for the help! I'll be helping a buddy do this swap in his car, so I'll definitely pass it forward.
Attached Thumbnails The Definitive "VVT swap into 90-97 chassis" Megathread.-cqtfcxr.png  

Last edited by Morello; 05-30-2015 at 04:48 PM.
Morello is offline  
Old 06-08-2015, 10:54 PM
  #168  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,494
Total Cats: 1,635
Default

<p>Would it be possible to use the 01-05 fuel rail with an aftermarket fuel pressure regulator and some sort of adapter instead of the stock FPR (disclaimer: I don't have a full understanding of the fuel flow on the vvt motor.)</p>
aidandj is offline  
Old 06-08-2015, 10:59 PM
  #169  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Melissa, TX
Posts: 172
Total Cats: 20
Default

Anything is possible with enough time and money. In this case it's hard to imagine a solution cheaper and faster than sourcing a 1999 rail and reusing your FPR
Ziggo is offline  
Old 06-08-2015, 11:09 PM
  #170  
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: *** BANNED ***
Posts: 9,666
Total Cats: 998
Default

I would venture to say you can use the 99-05 rail with an aftermarket regulator, provided it was mounted somewhere other than on the rail itself. Your NA6 chassis has a return, so its just a matter of plumping the OEM feed from the tank to the aftermarket regulator, plumbing the return from the regulator into the OEM return line, and plumbing the "out to engine" to the 99-05 rail. Adapters exist for all of these connections to the factory hardlines.

Use of an aftermarket regulator would complicated things as compared to sticking your NA6 regulator on a 99 rail, but it would also give you the ability to adjust your fuel pressure as you see fit.

You are talking about swapping a BP6D into your NA6 chassis and running an MS, correct?
EO2K is offline  
Old 06-08-2015, 11:09 PM
  #171  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,494
Total Cats: 1,635
Default

<p>I wasn't sure if it was possible to just completely replace the stock for with an aftermarket adjustable FPR.&nbsp;</p>
aidandj is offline  
Old 06-08-2015, 11:10 PM
  #172  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,494
Total Cats: 1,635
Default

<p>From what I've read the OEM FPR can get overwhelmed so I was planning an adjustable of some sort.</p>
aidandj is offline  
Old 06-09-2015, 05:00 AM
  #173  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 200
Total Cats: -12
Default

Aside from the added effort I don't see a problem with you doing that. There's a "fake FPR" (suppose it acts like a load balancer) on the end of the rail and it's detachable, the only reason I see the rail is not used, is the direction that this "fake FPR" is facing.

So if you can connect an external FPR to it, it should work no problem!
ThunderFox is offline  
Old 06-09-2015, 10:24 AM
  #174  
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,296
Total Cats: 2,005
Default

Originally Posted by aidandj View Post
<p>From what I've read the OEM FPR can get overwhelmed so I was planning an adjustable of some sort.</p>
The OE FPR is overwhelmed by large fuel pumps, but you don't need anything beyond the stock pump to feed a 140whp VVT swap. If you were adding FI to a VVT swap and needed to run something like a DW300, then yes, you might be able to use the 01-05 rail with an FPR adapter and something like a Fuelab adjustable regulator mounted elsewhere in the car.
__________________
Trackspeed Engineering
High-Performance Turbo Specialists - Sunnyvale, CA - 650-701-7223 - Email us!
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
Basically I've come over to the camp of "If something is a reliability problem on the track, just ask Andrew and do what he says".
Savington is offline  
Old 06-09-2015, 02:31 PM
  #175  
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
 
aidandj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,494
Total Cats: 1,635
Default

<p>I plan on an FI VVT at some point, hence my question, if I can put together a setup using the 01-05 fuel rail it saves me money in the long run.</p><p>So something like this plumbed to a fuelab afpr, then to the return line?</p><p><img src="http://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.miataturbo.net-vbulletin/600x600/80-fuel_rail_delivery_adapter_regulator_mazda_rx_7_rx 7_fd3s_mx5_mx_5_miata_na_nb_nc_autobahn88_ft061_00 3_ef82047e7d166414b8a5dc54908d42c36f62c5a9.jpg" title="" /><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>
aidandj is offline  
Old 06-18-2015, 04:46 PM
  #176  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 200
Total Cats: -12
Default

Swap is finally done and the car is purring as usual, apart from the fact that I still don't have VVT control, idle control, TPS and RPM. I'll get there.

However, a question which may or not be relevant to the subject of these swaps. Is the oil pressure with the BP-Z3 engine expected to be any different from the B6-ZE?

My gauge is a little bit above 6 bar when I start the car from cold, whereas with the B6 it used to be around 5 maybe. Maybe this is to be expected, or maybe I've knackered the sensor. Any thoughts?
ThunderFox is offline  
Old 06-18-2015, 05:55 PM
  #177  
Supporting Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,296
Total Cats: 2,005
Default

The pump is different and there are additional oil system components, so a change in pressure isn't unreasonable. I put little weight in small differences in cold pressure. As long as hot pressure is where it needs to be, you're OK.
__________________
Trackspeed Engineering
High-Performance Turbo Specialists - Sunnyvale, CA - 650-701-7223 - Email us!
Originally Posted by codrus View Post
Basically I've come over to the camp of "If something is a reliability problem on the track, just ask Andrew and do what he says".
Savington is offline  
Old 06-18-2015, 07:59 PM
  #178  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 200
Total Cats: -12
Default

Alright, will keep an eye on it. Still some minor things to get done before it can actually go on the road, so I've only moved it about in my driveway.

Cheers!
ThunderFox is offline  
Old 06-19-2015, 01:25 PM
  #179  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 911
Total Cats: 66
Default

The oil pressure is definitely higher. My 94 original motor would sit around 40-45psi cruising around town, the VVT motor is happy around 55-60psi cruising around.
Dunning Kruger Affect is offline  
Old 06-19-2015, 03:57 PM
  #180  
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sandia Park, NM
Posts: 426
Total Cats: 49
Default

Interesting. Mine is generally at 20-25 psi at idle; 40-45 psi while cruising around; and always 40psi while at the track being horse beat.
I noticed a ~5psi drop across the board when going to synthetic oil after break-in.
All numbers are with 10w30 oil.
Bottom end clearances were all ~1.8 thousandths.
No issues in 3k miles with 3 track days.

I should also note that my oil pressure sensor has been relocated to the firewall. Not sure if that messes with my numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me.
leboeuf is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: The Definitive "VVT swap into 90-97 chassis" Megathread.


Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.