Shawky

Thanks One does need to concentrate on market needs, and rotary engines remain niche. I had hoped the G5 would support 3 stages, but alas no. The 2 rotor engines with an aftermarket manifold setup supports 6 injectors for side port only and 8 injectors when peripheral ported. Power range from 400RWHP to 1000+ RWHP. For the rotary there are only two rotors but effectively 6 cylinders & 360 degree cycle, so the demands on the injectors are double to tripple that of an equivalent piston engine. My 6 injector setup is effectively 3 injectors shared across 3 chambers with half the port opening time of a piston engine. Hence the high flow rate requirement of the injectors. The primaries need to be small enough to idle stably and not at a ridiculous rpm, that makes the setup for secondary and optionally tertiary that much more important as compared to a piston engine. Piston engines normally only need two stages as one can supply two injectors per piston. Thank you very much for the feedback and interaction. All the best. It is a credit to Australia and New Zealand for our market leading ECUs in a tough international market.

An interesting idea thanks. Preference would be to have full control over fuel and timing maps. If say a DO is used to turn power on to the stage 3 injector supply, control them in parallel with stage 2 injectors then use the same enable condition to select a different map or equivalent for the combined injector set? Having Stage 3 support sound much simpler.

Thanks for the reply, and apologies for acknowledging your reply earlier. I must have missed the push notification. My project is a journey of research and fun not just top end power, it needs to be drivable on the street, emissions friendly as best as practical. So small primaries are needed. That makes it harder to manage fuel flow capacity given my second requirement: Max injector duty cycle < port opening time for optimal fuel injection, hopefully cleaner burn again potentially better for emissions and torque. These are factors the manufacturers aim for. Shorter pulse widths also allows for some adjustment to port open time and injection start/finish potentially assisting in the positioning of fuel in the chamber. Again, probably not measurable except via emissions, but its the fun of trying for me. So: 1. Manageable at low rpm (900-100rpm) 2. By design max 25% injection duty cycle based on those two criteria I worked through various capacity, flow calculations and concluded that the Injector Dynamics injector selection tool was actually a sound place to confirm. I produced a mud map of various boost, rpm, AFR, fuel pressure combinations et al and a little bit of sensitivity analysis on the piston engine parameters provided in the tool (not useful for a rotary). I then made adjustments for the rotary engine cycle and calculated fuel flow and confirmed opening times from there. I extrapolated that and compared against some very old telemetry data from the car 15+ years ago and found the results were reasonably consistent. Having numbers come up and say, put 4 x 2600cc injectors in did cause me to take a step back. No for the journey, I would expect 1st stage (2 x 1050) and 2nd stage (2 x 2600) will get me to my first goal (more power than my brother's Aston Martin for bragging rights over a beer ). The 3rd stage (2 x 2600) injectors is because the new manifold will take them, and all things considered, the car build might be able to use some of it. I understand what I am attempting is not the norm, but have got confirmation of the approach from two sources that would be regarded as very reliable: Good control of fuel injection is part of "the secret sauce" to a top grade solution. So, I would be kicking myself, if I found after doing all the work needed for a major car uplift, that I could not engage the stage 3 injectors. I've spent quite a lot of time comparing my options for the ECU and the Link is nice. Not having a 3rd stage is the only significant drawback I find in comparing it to Haltech. As an Aussie, both are designed in Australasia so a plus either way. I've attached my injector duty cycle "heat" map that shows a subset of the results determined using various calculations and the ID web tool: Fuel Flow Calculator | Injector Dynamics where I picked off the flow and duty cycle based on RPM for each injector. Each column in the spreadsheet represents a different combination of calculations.

Hi I am evaluating Link and Haltech ECU solutions for a journey I am on with an FC3S Rx7. I am considering an after market manifold setup like that coming from Turblown Engineering. It has 2 primary injections and up to 6 secondary injectors. If I go down that path, I am expecting to have primary, secondary and tertiary injector stages. The Haltech supports > 3 stages, but it looks like Link supports two only. Is this correct? What other options might I have with Link to achieve the same? Proposed setup: 2 x 1000cc ID injectors at stock primary position (or 2 x 1300cc) 2 x 2600cc ID injectors in new lower manifold outer runners (equivalent to stock secondary position) 2 x 2600cc ID injectors in new lower manifold inner runners (adds to primary port) The Turblown lower inlet manifold in question also supports side port injection so that adds the option for another two injectors, resulting in 8 in total. Manifold link: Turblown Cast Rotary Intake Manifold Other options/suggestions will be taken on board