Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1
LH2.2 might work pretty well. If I remember corectly from my Volvo days, 2.2 used MAF sensor and switch type TPS. LH2.4 and 3.1 had a 32 tooth flywheel sensor and POT type TPS. I don't remember how 2.2 gets its RPM signal, maybe off the ignition system. I think the bigger diff is not the compression ratio but the head design. The MB head is a hemispherical chamber while the Volvo B230 isn't. I considered this option but opted for Megasquirt. It was more expensive, complicated and time consuming to tune but worth it in the end.
190e 2.3 Megasquirt start - YouTube
Also even if you go the Volvo route, the Volvo fuel rail will not fit. You will need a saab 900 fuel rail for the correct injector spacing.
EDIT: If you have the parts and know how to make LH2.2 work, go for it. It should be easier to adapt than Megasquirt. Don't get hung up on batch fire vs sequential injection, you'll never be able to tell the diff. Most batch fired system fire the injectors twice by engine cycle anyway. I've run it up to 4 times per engine cycle for that super crisp throttle response. |
I have less know-how than I wish I had. I really run out of know-how when it comes to computers, and Megasquirt is way over my head. I was more praising the primitive qualities of 2.2, I figured that an old batch fire system had enough wiggle room in it to be swap-able. I know that 2.2 can be made to use with the old Volvo 240 vacuum advance ignition systems, so integrating it into the M102 ignition shouldn't be a far stretch. I also chose 2.2 because I'd rather not get into things like modifying flywheels.
Is there anything to worry about with the difference in chamber design? I forgot about this.
Did you run the injectors into head, or did you modify/make an intake manifold? 2.2 has injectors on the manifold, I've never known if there was a clear reason to inject to the manifold rather than the port.