Yes, it's the engine bay cooling fan computer (relay) That's the 1a position, on the 1b the ECU is mounted in the middle of the bulkhead. That diagram looks like it's for the 1b.
Bullet connectors are fine in that environment just don't use scotchloks!!!
Black is not a colour ! .... Its the absence of colour
I soldered the bullet connectors instead of crimping which I thought was more reliable also
Actually crimping is fine too so long as you use a good ratchet crimper and not those useless stamped 'pair of pliers' things that most people have.
What you shouldn't do is tin the end of the wire with solder and then put it in the crimp and crimp it. Or use it under a screw terminal for that matter. Over time the solder squishes out and they tend to come loose.
To be fair IDCs (Insulation Displacement Connector - what a Scotchlok is) are also fine but you need to be very careful with wire sizes and you need a proper tool to punch them down. Apart from the fact that they are really ugly, Scotchloks real down fall is people. They use wire that's the wrong size, crimp them with a pair of pliers, run high currents through them and hide them in the rain and spray under the car. Any wonder they fail.
Anyway, I'll shut up and go do some work now!
There's no rust on my car. But there are some sizable holes where the rust fell out.
I properly soldered my bullets and replaced the insulation afterwards
I got the injectors today
I am rather fed up as the impedance of both the reds and the greys 23250-16010 are 2.0 Ohms ! I read that they are interchangable, so I suspect that both are 182cc.
So I am no further to running a piggy back ecu unless I add resistors in addition to the resistor pack - which will compromise the running of the standard ECU as I suspect it will mess up the pulse width info and make the system too high impedance for Peak and hold accuracy.
In summary then it appears that ALL UK MR2 mk1's run low impedance injectors and unless the resistor pack is different on earlier cars then the ECU's all work with a load of 2ohms.
I am now the proud owner of 8 injectors that are the the same impedance as my current pinks ones but flow less !
Further more I tried to program my Greddy eManage ECU and it wont connect to my PC. Its dead... PC doesn't even acknowledge the connection is active and there is no power from the USB cable which suggests that its been damaged by previous owner of the unit. So Its being returned! ... This unraveling of facts is like running up a treacle mountain !
Most of the info about injector impedance on the internet seems guess work and a case of "I read somewhere" I even read posts by Paul Woods who stated that the earlier injectors were high impedance, but this appears not to be the case - unless there is another injector out there that runs on a MK1a and its got a different part number.
Last edited by Evo4Jon; 25th January 2017 at 03:27 PM.
All low impedance... I have to say I hadn't expected that.
My car (built late 85) is in storage at the moment and I won't see it for a few weeks. But when I'm next over that way I'll measure mine and let you know.
I was reading up about peak hold stuff. I rather suspect that all the mk1s are running saturated even though they are low impedance injectors. You'd have to get a scope on the ecu to be sure either way. I just doubt they were that sophisticated back then. Apart from which I'd imagine that any advantage in fuel metering you get from peak / hold would be lost because you are batch firing them and the fuel is sitting in the intake runners waiting for the valve to open.
James
There's no rust on my car. But there are some sizable holes where the rust fell out.
Thanks James !... Its nice to know that someone is reading and thinking this one through with me (not forgetting Jimi too!)
at least I will be able to run my 89 on the earlier injectors along with the TPS and my BF +VE feed to see how the 2 compare. Its also good to read your thoughts on the Peak and hold and I must say that as the EFI is so crude I think you may well have a valid point.
One of the reasons I want to do this is so that I experience and can check the differences between revised MR2 versions. My Later engine is a stronger version than the earlier engines - being the red top, but I do recall the drop in performance of the 89/90> models due to the change in fuelling around this time when unleaded fuel became the standard on our forecourts. Toyota sent out many service bulletins about the use of unleaded fuel and the fact that it burnt hotter / more readily in the cylinders and had no lubricating properties. Some of the the demo vehicles I drove when working at Toyota around that time seemed a little under-powered as I recall. The other Salesman and I really noticed the drop in power on Carina and Corolla models especially. The 12 Valve 1.3 GL Corolla was a really zippy car as an 1987 E. It stayed nippy and free revving until late 89 - 1990 facelift version. Externally the changes were subtle and consisted of different Wheel trims, a new front grille and the 3 hoops logo. The interior trim went from a rope-effect tweedy material to a suede / velour. The Stereo was upgraded to one with rounded buttons and better speakers. We thought that the changes were a real improvement until we drove it ! The car was really slow and it felt tight - like it couldn't rev. The engine had a carburetor and to help with emissions a damper was fitted so that the engine produced less hydrocarbons on the over-run. We drove a few and realised that the modifications for the higher emissions restrictions had spoiled a great little car.
I want to understand whether the later MR2's were detuned a little by retarding the ignition at higher rpm in order to produce lower emissions.
Last edited by Evo4Jon; 27th January 2017 at 12:37 AM.
It's just a subject I'm interested in.
I remember the first EFI car I owned. A '92 Carina Exec. It was a total transformation over cars with carbs. It just behaved, year after year after year. You just knew that carbs were finished. Makes you wonder how it works and why it's better...
Anyway, I hadn't twigged that the mk1b happened around the same time as unleaded fuel. This drop in power in Corollas an Carinas - was that in the carb models or the injected ones? Or both?
There's no rust on my car. But there are some sizable holes where the rust fell out.
Was your Carina the Carina E Exec or the Carina II Exec ? The Exec was a 2.0 litre engine - but not the same as the Celica 2.0L though.
The Carina II from 88- 92 was 16 valve fuel injection - as was the Camry, Celica, MR2, Supra etc. The only carb models were Corolla 1.3 GL, Starlet 1.0, lite-ace and Hi-ace. The 1990-92 Carina 2's were def slower. I had a few demo cars. In late 89 / 1990 they face-lifted the whole range to coincide with the new logo. The cars that were noticeably slower were the ones with the new logo. The Carina XL came out as a lower spec Fleet version (to compete with the Nissan Bluebird and Vauxhall / Ford models). The later cars were not as rev happy as the earlier GL's. I had a Carina XL Match demo also which was green metallic https://www.flickr.com/photos/mr_gav...n/photostream/
In the late 80's, the workshop were being bombarded with info about emissions, fines, legislation and these new fangled devices called Catalytic convertors ! The 4AGE engine was doomed as it was considered too polluting. The Japanese also were mindful of our changing fuel. In the early 1980's, we got engines with same exact spec as the Japanese cars. The UK fuel was considered similar. The USA got the lower powered versions because of the emissions and the lower octane unleaded fuel. For the UK, Toyota just changed clocks from Kms to Miles and there were import restrictions limiting numbers of cars imported. Emissions was a huge deal in the USA from 1970's but it didn't come here til the 90's. In the UK We never had the 4AGE in any other vehicles other than Corolla GT Coupe, Corolla GTi (FWD) and the MR2 Mk1. The Carina II 1.6 Engine was the 4AFE which was more refined and smoother but a bit flat. http://www.abload.de/img/foto12080mjvj.jpg
The Mk1 MR2 was never face lifted like the others, but was replaced with the MK2 MR2 and at the time I never drove many MR2's, but the later corolla GTi's weren't quite as quick as the earlier ones. I knew this well because my Mum had the Corolla GT coupe (1984) and there was a Corolla Gti FWD on as a demo most of the time and I took customers out in it and borrowed it a few times. The AE82 has crazy Torque steer and the AE92 less so. The AE86 was just ace. Revvy and exciting. I borrowed my Mums once and went to Stretford Arndale Centre in the pouring rain. I recall pulling away from a set of Pelican crossings and booting it.... I ended up facing the opposite direction and all the cars behind me had to slow to a stop and let me turn around ! LOL (I Was 20 and it was the 1988)
Last edited by Evo4Jon; 27th January 2017 at 10:46 AM.
I'll read that properly later. It's noisy here at work...
Mine was a Carina II exec with a 3S-FE. I quite liked it. Not exciting but it did what I needed for years. You're right though. It was flat and didn't rev. There wasn't much point in red lining it 'cos it was well past its best before you got there. I always thought the '16 valve' sticker inside was a nice reminder because you'd never tell from driving it.
Didn't know the early ones were better.
It was replaced with an IS200 which was the complete opposite. It'd run into the limiter with no warning if you weren't watching and it felt like you'd hit a wall.
There's no rust on my car. But there are some sizable holes where the rust fell out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote