Engine management on M20 stroker

[naika]

Hi,
I'm building an M20B28 with M52 crank, i'm looking at engine management options.
My initial thought is to adapt an M50 harness and ECU on the M20, but can't find much info on this so far. Anybody has done it? Any feedback?
Second option would be installing a late model harness, miller MAF and standard ECU (173) with a tune
Third option is M20 late harness with MS2
If you guys have any feedbacks, opinions, I'm interested to hear what seems to be a good compromise.

I'm looking at 200-210hp with 288 schrick cam, a little work on the head, a good exhaust, and individual coils / MAF. Using M52 crank, B25 pistons and B20 rods

Thanks!

[AWDBOB]

The M50nv harness/403 ECU on an M20 has been done, but I'm not sure it was cost or time effective. There's a good thread about it here: http://e30techarchive.com/showthread.php&t=63504.htm

MS2 would be your most efficient option I believe, in Speed Density or a blended SD/Alpha-n mode. Try it without individual coils first- the stock setup should be sufficient. Many of the benefits of option A, but without chopping up a bunch of stuff to get it to work.

The only way I'd go MAF is if you choose option A.

Steer clear from the Miller stuff, it's largely junk.

[varg]

Option one you're going to have to add a cam position sensor and trigger wheel that is suited to it and aligned properly, then the ecu will need a full tune. Luckily M20 and M50 crank trigger wheel and settings are identical as I recall. Then there's the obvious issue of it being a lot of work to get the harness and ignition coil setup to fit cleanly.
Option two? Haven't read anything but bad things about miller lately.
Third option is sensible, easy and widely utilized. Minimal wiring modifications needed. Doesn't even require a MAF, you can stick one in the induction tube if you want the look of it though.

Why are you set on having individual coils? There's no point in individual coils at all for a NA M20. It would be very difficult and expensive to build a NA M20 that was too much for a coil upgrade and otherwise stock ignition system, and if you don't need the extra spark energy to light off the charge what's the point in the upgrade? In the E30 world there aren't really any advantages with individual coils over wasted spark even in turbo builds, wasted spark is good enough. Individual coils give control over dwell and timing on a per cylinder basis in modern vehicles, but you wouldn't see any advantages from it. Sequential injection is a far more worthwhile endeavor than coil per plug since it improves idle quality and fuel economy, and hardly anyone bothers with even that.

[digger]

MS PnP is what I’d do. You can retain the dizzy and batch injection. I wouldn’t use a 288 cam with the stock intake manifold its a mismatch on a 2.8L

[BUDNUNTA]

MS PnP is what I’d do. You can retain the dizzy and batch injection. I wouldn’t use a 288 cam with the stock intake manifold its a mismatch on a 2.8L

what cam would you suggest? think the 288 suites ITBS?

[Northern]

Option 1 leaves you lacking in tuning options, so you'd need to sort that out. A chip burner, emulator, tunerpro, I don't know but IMO not worth it.

Option 2 will bring you back to this question again to seek another solution after wasting a year trying to get miller stuff to work.

Option 3 is the most reasonable, but instead of COP I'd probably say to run an MS2 with this wasted spark setup: https://www.r3vlimited.com/board/for...d-spark-option
Otherwise, MS3x will do sequential fuel/COP, but +1 to the suggestion of getting it working with the stock M20 setup first.
If for some reason you're looking at the MS3 Pro, I'd skip to other options in that price range. (Ecumaster, Link, Haltech, etc.)

[digger]

what cam would you suggest? think the 288 suites ITBS?

in no particular order ENEM Z45, Schrick 284/272, IE284/280.

a 288 wants to peak around 7000rpm with a 2.8L bottom end. the stock long runner length manifold doesnt work effcieintly at those rpm so you get all the cons without the much of the pros. the shorter runner length of the ITB gives you the all the pros and redcues the cons.

[naika]

Thanks for all the very useful feedback!
So COP is not needed, and it looks like I’ll just go for an MS2 PnP to make things simpler.
I understand the relation between the camshaft and intake. So either I chose a less agressive lift or go for ITBs? I’ve entertained installing ITBs from rhd in Australia, so I’ll keep that in mind.
thanks again for the feedbacks!

[digger]

its more keep duration and overlap in check, lift wont hurt anything provided the springs and everthing can accomodate it usually not an issue with size/type cam youd be looking for