• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

MikeJr. 65 122s project

All the snorty sounds, without the fiddly metal bits to do the tuning.

As far as reliable, though? Dunno, since the DCOE's tuning is almost all 'hard coded' by swapping little metal bits around, the tune they're in seems to be pretty rock solid. Very few adjustments to wander off over time, they pretty much just always run the same. Unlike the SU's which needed fairly frequent twidling with to keep it running smoothly.

Of course, the DCOE's also go lean around left-hand corners, rich around right (or backward?) and sometimes slosh a little fuel out of the bowl vents in really hard corners. And generally, run rich to account for poor fuel atomization. And just generally stink of gas. Yeah....
 
JohnMc said:
All the snorty sounds, without the fiddly metal bits to do the tuning.

As far as reliable, though? Dunno, since the DCOE's tuning is almost all 'hard coded' by swapping little metal bits around, the tune they're in seems to be pretty rock solid. Very few adjustments to wander off over time, they pretty much just always run the same. Unlike the SU's which needed fairly frequent twidling with to keep it running smoothly.

Of course, the DCOE's also go lean around left-hand corners, rich around right (or backward?) and sometimes slosh a little fuel out of the bowl vents in really hard corners. And generally, run rich to account for poor fuel atomization. And just generally stink of gas. Yeah....
Click to expand...

That's part of the appeal. I honestly miss the smell of DCOE's walking into my garage right now.

Mike: interested to see how those play out for you. The brand definitely has a solid reputation, hopefully these will give you reliability.
 
Fuel smell was pretty, bad. Reliability wasn’t horrible with the DCOEs. EFI was something I wanted to do on this car even before I bought the Weber’s, and I wish I had just done it originally. I kicked around doing the stock B20 intake. I sent one to NIW to have him weld in fuel bungs and fab up a fuel rail. If/when he finishes that up I might put that on, sell these jenveys, and turbo it, or maybe turbo it with the ITBs, or I won’t turbo it at all and keep the ITBs the way they are. We’ll see
 
It's really just a throttle body (with a hidden TPS) and pair of injectors. No electronics in them.
 
Now why on earth are you putting a power steering pump on your 122?
168841361.jpg
 
I got the idea from a swede that had put a rack and pinion in his 122

167555860.jpg


167555859.jpg


167555858.jpg


166381792.jpg


167555857.jpg


A rack was the route I wanted to go all along. It is a close ratio rack 2.7 lock to lock
 
Last edited:
You gain bump steer:roll:
This steering rack is to long too. I did test it and....build it back and swaped to a power steering box.
Measure first next time.
Good luck, Kay
 
mocambique-amazone said:
You gain bump steer:roll:
This steering rack is to long too. I did test it and....build it back and swaped to a power steering box.
Measure first next time.
Good luck, Kay
Click to expand...

Doesn’t the rack mount position in conjunction with the lower control arms dictate bump steer? If the tie rod is parallel with the lower control arm shouldn’t that eleminate/minimize bump steer?

I did measure the rack and I was actually worried it wasn’t long enough.

I’m going to give it a shot and see
 
Last edited:
MikeJr. said:
Doesn?t the rack mount position in conjunction with the lower control arms dictate bump steer? If the tie rod is parallel with the lower control arm shouldn?t that eleminate/minimize bump steer?

I did measure the rack and I was actually worried it wasn?t long enough.

I?m going to give it a shot and see
Click to expand...

I think he may be talking about this:
When designing a car, if the centerline of the outer tie rod lines up with the centerline of the lower ball joint, and the inter tie rod lines up with the lower pivot point then the length and angle of the tie rod and suspension will be the same resulting in zero bump. Most car builders design their cars in this fashion.
Click to expand...
For citation purposes:
http://www.longacreracing.com/technical-articles.aspx?item=8162

The rack body itself causes the inner tie rod point to be out further than the pivot point of the lower control arm (In can see it in one of the photos), but I am not familiar enough with the 1 series to comment on the upper control arm's pivot point.
That said, one man's bane is another's dream. It may be fine for you. You have gone this far, I agree you should try it at least. :)
 
MikeJr. said:
You already did that IMO
Click to expand...

:bow: rough around the edges but it's slowly getting where I want it.
MikeJr. said:
I got a MS3 for it and will run alpha-N, COP using GM coils and CAS distributor adaptor

Here is an old, but basic VW thread on how to set up and tune ITBs using MS
https://www.clubgti.com/forums/inde...edis-wasted-spark-wiring-calibrations.288322/
Click to expand...

Look into the ITB mode with MS3. It's what I'm on and has been treating me well so far.

I really need to address the steering in my car as well. I could really use the space where the box is along with curing my vague steering, I've been looking for a good manual rack option.
 
stick70 said:
I really need to address the steering in my car as well. I could really use the space where the box is along with curing my vague steering, I've been looking for a good manual rack option.
Click to expand...

Same here. I think that is where I want to mount my GM coils. I’m going to give this rack a try and see what happens.

I can’t wait to start messing with the MS. I was going to hit you up anyway about MS and ITBs. Are you going to SE in April?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top