• 24mm Throttle Body [Prototype]

  • Interested in getting early access to a NanoEFI kit? Sign up here! Some pre-BETA news may be sprinkled in.
Our forum has moved to: FORUM.NANOEFI.COM

We've moved to a new forum software package (called Discourse). It's much better suited for our needs and better all around. Please spend a moment and register there, even if you're already registered here. I've posted new progress updates there to kick off new topics of conversation. I hope to see you there! Thanks!
Interested in getting early access to a NanoEFI kit? Sign up here! Some pre-BETA news may be sprinkled in.
 #48  by Mexwall
 Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:51 pm
First of all I never bought the EFI to get beter fuel economy. that was a bonus. I bought it because I wanted to know if I could make it work on my scooter and because I don't like carbs.
It could do beter fuel economy if the tune was better. When you buy it at ecotrons it is tuned for a 125cc and you need to do an auto tune. After the auto tune the VE table is addapted to the engine but all other settings/valeu's are not addapted.

I didn't have the time yet to dive in to all of that, but it has now run 17.000 km without problems so I don't feel the need to do it.

What economy are you expecting when you put an EFI on your scooter?
 #50  by Travis Nano
 Tue Aug 07, 2018 6:52 pm
Mexwall wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:32 pm
So, if I understand it correctly, the throttlebody and de ECU wil be 1 part?
That's right (y)

Integrating the ECM into the throttle body significantly helps with two of the core values of this project: affordability and ease of use. Reducing the electrical harnessing helps keep the final kit cost low. And for ease of use, getting installation as close as possible to a simple "drop in carburetor replacement" means that a wider range of end users will be able to use the system.

This may change though depending on feedback as we go along.
Mexwall wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:32 pm
And if one or the other fails/breaks you will have to replace the whole unit and , if neede, you can't replace just the ECU?
Not necessarily. There are a couple options I'm considering that would make the ECU modular and removable, while still remaining watertight and environmentally sealed.

What I'm concerned about more is the potential of EMI interference with the board so close to the engine, injector, etc. We'll see how that tests out.
Mexwall wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:32 pm
As far as I know an EFI needs imput from a few sensors to work properly, MAP, TPS and trigger are supproted/suplied. But I can't find if the NanoEfi supports these:

- An O2 sensor to check the air/fuel mixture and addapt it to meet the optimum mixture and to see if your tune is right. If your tuning is correct you could do without it, but without it there is no way to check if your tuning is correct.
Initially, tuning will be done manually, without O2 support or autotune. I intend to add native hardware O2 support later depending on the effect it has on the kit price, as well as an O2 extension for early adopters.
Mexwall wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 4:32 pm
- An engine temperature sensor for cold start and mixture addaption accordig to temperature.
I'm hoping to work out a clever solution in software for cold starts using the IAT.
 #60  by hojnikb
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:43 am
Mexwall wrote:
Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:51 pm
First of all I never bought the EFI to get beter fuel economy. that was a bonus. I bought it because I wanted to know if I could make it work on my scooter and because I don't like carbs.
It could do beter fuel economy if the tune was better. When you buy it at ecotrons it is tuned for a 125cc and you need to do an auto tune. After the auto tune the VE table is addapted to the engine but all other settings/valeu's are not addapted.

I didn't have the time yet to dive in to all of that, but it has now run 17.000 km without problems so I don't feel the need to do it.

What economy are you expecting when you put an EFI on your scooter?
I was expecting sub 2l/100km for normal driving. I guess that makes sense, if its not tuned perfectly for the engine.
 #61  by hojnikb
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:44 am
Initially, tuning will be done manually, without O2 support or autotune. I intend to add native hardware O2 support later depending on the effect it has on the kit price, as well as an O2 extension for early adopters.
So the current board revision has no support for O2 whatsoever ?
 #62  by Travis Nano
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:13 am
hojnikb wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:44 am
Initially, tuning will be done manually, without O2 support or autotune. I intend to add native hardware O2 support later depending on the effect it has on the kit price, as well as an O2 extension for early adopters.
So the current board revision has no support for O2 whatsoever ?
I have an ADC pin exposed on the current board for optional use with an external wideband kit like the PLX SM-AFR series. But the PLX is nearly as expensive as the entire NanoEFI kit, so I don't intend this as real solution. There may be other (cheaper) ways to accomplish the same thing, but I haven't invested any time into this feature yet. We have several EE's here though (this is an impressive crowd). If you all are interested, I'll start a new topic and we can start working out a strategy to add native O2 support. In the end, the top design priority for a new feature is making it affordable (while not compromising reliability).

Stepping back for a moment - The primary value of NanoEFI in my eyes is to eliminate the reliability difficulties with carburetors, and make tuning much easier over the re-jetting process. Even tuning manually, adjusting numbers/sliders on the mobile tuner is much easier than having to physically remove and disassemble the carburetor multiple times to dial your jetting in. For now, unless we can work out an affordable strategy for O2, NanoEFI won't be the best option for gas mileage tuning or users that need auto-tune. We'll get there though.
 #63  by Mexwall
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:58 am
hojnikb wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:43 am
I was expecting sub 2l/100km for normal driving. I guess that makes sense, if its not tuned perfectly for the engine.

Fuel economy is dependend on more factors than the tune alone. The weight of the scooter, the weight of the person driving it, the types of road that are driven (flat land, hills, bridges, lots of stoplights :roll: ).

I've had discussions about this with others of the club I'm a member of. They were saying" my scooter does 1:60, yours is an injection and should do that to" but they forgot that there scooter weight almost 30 kilo's less and the driver also and there was no way I could get that in to there heads.

No offence to you, but if you want to convert your scooter to EFI only for better feul economy you might get disapointed at the end.
 #65  by hojnikb
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:52 pm
Mexwall wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:58 am
hojnikb wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:43 am
I was expecting sub 2l/100km for normal driving. I guess that makes sense, if its not tuned perfectly for the engine.

Fuel economy is dependend on more factors than the tune alone. The weight of the scooter, the weight of the person driving it, the types of road that are driven (flat land, hills, bridges, lots of stoplights :roll: ).

I've had discussions about this with others of the club I'm a member of. They were saying" my scooter does 1:60, yours is an injection and should do that to" but they forgot that there scooter weight almost 30 kilo's less and the driver also and there was no way I could get that in to there heads.

No offence to you, but if you want to convert your scooter to EFI only for better feul economy you might get disapointed at the end.
Obviously fuel economy is dependent on my factors as you point out, but having EFI gives you much finer control over the fueling which in turn should mean lower fuel consumption in almost all situations (obviously going full tilt will still need fuel either way).

For example, the old SR50 DITECH is a 2 stroker (which is inherently less efficient than our 4 storkers) and could easily reach ~1,9L-2l/100km.

So i think there are room for improvements if someone actually bothered to go that route. I
Personally i want better reliability (carbs can be a bitch when outside temps aren't ideal) and as much of a range on a single tank as possible. Obviously the latter could be fixed with a larger tank :D
 #74  by hojnikb
 Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:01 am
Travis Nano wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:13 am
hojnikb wrote:
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:44 am
Initially, tuning will be done manually, without O2 support or autotune. I intend to add native hardware O2 support later depending on the effect it has on the kit price, as well as an O2 extension for early adopters.
So the current board revision has no support for O2 whatsoever ?
I have an ADC pin exposed on the current board for optional use with an external wideband kit like the PLX SM-AFR series. But the PLX is nearly as expensive as the entire NanoEFI kit, so I don't intend this as real solution. There may be other (cheaper) ways to accomplish the same thing, but I haven't invested any time into this feature yet. We have several EE's here though (this is an impressive crowd). If you all are interested, I'll start a new topic and we can start working out a strategy to add native O2 support. In the end, the top design priority for a new feature is making it affordable (while not compromising reliability).

Stepping back for a moment - The primary value of NanoEFI in my eyes is to eliminate the reliability difficulties with carburetors, and make tuning much easier over the re-jetting process. Even tuning manually, adjusting numbers/sliders on the mobile tuner is much easier than having to physically remove and disassemble the carburetor multiple times to dial your jetting in. For now, unless we can work out an affordable strategy for O2, NanoEFI won't be the best option for gas mileage tuning or users that need auto-tune. We'll get there though.
Could a narrowband o2 be usable on a current board as well ? They seem to run for about 15-20$ on aliexpress which isn't all that big of a cost adder. Especially if it can be used for auto tuning.
 #75  by Mexwall
 Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:11 am
hojnikb wrote:
Sat Aug 11, 2018 4:01 am
Could a narrowband o2 be usable on a current board as well ? They seem to run for about 15-20$ on aliexpress which isn't all that big of a cost adder. Especially if it can be used for auto tuning.
My personal opinion and experience, do not buy electronic automotive parts from Aliexpress.

A lot of people who did this ended up with more troubles than before, after they switch the aliexpres part for an original or good after market (local supplier) there problems were solved.
In the end they needed to spend more money because they wanted to do it very cheap.
 #129  by _Iain_
 Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:04 pm
Out of interest, what are the external dimensions like on the unit?

Thinking back to previous small engine builds, I recall having to trim a few bits of the frame on an aircooled Chinese 50 engine as the carb fitted onto the stock manifold facing so as the mouth was around the front of the belt cover. When converting over to a giant Keihin PWK it fouled. If you were to run the longer casing then it might prove a headache long term for retrofitting to an awful lot of the twist and go's.

Another potential issue comes with engines such as my Vespa whereby this extended design would put the ECU directly above the cylinder (potentially fouling on the cooling shroud) - To run the current Dellorto PHBH on the scoot it has to be rotated at approximately a 35-45 degree angle.

What about integrating the ECU into the fuel pump? Most of the small engine scoot projects have ample space underneath the tank which also seems the obvious spot to mount the pump - you could then potentially save on manufacturing costs by using an existing throttle body with ready integrated sensors & injector?

I'd looked towards the Suzuki Burgman 400i & Yamaha YBR125 as potential donors - the TPS, MAP, IAT sensor & injector were all integrated into one compact unit that ought to be usable for most applications. You'd also then have none of the potential initial reliability issues with developing both a throttle body & ECU setup.

I really do like the idea of integrating the ECU into the throttle body but fear it may prove an issue when it comes to fitment, as well as the associated vibrations/heat coming from some of the small engines when at a higher state of tune than stock!

DEVELOPMENT UPDATES

LIKE AND FOLLOW!

WHO'S DEVELOPING NANOEFI?

Hey! - My name is Travis. I'm an offroad riding enthusiast from rural southside Virginia, and the owner and sole developer of NanoEFI.

It's taken a while to get to this point, and it's been an incredible learning experience along the way. Thank you for your interest and support!

Welcome to the project. Sign up and let's talk affordable EFI!

The NanoEFI Project

Travis @ NanoEFI