'87 505 GLS Fuel Injection System

Hi Rob,
I never ran an o2 gauge on the OE renix system, but one day for a giggle i asked the local shop to do an at idle 3 gas exhaust test.

This was a bog standard renix system designed for 2.2l, but on a 2l donk. Same bore, 88mm... just shorter stroke and much lighter internals.

We were blown away with the results…As close to theoretical perfection as one could hope for.
The tech commented that most new cars don't even get readings as close to perfect. He was majorly impressed that a cobbled together 1984 system could pul those numbers.

Jo
 
jo proffi said:
We were blown away with the results…As close to theoretical perfection as one could hope for.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Wade has another option then. Grab electronics from a Fuego (other models?). There'd be less geeky tinker value in it, but it'd likely be cheaper and, from what you say, a better result than going for an aftermarket ECU -- just as long as the car doesn't come down with some sort of intermarque identity crisis.

Have fun,

Rob.
 
Problem is, the US Fuego 2.2 had only 99 HP, instead of the US Peugeot 505 2.2's 120. And finding a Fuego is impossible anyway. Renix would have to be sourced elsewhere.
 
Your EFI setup is very much the same as our 205 GTi in Australia for the S1/S2 vintages.

Usual things to check if fuel economy has gone south is:

1. Usual check of timing, plugs, air cleaners... general tune-up.
2. A partially clogged injector may be causing increased consumption - can of injector cleaner in the tank or better pay to have them properly cleaned.
3. Water temp sensor for EFI as suggested previously - cheap to replace even with OEM Bosch part
4. Vacuum advance module going faulty - common problem
5. Lambda sensor - these will cause increasing consumption over time, but it tends to be gradual

For general good running, ensure all air hoses/breathers and dipstick seal are in good order.

Cheers
 
Mike Tippett said:
Problem is, the US Fuego 2.2 had only 99 HP, instead of the US Peugeot 505 2.2's 120. And finding a Fuego is impossible anyway. Renix would have to be sourced elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Hang on, I'm not talking fuego, I'm talking r25/r21.

Confusing maybe, its just that my fuego had all of the above at some time as well as after market and 2.0/2.2 hybrid.

I think the problem would be that you'd need a renault flywheel to trigger the renix system, and I'm not sure if pug/renault flywheels are interchangeable. Also not sure if there is a TDC sensor cutout in the bell housing.

Renix has an odd tooth pattern.
The renault dumb dizzy should fit in the pug block though.

Jo
 
Thanks guys,

An experienced Peugeot mechanic in Portland (Dave @ Eurocar) told me yesterday that he's always noticed that Renault's version of the ZDJL has a lot more zip to it than the Peug. He told me if I ever find a Renault Fuego or Medallion (or R51/R21 I suppose) to swap the cam and cam pulley as Renault's had a superior cam profile. I'd imagine finding a Renix system would be tough and perhaps more work to install!

I posted my original poor running / fuel economy post a few weeks ago, then got sidetracked on megasquirt and forgot to properly update everyone:
  • I helicoiled two bolts on the head and replaced the exhaust manifold gasket
  • I replaced the NTC coolant sensor
  • I had a leaky expansion tank in my exhaust repaired
  • I found that my thermostat was 5 degrees Celsius too cold, so I replaced it with the OEM spec
These above steps got my car running much much better than it had. But can I simply just be satisfied and accept a perfectly functioning car? Of course not. Now I need to do Megasquirt and place it all in jeopardy again!
Anyways, I'm also curious, what made Renault's 2.2i so much zippier? It would be nice to compare side by side a Peugeot 505 Bosch LU2 and a Megasquirted 505 with sequential injection and coil over plug, no dizzys - see how bad Bosch's system really is. Robs, you've inspired me, but I know I need to not bite off more than I can chew. If I'd had a couple Megasquirts under my belt it may be a different story, but here's my plan:
  • Install a missing tooth crank wheel (36-1 likely)
  • Setup and test the fuel system only, moving to ignition after fuel is working properly.
  • This way I can start out with a simple wasted spark system, and get rid of the old dizzy. I may look into doing Coil On Plug wasted spark as well, but I have yet to even pull the spark plugs so I should probably do that first to get an idea of what I'm working with.
Question to Jo, on this: Jo, I'm curious how you rigged up a Coil On Plug setup with the Renault 2.2 engine. I'm hoping I could use the same system! What coil pack did you use?

If somehow that all goes swimmingly, I'll see what my commuting gas mileage is and how the car runs at idle. If I think there's a reasonable margin for improvement, I'll jump into the adding a camshaft single-tooth sensor and supporting sequential injection process. MS warns that sequential injection setup is "NOT FOR NOVICES" and since I've never tuned or setup a MS, I should probably heed their warning. I'd imagine that it would be much easier to get sequential injection working AFTER I've gotten everything else working. Also, setting up the sensor on the camshaft is an unknown, as I don't know how crowded everything is under the ZDJL timing cover.. The missing tooth crank sensor may be a fabrication challenge, I'll have to investigate that further.
Now if I can't manage to ruin my car after all of that... I guess my only option is to add water to the oil or something :roflmao:
Anyways, I'm sure you guys will be hearing back from me. I'd welcome some comments on my overall process/plan!:cheers:
 
Last edited:
My father had a new 2.2 Fuego 5 speed in Canada in 1984-1991 and it had 99 hp, 21 less than the 505 version. It felt reasonably quick, mainly due to the low weight. The 505 over here was a very heavy car.

Whether the Medallion (21) had more snap, I don't know, as I have never driven one. It had 103 hp, 17 less than the 505. But again, the Medallion was at least 600 lbs. lighter than the 505 . Finding one in decent condition will be impossible. Best to look on another continent for Renix because in America they all were Bosch I believe.
 
Last edited:
Hi Wade,

I think your plan's the right way to go. I wasn't actually advising you go go COP/sequential or whatever, just making sure you were aware of the possibilities.

One other possibility rears its head with your plan. With an independent crank sensor it'll be pretty easy to run the Megasquirt in parallel with the Bosch as a simple logger. You'd couldn't connect TPS or CLT, but you'd be able to log AFR, RPM, MAP, BattV and (possibly) MAT. That could give you an interesting baseline for later tuning. Also allows you to get familiar with TunerStudio, and to test run your Megasquirt. I did this with the 604 still running a Holley carb.

One thing that I'll highlight now -- it's really important with the MS and can sort out a lot of headaches -- grounding. Run the grounds as described in the manual. Be particularly attentive to the sensor grounds -- they must come back to be grounded by the Megasquirt. The test is to unplug the 39-pin connector at the MS and you should have open circuit between all sensor wires and the car chassis. Connected, one wire on each sensor should have a path to the chassis. I know you've got a long way to go before this advice is needed, but many Megasquirt installations have fallen afoul of noise and this prevents the commonest problems.

There were two variants of the 505 GTI here -- pre- and post- unleaded petrol (mine's pre). The earlier ones had a higher compression ratio. Seems likely that the U.S. only got the low compression variant. The Renaults, with their better injection/ignition might have been able to get emissions compliance with the higher compression ratio, further increasing their power advantage.

Looking forward to hearing how you go.

Have fun,

Rob.
 
wadehilts said:
Question to Jo, on this: Jo, I'm curious how you rigged up a Coil On Plug setup with the Renault 2.2 engine. I'm hoping I could use the same system! What coil pack did you use?
Click to expand...

I did not run a COP system.
The autronic SMC was triggered by a customised crank/cam sensor made from a ducilier dizzy attached to the cam on the flywheel end of the head.

The spark signal the SMC spat out was simply a trigger signal so a 'smart' device was needed for controlling dwell.
For this, two bosh 008 ignition modules on a massive heatsink were used to fire 4 old school dumb coils wired together in pairs.
Im slightly old fashioned and do like the look of spark plug leads and coils.

I never liked this system as the 008's were tricked into thinking the motor was spinning at half the sped it was, and the idle was never great.
For a number of reasons, mainly electrical and cooling, but also because of the cam and flywheel, it was not the worst thing in the world to have a +1200rpm idle, but it did get a little annoying with the loud exhaust and there were times when it would have been nicer with a 900rpm idle.
Also the car was not a daily driver and sitting in traffic at idle harry ever happened.


The SMC computer was really designed to run an autronic CDI module, but I lost interest in the mods before I got around to buying one of these expensive and slightly rare units so never got to try that option out.
robs said:
One thing that I'll highlight now -- it's really important with the MS and can sort out a lot of headaches -- grounding. Run the grounds as described in the manual. Be particularly attentive to the sensor grounds -- they must come back to be grounded by the Megasquirt. The test is to unplug the 39-pin connector at the MS and you should have open circuit between all sensor wires and the car chassis. Connected, one wire on each sensor should have a path to the chassis. I know you've got a long way to go before this advice is needed, but many Megasquirt installations have fallen afoul of noise and this prevents the commonest problems.


Rob.
Click to expand...
I will second this advice.
My instal was not always pretty and I didn't always unwrap and then re-wrap my loom to do mods, but one thing that pays to be anal about is the earthing and general electrical wiring standards.

Remember, these are french cars which are often let down by their dodgy wiring, and it never hurts to take feeds all the way to the source….ie make up your own bus bars direct from the battery.
I also over did my earth straps to the cylinder head and block and never suffered any of the issues other people (on the internet) seemed to suffer pertaining to either the ECU or the o2 sensor.
Jo
 
Last edited:
Fuel only configuration

Hi guys!
I just bought the MSII kit, with a stimulator and a MS relay. I've decided to go ahead and replace to 505's tach relay as I've heard a couple horror stories of relays failing/shorting/going high resistance and 505 dashes being engulfed in flames. I figure that I might as well convert to a more common set of relays anyways.
I plan to solder everything up and do a fuel only implementation. Thinking about it, the fuel only setup would basically completely replace my 505's ECU, correct? One thing I have noted, is that it may be wise to leave my 505's Tachymetric relay in place while I do the fuel-only implementation. Looking at the schematic, the tach relay interacts with the Ignition Control Module to control the spark. I think it would be simplest to leave that section alone for fuel-only. I can just pull my rpm signal from the coil negative, rather than attempting to hook-up the Bosch ICM to my MSII.
Here is the schematic and ICM wiring for reference:
IgnitionControlModule.jpgSchematicLU2.jpg
Is there any function that the old Bosch ECU would need to perform after MSII controls the fuel and gets a tach signal from the coil? Looking at the schematic is worrying me as I see a lot of interconnection between the ICM, the tach relay and the ECU. I'm trying to figure out the smartest way to do a fuel-only setup..

Also, a question for Robs: how did you install the vacuum line to your MSII? I read in the installation manual that it needs to come from a "full vacuum source" which needs to be past the throttle plate. did you drill and tap your intake manifold to get a hose hookup for vacuum? Or is there a better spot to hook-up?

Thanks,

Wade
 
Hi Wade,

I teed the MAP hose into the vacuum line feeding the heater control reservior -- not sure if the later 505s used vacuum for the heater controls. It might be better to tee off the feed to the fuel pressure regulator since you then have a common feed controlling injection time and pressure. I don't think it's all that critical for this engine. The MS firmware does a good job averaging out pulsations and the only people who seem to have trouble with MAP are running ITBs.

There's no need for the old ECU when you install the MS -- I mounted my MS in the original slot. I also put the garden shears through the loom and used several of the wires (TPS, CLT, MAT) that already went to and from the right places. I can probably dredge up my notes on that, though perhaps RHD vs. LHD and S1 vs. S2 will make them less useful.

If you're permanently going fuel-only you can, as you say, just take your tach input feed from the coil, which is conveniently in that same loom. Saves all the bother with toothed wheel or locking up the distributor. OTOH, you'll be stuck with Peugeot's original dizzy, incurring the wrath of Jo regarding antiquated mechanical tech.

Be careful with the relay board. In doing my 604 installation, I started with fuel-only and got it tuned and running nicely. Then it was a dog's breakfast when I introduced spark. Turned out that there was a lot of noise giving false tach events. One source of the noise was the relay board and I ended up bypassing the relay board for some things (tach input in particular). You can hunt around here for the thread on the 604 Megasquirt conversion (perhaps you've already seen it).

You have the function of the tachymetric relay back-to-front. It never cuts spark; it listens for spark and/or starter motor and, if it doesn't hear them frequently enough, cuts power to the fuel pump. If (as I did) you're leaving it alone, there's not terribly much use for the MS relay board -- fuses is about it.

Have fun,

Rob.
 
Hi Rob,
Sorry I realized my previous post was a bit unclear! I plan to do fuel only FIRST. Then, move to spark control with a missing tooth wheel as a crank sensor. I read your 604 thread, good thing to be aware of. If I do missing tooth crank sensor, I will have the rpm sensor go directly to the MSII to avoid that noise issue in the relay.
I fear Jo's wrath way too much to risk leaving that old dizzy in there. Plus, it would be nice to have the hottest spark and perfect timing. I will certainly post how I end up mounting the missing tooth wheel. I have a plan drafted up, we'll see if it works.

Okay, great, you've helped my confusion. The Bosch ICM is merely informing the tachymetric relay when the fuel pump should be running. If I use Megasquirt's relay, I will simply disconnect the tachy relay and wire up the MSII relays as Megasquirt suggests. Obviously MSII doesn't rely on a ICM to get rpm, spark info.
I was worried that disconnecting the signal that the Bosch ICM provides to the tach relay would have an adverse effect on the timing/spark. I guess that doesn't really make sense because the ignition timing and advance is barely more modern than my 404's system. Just no points.

When I'm ready to receive Jo's blessings, I can disconnect the coil from my megasquirt's tach input and rewire it to my missing tooth crank sensor (this will also require some internal rearrangement in the MSII's tach-input circuit, going from a coil input to a Hall/VR input). I will then drop in my 4-tower coilpack and wire up my two BIP373 ignitors that come with the MSII package. I will subsequently be ready to tune a wasted spark system!
Does that sound right?

Oh, and if you get a chance, could you maybe post a picture of your engine bay? I'm trying to think of the ideal way to rebuild my air intake system. Currently it pulls air from in front of the radiator, facing sideways, but I feel like it would be more efficient to have the intake scooper facing forward, would it not? I'd love to see what you rigged up.

Wade
 
Last edited:
Hi Wade,

Sorry about the slower than usual reply. Should have mentioned that I was going to be out for a few hours.

You seem to be on a pretty good plan there, gradually adding more capabilities. Only immediate advice I have is to leave your MS in the glovebox for easy access until you've finished tweaking. Taking out the dash gets tedious after a while.

While your plan to ditch the old dizzy will placate Jo, going wasted spark is ignoring his advice that it doesn't make a dang of difference. Mostly it'd buy you better spark at higher revs, but these engines aren't usually all that revvy (the pushrod engine in your 404 is much more willing). Still, I wouldn't mind having a go at wasted spark myself except my laziness is a bit of a stumbling block.

I haven't actually done all that much to the intake -- just a slightly customised bit of stainless pipe in place of the AFM; still using the standard filter and plumbing (which, in my model, draws air from inside the engine bay). I'll take a snap of it tomorrow morning, but something drawing cooler, high pressure air would definitely be better (nozzle facing sideways is neither here nor there as long as it's high pressure).

Have fun,

Rob.
 
Hi Robs,

One thing about Jo's experience with the Renix system: I've heard that Renault had a completely different head on their 2.2 Douvrin. According to a previous Renault owner, the swap would be impossible between a Peugeot head and a Renault head. The distributor is in the back of the head also on Renault. (This is all stuff I heard secondhand, so maybe I'm wrong!)

Anyways, you have a good point, perhaps the main area for improvement is in the injection timing. Were you thinking I could get a signal from the missing tooth wheel and use that signal to control a dumb dizzy and single coil? Thus, the single tooth wheel would be an improvement on timing accuracy and we could stick with the inconsequential disadvantages of a mechanical distribution system (especially mitigated at low revs).

That seems sane enough of a postulation, but moving to wasted spark would be fairly simple of a conversion and only cost an extra $70. I've drawn up my total budget for all parts and sensors to be in the range of $800-$900. So I think why not? Maybe I could be a guinea pig for your 505. I'm collected fuel consumption data right now, so I will have something concrete to compare my improvements to. I know having a stronger spark also helps fuel burning under heavy fueling at low revs. The wasted spark would certainly preserve some voltage that would be lost at the dizzy.

I will certainly let you know how it goes! The high pressure cold air intake system will make a noticeable difference in the initial wind up of the car I'm hoping. As far as plumbing details, I was thinking of using the classic K&N cone type filter, although placing this in front of the radiator would be tricky, I'd have to leave it in the engine compartment probably. I'll take some pictures this afternoon.

Is there an advantage to stainless piping? I'd imagine this would conduct a little more heat, but that may be negligible. I'll have to trace my air system to the smallest diameter of intake pipe that can't be removed (probably intake to throttle body) and just make sure that all my plumbing stays larger. I will need to add the IAT sensor somewhere in the circuit as well. You mentioned heatsoak problems, did you move you IAT sensor to the furthest forward part of your intake system? (away from heat sources)

Maybe some additional insulation on the intake piping above the exhaust manifold would be worthwhile.

Cheers,

Wade

Edit: Doing some more research on Cold Air Intake, I've found that having an unprotected cone filter under the bonnet is a bad idea. I'd need to locate it somewhere where fresh air is abundant. Alternatively, I could just do what Robs has done and use my existing cold air intake piping, which isn't so bad, except for the fact that it sits next to the exhaust manifold. Maybe some insulation would help.
 
Last edited:
wadehilts said:
I will certainly let you know how it goes! The high pressure cold air intake system will make a noticeable difference in the initial wind up of the car I'm hoping. .
Click to expand...

Sure will!!! What type of super charger did you plan to use????

Maybe I'm a cynic……Yes I'm a cynic… but none of my cars have never had an intake that was so crap that any mod made any difference to anything but noise and wallet.
We are not talking about about inter cooling a turbo here.

An inconvenient truth is it doesn't mater where your cold air intake sits, once you stop in traffic the temp of the inlet air, and in fact the entire inlet manifold shoots up and tries its hardest to stay there.


It is only on continuous highway driving that you see any equilibrium.

Another inconvenient truth is after market filters often get good flow stats from being crap filters.

Jo





Another inconvenient truth is that after market filters flow more air because they filter it less.
 
Hi Jo,
Hahaha yes, I've been hearing that advice from a few people now. I think the temperature is not going to really matter. If I can hook up a better hosing that's less restrictive, that's probably the best I can do. I'll have to take apart the filter/AFM assembly and see exactly how it works. I don't know if the AFM restricts flow in any way, and if it does, I'll probably remove or disable that feature without having to swap the entire system.
Ok, ok, I'm young and inexperienced, but your cynicism seems well justified. I'll quit futsing around with that idea.
Does it matter where the IAT sensor goes?
Wade
 
Hi Wade,

I don't know about fitting the Renault head. Perhaps an easier possibility would be to get hold of an earlier (higher compression ratio) 505 head from here.

Regarding toothed wheel and dumb dizzy, you put it clearly and that was exactly what I was thinking. Getting the timing right is much more important than being able to generate 3" arcs. Certainly happy for you to be the trailblazing guinea pig (which conjures an interesting picture).

I hope you have better success than I did with benchmarking performance and economy before I started. I knew my failing AFM was costing me on both scores, but in the course of converting to MS I found several things (strange thermostat behaviour, leaky fuel pressure regulator, small air leak in the stupid "econoscope" sensor, think that's about everything). Fixing all these might have brought me back to the 10k/l that the car got when I first bought it. Whatever, with the MS it hovers around the 12.5k/l so I'm pretty confident in 25% improvement in mpg, or 20% less gpm.

No advantage to stainless piping. I wanted something I could bolt to the existing air cleaner (I like things to look reasonably standard), and I had some stainless pipe handy.

I still don't really have heat soak sorted out and have a feeling that there is scope for software improvements. I have an IAT sensor in the stainless pipe. I experimented with wrapping it with foil insulation and so on, but always had problems with the AFR going lean after sitting idling in traffic, and the car misbehaving after starting when warm. I have mounted another thermistor behind the front bumper and this is the one I'm currently using -- just measuring ambient air temperature rather than intake air temp. It seems better than the previous setup, but still not great.

Finally, the promised photo, which shows that my air intake isn't at all impressive.

505intake.jpg

Have fun,

Rob.
 
wadehilts said:
Hi Jo,
Hahaha yes, I've been hearing that advice from a few people now. I think the temperature is not going to really matter. If I can hook up a better hosing that's less restrictive, that's probably the best I can do. I'll have to take apart the filter/AFM assembly and see exactly how it works. I don't know if the AFM restricts flow in any way, and if it does, I'll probably remove or disable that feature without having to swap the entire system.
Ok, ok, I'm young and inexperienced, but your cynicism seems well justified. I'll quit futsing around with that idea.
Does it matter where the IAT sensor goes?
Wade
Click to expand...

Yes it does matter where the IAT sensor is located, because it tweaks the fuel delivery and location can yield differing measurements.

Best to read up where the ECU manufacturer wants it, but generally speaking…not too close and not to far away from the head, and some where it is mechanically isolated from heat soak from its housing.

Renault factory locate theirs just before the throttle plate and I located mine just after it.

Jo
 
robs said:
Finally, the promised photo, which shows that my air intake isn't at all impressive.
Click to expand...

That looks quite sturdy, I think you did a good job! It's interesting how your guys' layout is a lot different that ours in the US. Where is that cylinder drawing air from? Is it sucking underneath? I'll have to send you a picture of what I have on my car, the filter housing is plumbed towards the opposite direction (near the radiator). I think that may be a little better, but it may be inconsequential. I'll post a picture this afternoon.

After my MS conversion is complete, I'll see how happy I am with the 8.8 CR and cooler cam that us USA guys got stuck with. It is nice to not have to use premium fuel, but the camshaft is a bummer. My plan for further upgrades (all contingent on the MS results) is:

  • A 3.89 diff, the same diff they used on turbos up here. Incidentally, it would help correct my speedometer which reads somewhere around 9% off (if I can trust my phones gps speedo).
  • a hotter cam
  • a 9.9:1 CR head from some unsuspecting Aussie
My plan will advance in that order and disband when I've decided that I'm satisfied.

One thing I can tease you Aussies about is the 404's engine bay :joker: What a nightmare for RHD! All that free space on the carburetor side of the engine. I thought taking the exhaust manifold off was hard on my car! Okay, Okay, I'll quit teasing you guys.

Jo, thanks for the advice, it looks like Robs and I will be doing some experimentation/research on this one. It seems like a tricky thing to fix, but perhaps the "mechanical isolation" is the best place to start. Robs, did you use any sort of insulating washer when you attached the IAT sensor? Direct to stainless may suck heat too readily. I'll try using some less-conductive pipe material and generous insulation see if that gives me any grief. Jo's comment about it needing to be closer to the head may be an interesting place to start also. The exhaust manifold is probably the evilest component as far as heat soak so maybe measuring the IAT downstream of the exhaust is a good idea. I'll see if Megasquirt has any threads on this!

Thanks so much guys, you've already saved me countless hours of torment.:banana:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top