Alfa Romeo Forums banner
41 - 60 of 93 Posts
Hi there,

I just read this post, its great to see such in depth knowledge. I currently race a 1991 33 16V with the old style Bosch 0 280 150 702 injectors. and after building a custom race exhaust and cold air intake i have seen a dramatic lean out above 6,000 rpm ! I am interested in finding out if the EV6 injector would be a great upgrade to "fill" the lean out at high RPM and is this injector a "bolt in" for the 1991 Alfa Romeo Boxer 16V Engine?

Thanks
 
Electronic Fuel Injector (EFI) Flow Data Table

Stan Weiss' - Electronic Fuel Injector (EFI) Flow Data Table

Selection of Injectors for atmospheric engine:
Maximum intake air is divided by the number of Injectors, divide the result by 12.5 (this part of the mixture), multiply by 1.2 (coefficient of the stock), multiply by 1000 and divide by 60 minutes ... get "as a" gram minute

  Intake air can be determined by simply connecting the vehicle to the test bench!
 
It's-a me, 155dude.

After one year, the engine still runs fine. Fuel lines, intake manifold and so on are still in perfect condition.

The rest of the car however shows its age, as everything else is currently broken (rack and pinion leaking, front wheel bearing, thermostat, got a new exhaust last week). If someone would like to replace steering rack with axle stands on a driveway at 45F: Be my guest.

The Alfa was also not used for a couple of month, and left with E85 in the tank. It did start right up afterwards with the old fuel, so no problem there. The tank is plastic anyways.

martinsiffredi said:
Hi there,

I just read this post, its great to see such in depth knowledge. I currently race a 1991 33 16V with the old style Bosch 0 280 150 702 injectors. and after building a custom race exhaust and cold air intake i have seen a dramatic lean out above 6,000 rpm ! I am interested in finding out if the EV6 injector would be a great upgrade to "fill" the lean out at high RPM and is this injector a "bolt in" for the 1991 Alfa Romeo Boxer 16V Engine?

Thanks
Those EV6 injectors improve the spray pattern to create a more even mixture and much like spacers on carburettored engines, give a little more torque and a smoother engine.

Given that the ECU figures out the injector size via the lambda correction factor, a larger injector won't help you, unless you disconnect the lambda probe and use the closed loop mode with larger injectors. An ECU tune (or programmable ECU) would be a better option for this.
 
Discussion starter · #44 ·
After one year, the engine still runs fine. Fuel lines, intake manifold and so on are still in perfect condition.

The rest of the car however shows its age, as everything else is currently broken (rack and pinion leaking, front wheel bearing, thermostat, got a new exhaust last week). If someone would like to replace steering rack with axle stands on a driveway at 45F: Be my guest.

The Alfa was also not used for a couple of month, and left with E85 in the tank. It did start right up afterwards with the old fuel, so no problem there. The tank is plastic anyways.

martinsiffredi said:
Hi there,

I just read this post, its great to see such in depth knowledge. I currently race a 1991 33 16V with the old style Bosch 0 280 150 702 injectors. and after building a custom race exhaust and cold air intake i have seen a dramatic lean out above 6,000 rpm ! I am interested in finding out if the EV6 injector would be a great upgrade to "fill" the lean out at high RPM and is this injector a "bolt in" for the 1991 Alfa Romeo Boxer 16V Engine?

Thanks
Those EV6 injectors improve the spray pattern to create a more even mixture and much like spacers on carburettored engines, give a little more torque and a smoother engine.

Given that the ECU figures out the injector size via the lambda correction factor, a larger injector won't help you, unless you disconnect the lambda probe and use the closed loop mode with larger injectors. An ECU tune (or programmable ECU) would be a better option for this.
 
I recently swapped in a set of Volvo injectors in place of the 280 150 702 units on my 89 164 and am pleased with the results. I did so not for ethanol compatibility but rather desire to try something new and supposedly improved. I was replacing the FPR and damper and intake tubes so figured why not since I'd have it all apart to do so. I used the 280 155 746 meant for a Volvo. They are about 3 mm shorter but otherwise a drop in replacement. The car runs much better than before tho I wasn't having issues I could directly attribute to faulty injectors. Cost of the injectors? USD 20 each for rebuilds from an outfit in Michigan. A worthy consideration. Caio, chris
 
Makes total sense to update them and the fuel rail will hold them in if you don't find the ones with the clip groove. Was reading in Jeep forum that adding a resistor to intake air temp sensor (Bosch manual says it's to really to determine air density) will change reading to ECU and allow more fuel delivery for ethanol fuels. Whether that's a good idea or will work well through full rev range, who knows ?
 
For the past 4 years I been using ev6 0 280 150 556 from a 4.6l mustang, I have better performance with them an no mods need it. This number was posted before by TS888.
 
Zeroly, for the "full-throttle enrichment without lambda regulation" to become a problem, you'll have to travel long distances >95mph. 75mph in fifth gear is nowhere near the full-throttle range of the ECU, and most countries around the world have such a speed limitation - or even less.

Firstly, if you save $1.80 per gallon with E85, why would you put gasoline (E5) into your tank? You obviously want to maximize the miles that you're traveling on E85. If you're in the US, you can't save those $1.80 per gallon as gasoline is already $3 less expensive per gallon than in Europe, so you want to install the stock-flow injectors with better fuel atomization, if the need or wish arrises. Those prices are not bound to be forever, but, at least for me, it's fun to experiment with E85. I still have the stock injectors if I want to reverse this mod, after all, and in the mean time, I can have them reconditioned while I'm still able to drive the car.

To give you a concrete example: The price spread of E85 vs. gasoline in San Jose is 19% but you need 33% more of it, so for you personally, to drive a car with E85 would currently cost you more than gasoline. In the US, it's just not feasible. Gasoline is still the way to go.

But:
Image

The question is for how long until it becomes feasible to replace them for the Corvette/Volvo Turbo injectors. Those numbers are for regular gas, while E85 has a higher AKI than premium gas. If you do the math for premium gas and E85+33%, they cost the same already. But the higher availability of gasoline is still something to consider.

Secondly, E85 is a fuel whose calorific energy is 33% less than those of pure gasoline, so you want those exact 33% more fuel on full-throttle. That's why you replace the injectors in the first place even if the car runs fine on the lambda regulation <4500RPM.

The range of the lambda probe on Bosch Motronic ECUs should be +-25%, and on the modern ones (1995-), 0% is E10.

Image


E10 is well within -25% of the lambda regulation with ~30% larger injectors. Again, E85 is still too expensive to put it into your tank in the US. In Europe, every gas station has E5 "Super" and "Euro-Super E10" as well.

Just wait until I have results for the larger injectors on gasoline, I'll let you know if the ECU throws an error about the lambda regulation on E5 or E10.

You do have a point with the remap, though, but it's mainly not the fuel, it's the ignition. On the V6 12V engines without a knocking sensor, the maps are intended for a min. AKI of 85, while E85's AKI is 94-96. The timings need to be advanced to increase the efficiency (read: power) of the engine. The 24V (and modern 16V) with knocking sensors have maps that are good for an AKI of 94 resp. 100 RON (Premium gas). While you're at it, it's best to remap both though, to adjust the car perfectly to a different kind of fuel.
Many thanks for this excellent thread. Might well upgrade to the later injectors but probably not the E85. There are times when I do drive above 95mph (120+mph) for extended periods - i.e. when driving in Germany - and would be upset to lose the power curve above 140mph.
In the meantime, have saved some of the data you so kindly supplied and will think it over.

Cheers :)
 
Been satisfied with the swap I did a few weeks ago. I've been keeping an eye on consumption and notice a slight improvement. The first tank was mostly autosrada driving at 80 plus mph for extended periods of time. I'm getting about 27 mpg. This is slightly higher/better (1mpg) than previously. I have a full tank now and will check it after doing mainly what I'd consider "normal" driving. Results should be better. It's interesting but not terribly important as the drive-ability of the car is so much improved. I can't attribute this solely to the injector swap as I swapped everything else as well but think they played the major role here.

FWIW, my car isn't equipped with a lambda sensor or catalyst and the computer has relearned the new injectors quite well if it needed to. Here in the motherland, gas is gas, no ethanol added. ciao, chris
 
Just in case anyone else wants to go "dumpster diving" at the junkyard for these, application is '99 - '01 Saab 9-5 V6 Turbo. Injectors are navy blue in color.
With Spring weather here in December I went junkyarding the other day and liberated a set of 6 navy blue injectors from a '99 Saab 9-5 V6 Turbo. They are sitting here in front of me as I type, Bosch p/n confirmed as 0280155712.

I'll get around to installing them over the winter and report back. FWIW, unlike the pink Volvo injectors, these have the two slots for the retainers, so no need to break out the Dremel.
 
my source says the 702 was the injector used on all US 164's. Not saying right or wrong, just saying what my info reflects. These folks supplied the replacements I used. I am thrilled and can't beat the price of 20 bucks each.

ALFA ROMEO

ciao, chris
 
Hy there

Can you help me? I'm searching the correct EV6 injectors for my 164 2.0 v6 turbo from 1993 i got a gtv 916 engine, but it came without injectors.

I'm a bit confused about the references of the EV6 in Portugal we have 95 or 98 octanes petrol.

I have searched a bit and i found some EV6 injectors for a jeep Cherokee 4.0 v8 and i dont if they are the same reference as you fit in a alfa romeo v6 engine.

Best regards
 
Great information, thanks.

I have a 2000 166 with the conventional fuel injectors, 0280150701. I am also running three Busso engines that are from 2001 and 2002. In 2001, EOBD were introduced along with different ECUs. Beginning 2001, these engines use EV6 injectors. The part number is 0 280 156 038.

The 2002 engine is now in a mid-engine configuration, managed by 164 ECU, with 164 injectors. The new set of EV6 injectors with beautiful new fuel rails is the new plan. However, the newer fuel rails do not have a return fuel line. Fuel pressure is managed at the pump. The fuel pump is external, it sounds like a fuel pressure regulator at the pump, with a short return to the tank is needed. Then, the fuel rails without fuel return can be used.
 
This all sounds great for the 164's etc...but what about using these in the Motronic spiders (91-94) as the injectors are exceptionally hard to find. If you have a solution I am sure we would all be pleased to hear about it.
 
This all sounds great for the 164's etc...but what about using these in the Motronic spiders (91-94) as the injectors are exceptionally hard to find. If you have a solution I am sure we would all be pleased to hear about it.
What size injectors are used on the Spider? Find that out and then search for an injector of the same size (or nearly so) on a more modern vehicle.
 
Thought about this and fitting the injectors to a Spider I doubt would be too tuff. Might require a euro 2L rail, reg, and dampener. I'd like to think it'd be bolt up. Otherwise do the legwork on the part number and what works for the engine. IIRC you need to know the flow rate, and the ohms and the various measurements of the current injector(s). Few hours dinkin around the net should be all it takes.Ciao, chris
 
my 4 took 280 150 702. My research shows a Spider takes 280 150 764. Looking at the flow rates chart I use they flow about the same and operate at the same PSI. IDK the ohms value nor the physical dimensions but initial looksee suggests you have a large number of options. ciao, chris
 
I took your information and ran with it. I stayed with the 15.8 ohms and came up with 3 injectors that were in the close ball park to the flow rate of the quoted injector. What cars these fit I have no clue or whether they fit is another story :

0 280 150 764...15.8 ohm, 196 cc flow
0 280 150 702...15.8 ohms 226 cc flow
0 280 150 235...15.8 ohms 190 cc flow
0 280 150 955...15.8 ohms 196 cc flow
0 280 150 714...15.8 ohms 192 cc flow (BMW 318i and other models) AKA EV13A...has a lot of replacement injectors.

Not sure how the flow rate would effect the stock MAP in the computer, if any.
 
41 - 60 of 93 Posts