Trionic 5 CPS kit! 150$

[Cark]

I have Dennis's kit in my 85. It has worked great.

I drove to Mike D's place last summer on a dizzy, got there around 9am. I left that night around 10pm on T5. There was time for lunch and beers in there as well. I'm fairly confident in saying that I was the first "T5 in a day" swap ever done. Mike has done a few more since then from my understanding, so I'm sure his technique has become more refined. Again, I'm not going to pretend my setup is the prettiest, but hell, it works!

I've put (edit) ~7,000 miles on my 85 since then, not a single hiccup until just last week, something set the car into base boost. Waiting to reconvene with Mike D to sort out the issue, whatever it may be, probably hardware related since I used 100% second hand components.

[SwedeSport]

We do kinda like our parts kinda all techy and billet-ish here. But I can appreciate a down and dirty approach too.

As long as it works...

But I would at least scuff up the hardware and rattle bomb it. The harness, routing and such has to be clean though. At least wrapped in convoluted tubing and nicely taped to mimic the factory.

I can say that Jordans harness really impressed me. In fact it was better than I expected. And this same car has to retain AC, so I bought his flywheel setup.

On my notchback project, I used the Squaabworks pickup. And Jordan has the car at his shop to do an entire front to back harness. After seeing the T5 harness he made, I was left with no doubt he was the man for that job.


Until I decide to T5 my 8 valve 900, I doubt Ill be in the market for any more conversions for a while.

Unless you think you could get my 5.0 F150 running on T5 .

[paulh]

Needs more red paint.

Paul

[Mike D]

its funny you mention painting, any quality paint on the outer edge tone wheel will upset the signal given to the CPS. Sadly this is an "ask me how i know" situation.

you mention an 8v project, i have been working on retrofitting coil packs to a t5 system. not so much for 8v saabs, but for non saab projects. t5 has some real benefits over other aftermarket EFI systems. the most important of which is that it is obd2 compatible, something that no aftermarket EFI system is. This means for many 4cyl project cars made after 1996 it will be the only option!

also, i am not selling a harness?? why is that a conversation here??

[Jordan]

Yes, nothing personal against you Mike, I'm sure you're a good guy and were on the same side here. I just can't stand the spewing of miss-information.

You're kit has some plus sides for sure, I like that the fact that its mounts the sensor on the other side and that it is cheap, although probably still $75 more than it should be IMO.

Materials do make a difference and so does quality of construction, if you've ever built a race car you know that successfully passing a safety/tech-inspection has a lot to do with the overall cleanliness of what you can see which reflects a lot on what inspectors can't see. My point is that although Dennis's kits are maybe over-kill for basic function, it shows that a lot of time and thought went into not only the design but all aspects of the what the function should be. I'm sure there will be further improvements (as there are with any design) . I think the harnesses were just brought up as a point of workmanship. It is not just "does it work" , it is how long does it work, has it be thoroughly tested, is there consistency etc. You have to understand that although it is your product, it is marketed on "our" forum which we hold to fairly high standards. No censorship here, we just try to cut through the BS.

- I'm curious why you are including a crank pulley bolt to some people when you say you don't remove it for the install? I don't see any huge time savings with installing your kit over pulley kits as you claim. Dennis's kit takes 20-30 mins?

- The standard crank triggers are still available and fairly inexpensive (http://www.eeuroparts.com/Parts/48701/A ... -55557241/). The EZK sensors however ARE NLA and not really available directly as splice-in parts from OEM. There is no more "software" expertise needed to run this system over standard Trionic5.5. ECUs should be flashed eitherway...

- I've painted aperture discs before without any problems

- How are you measuring "strength" of the signal?

- I don't know if MikeD really pioneered T5, Luke and I were talking about Trionic and he had subsequent wiring plans figured out after the first rally car was finished, which was like 8-9 years ago. T5Suite had not really been developed at the time so tuning would have been an issue so he went in another direction. Mike surely was the one who spread the word about it and put a lot of time into writing that SAABLink article, which has some good and not so good info in it. I think Gregg Cron was running a DI in his car even years before that.

- As for the flywheels, there is no "mandatory" clutch change, it simply gives you the option to upgrade if you so desire and have a universal pattern for all c900s. There is no down time for people, they just return their core after the install, which should also take about an hour.

[99Super]

Mike,
By what do you mean by 2.1 CPS? Is that the type for the T5.2?
Working on T5ing my 99 So you may get a few questions from me over the next few weeks!

John

[Mike D]

by signal strength i was was talking about the margin of error in how the sensor is gaped seams to be greater with these wheels. just an observation.

price is relevant. the time is saves the user vs fabricating there own is worth every penny of what I'm asking. Anuther factor is in the money is saves the end user, by not having to purchase there own aperature disk. Also, if i was to offer the kit for 75$ cheaper with all the features (shipping hardware, ect ect) than what i am now, i would loose money, so would anybody who has constructed them in this manner. Yes this setup is much simpler than others, And yes i built it out of commonly available parts. Why shouldn't I? is there a concern that the centering ring is not bulky enough? or that the steal used to construct the bracket is weak? i hear people speaking out about the quality of it, but fail to mention any specific concerns. The simplicity is a reflection of the thought, and engineering choices i made when i constructed it. and as engineers i hope you can appreciate something that is simple, effective and works to fix issues that i have seen with other setups

the crank bolt is included because some cars have a bolt that goes past the end of the harmonic balancer. this causes an interference issue if your car is one of these, then a new one is included. the pulley still does not get removed from the car, just the OEM bolt removed, and a new one secured in its place.

the time savings is very real, because the bracket does not mount behind the pulley, the tone wheel does not bolt to a bracket, which then bolts to the car. The CPS bolt itself is not hidden on the inside of the belt system. Then factor in that the wheel is thinner resulting in a huge amount more space to fit tools in the area during mounting. If the idea of longevity is a concern i will put this to the test vs any OEM cps wheel setup. if you drop the OEM cps wheel once and it just happens to hit the wrong spot, its out of true. and will not work. Again, Ask me how i know.
. there is a DI/apc writeup on 900aero.com. its a solid write up however out of date with the times. and the DI-apc system is non adjustable.

pioneered? maybe. I'm sure lots of people talked about crossing the ocean before Columbus actually did it. Some people even did, but they didnt write it down. In the article i wrote 5 years ago i did have some things incorrect towards the beginning. but at that point in time there was nobody to tell me otherwise. Part of doing something that is not well documented is acknowledging that you are going to make mistakes, and knowing you can figure out how to pass them. Many of the mistakes i made while i was still trying to figure it out, everybody on here has benefited from.

[Mike D]

2.1 c900s used a hall effect wheel behind the harmonic balencer. by using the 2.1 balencer, oil pump cover, and hall effect sensor, combined with a 91-93 9000 hall effect wheel you can run the system like its a 5.2 car. doing this requires relocating 2 wires in the harness, and being able to flash ECU's before it will run correctly.

there are only minor drawback to this system, the largest of which is ECU compatibility. if you have never flashed an ECU before you need to climb that mountian, as well as get the harness installed at the same time. If you are already comfortable with ECU work, then its a different story.

the other drawback are just the loss of gear boost limiters, and possibly obd2 compatibility (i still need to check this)

[Jordan]

Are you including the giant spacer that goes behind the new bolt as well? I'd bet those would pretty expensive pieces of optional hardware.

I think the confusion in terms is that the OE trigger setup isn't limited by the 2.1L , all N/A cars after '88 or '89 use hall effect pickup there. All oil pump housings after that date already have a space or the sensor as well. Also , any DI/APC or '93 Trionic 9000 will have the correct tone wheel. The largest issue with these , in my opinion, is that new replacement sensors are difficult to acquire and more expensive.

I've converted cars with both setups and there is far greater support and knowledge with 5.5. The tunes themselves are not cross compatible which also shuts a lot of doors while trying learn from others.

[Mike D]

the bolts, and washers really are not that costly, and less than 1/4 of the purchasers need them. hence why i dont even bother billing extra for them. also, not all c900s have that huge spacer, Example; here is the crank bolt from a 1991 SPG




2.1 replacement sensors are out there,, they are a honeywell part number. just need to put them into your old housing. ecu compatibility is an issue with the 2.1 setup, and probably the best reason not to do it. If you can get over that hump, its a great way to go. When i convert 91-92 9000's over to T5, i always use that setup because its already bolted to the car!

[87 n/a]

I have Mike's kit. Albeit, not yet installed, but I made my decision on a couple of factors.

Price: it is the lowest cost option available. I have probably less $$$ in my track car than anyone on this site. Not because I don't want to throw tons of money at my Saab addiction, because I don't have the money to begin with.

Simplicity: Mike has gone through several versions and keeps improving his design.

Knowledge: Mike has a ton of knowledge on T5 conversions (not saying that others don't possess more knowledge) but I know he knows a ton more than me.

Sure it isn't the prettiest kit, but I don't have the prettiest car.

I know I could have purchased a $35 60-2 trigger wheel, and fabricated a CPS bracket out of scraps at a friends shop, but I really saw myself as buying Mike's technical support in that price.

While I have not met Mike in person, I imagine he would show his appreciation after a good meal with a loud belch. I can relate to that.

And don't get me wrong....I drool over Jordan's custom wiring harness and indexed flywheel....just waiting for the economy to pick back up here in the south.

[99Super]

Mike, I was just about to agree w/ you about those Honeywell sensors being dirt cheap. I bought several when I first started this project
from Mouser Electronics, but after a quick check of their Honeywell products, it looks like that sensor may now be obsolete.

http://www.mouser.com/Honeywell/_/N-6g7 ... f9t?No=275

John

[Cark]

I have probably less $$$ in my track car than anyone on this site. Not because I don't want to throw tons of money at my Saab addiction, because I don't have the money to begin with.

Amen to that brother! I'd love to have the best of the best of everything, but sometimes you just gotta get the job done. Sometimes I find myself going with a less expensive option, thinking "I'll get the better one down the road." But then you get a ways down the road, and find out the cheaper option works perfectly fine! I which case you have more money for go fast parts, or maybe better yet, more money for BEER!

[Mike D]

thanks for the support. Pretty or not i do still believe i have a great product, that in science, and function performs as good or better than the alternative.

i

[Mike D]

got a 2.1 NA c900 done last weekend, we were battling some fuel pressure issues with it, once resolved it was up and running great!

Since people have been asking about the "replacement crank bolt" included with some kits, here is a general explanation.

From what i can tell, saab used two different crank shafts with these cars, one of which has a longer nose, and a different thread pitch on the crank bolt. do to the longer nose the bolt extends past the end of the harmonic balancer there have been some interference issues

if you have the longer crank, you will have the bolt pictured on the right, it has a 27mm bolt head, This bolt becomes replaced with a 14mm allen head bolt that i include to people who require it, thus mending the clearance issue.

the picture below shows the two bolts, if you car has the bolt on the left, than no replacement crank bolt is needed!