| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BigDaddyVu 12sec Club

Joined: 31 Jan 2004 Posts: 1118 Location: Spokane, Wa
1986 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:25 pm Post subject: Sequintial tpi? |
|
|
| How hard is it to make a tpi to sequintial individual firing injectors instead of all of them firing at the same time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dewey316 The Lama

Joined: 08 Jan 2004 Posts: 7295 Location: Bringing the tech
1990 Chevrolet Camaro RS
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You would have get a computer system that would support it. I think maybe FAST does, there is also a company call 034 Motorsports, that makes a computer that will do sequencial fire, and fire off 8 coil packs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aaron_sK Member
Joined: 23 Jan 2006 Posts: 8834 Location: Back in beautiful Tacompton
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not to mess up your topic or anything, but why? Doesn't seem like something worth spending money on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Xophertony Rodeo Queen

Joined: 13 Oct 2005 Posts: 5306 Location: Portland, Oregon.
1988 Pontiac GTA
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
why? well, if the computer could support it, you could run 8 o2 sensors and each cylinders fuel will be adjusted per it's individual needs, in addition to that, when the injector is firing at the optimum time you get the fuel spray right as the valve opens and draws in the air, i am no engineer, but this seems like it would yield better fuel atomization, and thus more engine efficiency.
it seems to me sequential fire is one of the major contributors to modern engines being able to get the kind of economy they do while maintaining the level of performance they do. batch fire is the hack job way to wire up fuel injection. if you think about it, there is no reason the injectors should all fire at once (in actuality the fire in two different banks). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)

Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most of the SFI stuff I've seen uses different style fueling system. Usually a deadhead system (no return line) like my Jeep has.
Not worth it IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BigDaddyVu 12sec Club

Joined: 31 Jan 2004 Posts: 1118 Location: Spokane, Wa
1986 Chevrolet Camaro Z/28
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why do you think LS1's and LS6's get high power with strict fuel economy and high emittion standards. think about it. they produce more power and very effiecient compared to engines of yesterday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Twilightoptics Hardcore (12sec Club)

Joined: 13 Jan 2004 Posts: 9191 Location: Auburn , WA
1987 Chevrolet Camaro IROC-Z
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BigDaddyVu wrote: | | Why do you think LS1's and LS6's get high power with strict fuel economy and high emittion standards. think about it. they produce more power and very effiecient compared to engines of yesterday. |
It has way more to do with motor design than with SFI.
I know again it's jeep but for comparison..... Jeep's been running the 4.0L Straight 6 for years. Only recently have they been running SFI in them. EPA est only 1 MPG better than before.
Fuel economy goes up, but not much. As long as your fuel ratio's are in tact, it's not like you're "wasting" fuel.
Also, it takes a MUCH larger fuel injector to pump out that kind of fuel for high power in one shot. That's why some engineers have started using two injectors per cylinder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sellmanb Member
Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 727 Location: Tigard, OR
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Twilightoptics wrote: | Most of the SFI stuff I've seen uses different style fueling system. Usually a deadhead system (no return line) like my Jeep has.
Not worth it IMHO. |
The LS1,2,6,7 all use a returnless fuel system  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|