I'm afraid I'm not following your chemistry. The better atomization allows the O2 to combine better with the hydrocarbon fuel resulting in a more complete chemical reaction. The primary byproduct of the reaction that we are trying to produce is heat. The O2 is depleted by the reaction because it combines with hydrogen and carbon atoms to form new molecules of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and water. The O2 sensor detects a move toward leaness because more hydrocarbons have been consumed in the reaction with the O2 molecules. I wish I could remember how to do the chemistry equations but those brain cells died many years ago.

 

"I'm afraid I'm not following your chemistry. The better atomization allows the O2 to combine better with the hydrocarbon fuel resulting in a more complete chemical reaction. The primary byproduct of the reaction that we are trying to produce is heat. The O2 is depleted by the reaction because it combines with hydrogen and carbon atoms to form new molecules of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide and water. The O2 sensor detects a move toward leaness because more hydrocarbons have been consumed in the reaction with the O2 molecules. I wish I could remember how to do the chemistry equations but those brain cells died many years ago. "

The post makes perfect sense to me.

 

I'm not sure how atomization can be increased from a type III (ev4). Nozzle/spray pattern being different and while being used in newer LS etc. vehicles, is comparing apples to oranges. The inj. angle, intake etc. is totally different on the LS. As to the inj. itself, wide open flow testings (typical flow match numbers) shows the same lbs. rating as compared to a type II (ev-1) however both do not flow the same through other operating ranges in fuel mass vs. m.s. inj. time. Ford racing has been kind enough to provide calibration charts for many of typically used inj. of both types for those who want to see for themselves, or who are serious about tuning. I believe the newer tech. is good and can be made to work. However, when swapping a II with a III with the same lb. rating/fp, may require some real work in tunning pw, and other various offsets,add-ons etc. (due to the way the newer inj. responds at lower ms.). Those who have stated an increase in performance unfortunately had no prior data for anyone to understand what exactly changed (starting point/state of tune). Then again I am sure there are some here who have data before and after who have seen some changes after making the swap. Tuning for efficiency and performance is still about fueling and timing. In this case I don't see the spray pattern nozzle difference, disc vs. pintel, or the inj. ms. response creating any better atomization when being used in a TPI, gen. I/II application......but I am always open to empirical evidence.

 

just to clarify. The type 3 Bosch is not a disc injector it is a ball and seat. Ford racing has discontinued all the ev1 style and replaced the part number and the application fitments. For example The b302 (red top) was replaced with the BB302 (design 3 red) the a302 (24lb Blue top) was replaced with AA302 (design 3) Also the Bosch part number on this injector is 0280155931 it is labeled that right out of the for box.
The LS1 uses a Bosch 3 injector from the factory. Part number on these 97-98 and 2001 -2004 is 0280155931.. Same injector as ford. So with the angle of the ports etc being different why did GM pick the same injector as Ford for their 2 valve engines? The spray pattern technology supplies better atomization for a better fuel mixture. As far as the tuning goes, even the factory tunes are not optimum. Meaning, they are tuned for EPA not performance. We have a 2010 camaro ss here, the stock tune call for a total timing of 19 degrees, this is all for emissions not power. No matter what car you have a good tune of the factory settings will enhance performance. The injector characteristics between the multec and the Bosch either design 2 or 3 is basically the same. We have done a video on a 30 second run comparing the flow data on the two. Wired in parallel they perform Identical. On the same video we put a SMP or accell disc injector, the disc injectors characteristics are way off compared to the bosch or multec. There is 1 thing in common with ALL new style injectors put in EVERY new car today. They all have the same tech as far as atomization out of the nozzle. There must be something to it.

 

I agree with tuning for optimum performance/efficiency. Typical flow data is acquired at full flow and not through the entire range of the inj. (inj. flows 24# x-cc. at 43.5 or 39.5). However in various applications (OBDI using 165 or 727 ecm's), I have found that if data were to be acquired first (known), there will be a change in how the design III operates in comparison to a II/EV1 using the same rate inj. The differences are not at full flow but through the lower ms. inj. flow (off idle, and below 2k rpm in application) There a couple local guys who have explained this more throughly namely, Greg Banish, as well as Dev Saberwal Performance / Competition Engine Calibration Ford Racing.
Here is one of the articles, and plotted charts describing what I am referring to:
http://www.calibratedsuccess.com/***...%20Article.pdf
For those who like to do their own plotting here are some of the cal. sheets.
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts...tKeyField=9044
When one looks at the add-ons in a typical 165 or 727/730 ecm bin., it becomes apparent that these do not line up to what GM designed when using a multec. This is were the tuning would need to begin.


*Please note*....This is not intended as a slant on the type III or in any way meant to degrade this inj. or vendor, it is simply meant to show there are some differences. *
I personally like the idea of new tech. and believe it to be a good injector.
To answer the question as to why did GM choose it, IMO, because it fits their needs.

 

I understand how a better burn will help emissions but will it really increase HP? I would like to see dyno results showing that a spray pattern or better atomization can increase HP. It is a proven fact that old school carburetors that don't atomize fuel well are used in place of injectors to add a huge amount of HP.

I think that replacing old pintel types, Multecs or clogged worn out injectors with a newer higher technology injector is a good idea. Make sure you get the right size injector. Also,you're gonna need a new tune for optimum performance.

Some members have switched to the Bosch 3s and reported decreased mileage, erratic idle, smell of raw gas and high BLMs. Others have reported phenomenal and unbelievable results with the Bosch 3s.

I think that some of our members are comparing the difference between old clogged injectors to newly rebuilt injectors. In a situation like that; you're always going to see better performance. In some cases the Vette is running like new again and seems to have more HP simply because the only problem was malfunctioning injectors.

I believe that the Bosch 3 is a good injector and that Jon Banner does a good job rebuilding them. I chose to buy new Trickflow injectors to replace my old injectors. I've been happy with the results and they're very quiet.

 

I think that carbs offer better high end HP because of the way they flow air. Obviously, a TPI flows the top end like crap. Carbs flow the top end amazingly.

If you had a fuel injected motor that flows the top end very nicely (miniram) the numbers would be very close to a carb and offer better driveability.

 

Would bet the farm once new injectors are installed and the car isnt missing or bucking anymore/delse well most would say "runs fine" as its probably the best its ever run. Now if one went into tables and whatnot to see what really was going on it may not be "fine".

 

I think you're right on target. I would not profess replacement of stock Multecs as a performance modification. I would say that Jon's Bosche IIIs can restore lost performance with the possibility of some increase in mileage. I know my Multecs were in bad shape. Most of the tips were broken or missing. So an increase in performance was to be expected.

If you want to get results from big buck performance mods, properly functioning injectors are a must. Jon has a great product at a great price.

 

Hey Fred, glad to see you back! give me a fuel injected motor anyday over a carb. On a l98 the TPI is restricted.. I bet if I can build a single plane injected motor, it will make more hp than a carbed one.. Heres one we just built



heres our delivery truck 1645hp 500 shot dry nos tuned by Julio at car-tek.
http://fuelinjectorconnection.com/sh...p/s10front.jpg

 

That's a nice truck Jon.

I'm aware of the fact that there's plenty of 1000 HP fuel injected cars around. I'm sure you've seen plenty of race cars with flames shooting out open headers. Is that caused by good fuel atomization or is it caused by unburned fuel?

Fred

 

The point I'm trying to make is that fuel atomization is a good thing for emissions but can it really boost HP?

 

I think so, the more fuel attached to free oxygen will make more power, just like nitrous holds double the fuel of oxygen, hence more power, its really a good question, but all car manufacturers want better atomization using less fuel for better economy and less emissions, but the only way that is achieved is through better mixture. But, if you don't have a good mixture you can't achieve making power on less fuel. So in theory if all the oxygen in the combustion chamber at the time of spark had the proper mix with the same amount of fuel injected would it make more power than the same cylinder with the same amount of fuel, but 1/10th of the fuel was not ignited. Would it make less power? If the answer is yes than I think better atomization = more power.

 

Carb versus EFI versus Horsepower. Remember that a carb needs a slight depression for fuel to flow. EFI does not need a depression/restriction. So in theory EFI should be able to make more power. This years Engine Masters contest allows EFI for the first time. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

 

Excellent point! The pressure drop across the carb is rarely mentioned. In my opinion, to make the carb/FI comparison more accurate on the dyno, the injected engine should be made to run an alternator (for the injector and ECM power) or a mechanical high pressure pump if eqipped with mechanical fuel injection. This way each engine is measured with the "negatives" of its fuel system.

 

I'm no expert, but I don't believe that's the comparison. I think the second one would be the same cylinder, but with 10% more fuel, not all of which was ignited.

In either case you should be burning up all the oxygen in the combustion chamber, thus burning as much fuel as possible to make the most power possible. It's more a matter of how much unburned fuel goes out the tailpipe or past the rings, no?

Your nitrous example shows the real problem with making power, which is getting oxygen into the cylinder. That is the real limiter. You can put as much fuel in as you want, but you won't make more power unless you have more oxygen.

 

 

when you spray a engine with nitrous you are adding more oxygen, correct, N20 2 parts nitrogen 1 part oxygen That oxygen will hold fuel that is ignited when the nitrous is heated. When Nitrous Oxide is heated to a temperature of about 570 degrees F (~300 degree C), it splits into oxygen and nitrogen. So, injection of Nitrous oxide into the engine results into more oxygen available during combustion. As there is more oxygen available during combustion, the engine can also intake more fuel, and consequently generate more power. So why does this theory not work on NA engines.The more oxygen that holds atomized fuel the more power will be made.