My stock fuel system nozzle test

jdgleason

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Collins, CO
A few months ago, there was a lot of debate on bigger nozzles going on. Several guys said bigger nozzle, less PW (to a point) will make more power and net lower egt's. I can see how that may work with an adequate fuel system, but we saw where a lot of guys were going to 30% nozzles on stock fuel and claiming the truck made more power, but we never saw any numbers.

So Tadd poked me about it for a while and we decided that we should test this theory out. I talked with Matt at Gearhead and he was all about giving us a hand testing these out. He was a HUGE help, and we couldn't have done it without his help. We used Elite's 60hp or 15% nozzles on my bone stock fuel system. We made the before dyno run on a Thursday, I swapped the nozzles on Saturday, and we dyno'd again Monday night.

Truck mods:
Intake, Exhaust, Gearhead tuned, Elite Diesel 72mm atmosphere.

The Before:

Another big thanks to Mike Haller for letting me waste time on his dyno while we did the testing. The before test we used the tune that I have always run from Matt. A pretty standard Race tune that used 2.18 pulsewidth. I always held rail pressure just fine and the truck made great power. Mike made 3 pulls, and we took the best pull of the day as our baseline. It was 664.70.


Over the weekend I swapped the nozzles with Elite's 60's. I replaced all of the injector lines and washers on the injectors as well (In case anyone asks). Finished the truck up Saturday evening and drove it a bit. The first thing I noticed was that the truck had a lot more low end. Throttle response was better and the chargers lit noticeably quicker than they did before. The truck did smoke a bit more, and it felt to me (seat of the pants) as if top end had suffered a bit. At this point I was super anxious to get it on the dyno to see what the graphs looked like.


The After:

Early Monday, Matt sent me a couple of different files to try that he wrote for the nozzles. Remember, we are comparing numbers against the baseline 664hp.

We started out in the 2.18 tune that I originally had. The truck lost rail pressure down to 23,000psi or so, and dropped about 35hp. We loaded the first nozzle file which was a 2.08 pulsewidth, and The truck maintained about 24,000 but was still down between 25 and 30 horsepower. The next file we tried was a 2.0 pulsewidth that maintained fully, however the truck still lost 22hp.

Things were not looking very promising for us, but Mike and I weren't satisfied with the results. So I called Matt around 8pm and we chatted about our findings and he wanted to send us a few more tunes to try. He sent some bigger pulsewidth tunes (2.25) and some smaller ones as well and numbers ranged from 615-630. Matt sent us several tunes with several tweaks until well after 10pm when we decided that the truck was not going to make any more power with those nozzles. It seemed that the stock fuel system couldn't keep rail pressure and atomization high enough with the 60's to keep power where stock nozzles were.

The results:

The 2.0 pulsewidth tune made the best power after the nozzle swap, so that is what we stuck with. The truck lost a total of 22.4 peak hp. It is obvious that it comes on stronger down low, but the top end definitely suffered. The graph shows that pretty clearly. Smoke was up a bit but that was probably due to losing some atomization. EGT's cruising dropped 25* or so, and WOT EGT's did drop a bit more than that (50-75*).

Here is the graph:

C44-8E3FD2CC3066-6934-000005284F0A17B0_zps624077c2.jpg


Here are some pictures from the nozzle swap itself.

B61-A5491C867F62-6934-00000527DB8C6B68_zps287d2b34.jpg


370-3D08E64E61FA-6934-000005281E36ACCA_zps0e4be1b8.jpg


F5E-D05BFF7E63A9-6934-000005282A348B56_zps8245f61c.jpg


E90-0A6FD3911344-6934-00000528368F0E9F_zpse45bdce9.jpg



This isn't a video of the before pull, but you get an idea of how the fuel cleaned up with stock nozzles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XoySSHPaco

And here is a video of the after dyno with the 2.0 Pulsewidth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgDC5hWq5HI
 

jdgleason

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Collins, CO
I wonder if there would be a noticeable improvement with the bowl deleted and and AD150 installed?


Still not studded????

No sir.

I'll be running 30s with AD150 and fuel bowl delete soon. well see if I can maintain.


Sent looking at my blown up 6.4

I'm interested to see. Wayne did a back to back test on the dyno with a stock lift pump vs an airdog, and there was 0 difference in power or rail pressure between the 2, however this was fuel bowl in tact.

Good read. If 60hp nozzles are 15%. What are 110 hp nozzles?

110's are 50%.
 

madman1234509

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Location
mayfield, ny
I doubt it. The biggest thing seems to be the hpfp. There have been tests in the past where people did a before and after dyno with a stock system, then with the same system with a fuel bowl delete and aid dog and there was no difference.

Jared from RCD made some big numbers last fall with his fuel bowl still intact, and with tests that WAYNE has done from Elite, its pretty much been proven the fuel bowl isnt the biggest restriction or factor that is starving the engine of fuel
 

kdsf350

New member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
Wow, thanks for the info I was debating of purchasing 15% nuzzles and airdog when I ordered my 72mm atmosphere, Afe Elite stage air intake, 6.0 manifolds & up-pipes. Looks like I might spend the extra cash on an SSBC front brake up-grade and definitely going with Gearhead Tunes, I like the HP numbers not bad for now. Hopefully my parts well arrive from Elite soon.
 

powerstroked08

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,410
Reaction score
0
Location
Pennsylvania
Well I feel like i have been saying this too much, but thanks alot for all this testing. It has really helped me make my decisions for my build in regards to getting as much power out of my dollar as possible. Thanks JD for doing the test and posting the results! Its a big help!
 

jdgleason

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Collins, CO
Well I feel like i have been saying this too much, but thanks alot for all this testing. It has really helped me make my decisions for my build in regards to getting as much power out of my dollar as possible. Thanks JD for doing the test and posting the results! Its a big help!

Hey I was curious as well lol. Sure thing!
 

Tree Trimmer

New member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
0
so is it fair to say, that for a tow pig, this would be a good setup??

your never up in the very top rpm's, always down low and in the mid rpm range, and that blue line sure did go straight up fast.

i can count on one hand and have fingers not raised, how many times i have been over 3k rpm's in the last year, and having the ability to light the chargers that hard and that fast, and have that much down lower pulling a trailer, really appeals to me.

i'm sure it would take some working with matt, on getting the tunes smoke/haze free, but this idea has really always appealed to me.

on a side note, have you guys considered putting in some 30%, to test in addition to those 15%, and compare the same thing?
 

Dzchey21

Active member
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
11,784
Reaction score
0
Location
wyoming
I was a little surprised by the results honestly


But i got to thinking, most people that have tested this have been running 3.xxx pw on a duramax and backed the pw back down to probably 2.7 ish....

What i'm thinking is that at our normal 2.3 pw that we maxx the pump out with we arent quiet on the UN effecient side of the spray pattern. IF say we were running 2.5 with a stock nozzle and then put a bigger nozzle and then backed down to 2.3 we might see a power gain.

most duramax and cummings actually max the injector out before the pump, plenty of people run a 90 hp nozzle on a stock pump
 

B585Ford

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2012
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
0
Location
WV
JD, thanks to you and/or Elite for doing this testing. I know it takes a lot of time and resources to do and I appreciate it. Along the lines of what Tree Trimmer said, for a guy like me and how I use my truck, this is making me think real hard about doing nozzles initially (until I have the funds to do dual fuelers) because down low and mid-range is what matters for how I use the truck. My only concern would be the smoke and it sounds like with enough tweaking, Matt could get it under control.
 

Latest posts

Members online

Top