2006nytro
New member
hmm interesting.. the 175/stock flowed the same as the stock fords pretty much. i guess it goes to show the nozzle makes the injector.
Independent Injector Comparison
- Thread starter Breaking Habits
- Start date
wetnsloppy4x
New member
That's precisely what I was getting at. Thank you for the info Matt.
wetnsloppy4x
New member
Charles
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,727
- Reaction score
- 41
I kind of puked in my mouth a little when I read that no in-cylinder sensor would be used...
Errrr, so they never actually checked to see if their model was accurate? Whoops.
The figure 1 of the DI combustion pressure showed a plot of an engine with far too advanced timing, even though the numerical value judging by the X-axis was not advanced enough to cause such combustion delay.
I think they need to now take all that modeling and go buy a cylinder pressure sensor and finish their study. I would enjoy a study that did involve the use of a pressure transducer much more.
I read a similar article years ago that included in-cylinder images.... as well as pressures. Which I found much more practical.
Errrr, so they never actually checked to see if their model was accurate? Whoops.
The figure 1 of the DI combustion pressure showed a plot of an engine with far too advanced timing, even though the numerical value judging by the X-axis was not advanced enough to cause such combustion delay.
I think they need to now take all that modeling and go buy a cylinder pressure sensor and finish their study. I would enjoy a study that did involve the use of a pressure transducer much more.
I read a similar article years ago that included in-cylinder images.... as well as pressures. Which I found much more practical.
Last edited:
Sully
New member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 0
So what is the max pw you can utilize at low to mid range rpm?
Power Hungry
Member
Here we go... (Taking a deep breath)
Okay, so I had time to read through all the posts on this thread, and honestly I'm with Charles on this one... How in the hell did it get to be 2012 and people are just now discussing this on the 6.0L? I mean seriously? We've had the injector displacement/nozzle arguments on the 7.3L for over a decade now and people think the 6.0L injector is any different? I don't mean to be rude or obnoxious (and I sincerely do not mean any disrespect to Jared's efforts), but this is so far from "groundbreaking" news that I can only say that this was little more than a marketing tactic used to try and make one set of injectors look inferior to another set of injectors. The fact is that they are comparing apples to oranges, to use the popular term.
Let's take a look for a moment at a set of injectors for the 7.3L. You've got your stock injectors that might flow around 135cc-140cc max. Then you have Stage 1 Single Shots that flow 160cc. Finally, you have Stage 2 Single Shots that ALSO flow 160cc. The difference is that Stage 2's have anywhere from 80% to 100% nozzles. All this means is that they will achieve 160cc with a smaller puslewidth than the Stage 1's. At this point it's all up to the TUNING to maximize the capability of the injectors, plain and simple. Split/Single shot differences aside, there's a reason why 160cc/stock nozzle injectors make 50-75 HP more than stock/stock injectors... they have the capacity for larger volume. You just need to turn up the pulsewidth a bit. The 6.0L isn't any different.
So, Jared has come up with the magic number of 2.46ms pulsewidth as the "limit" for the injectors. If that limit is no longer an issue, then 175cc injectors with STOCK nozzles will flow the same 175cc as the 75% nozzles, just with a longer pulsewidth. It will also, ideally, make close to the same power (much like the Stage 1's and Stage 2's on a 7.3L), but with a few differences. First, a longer pulsewidth with smaller nozzles provides improved atomization and better injection control. This not only means a cleaner, more efficient burn, but it also means a SMOOTHER combustion event. Anyone wonder why 7.3L trucks "windowed" running Stage 2's more than any other modified injector? The rapid injection of fuel (due to larger nozzles) combined with (arguably) aggressive timing curves causes an extremely rapid pressure rise and excessive peak cylinder pressure which results in evacuation of the rods through the side of the block. The 6.0L has a similar concern... except the results are blown head gaskets. Slowing the fuel spray with smaller nozzles prevents the rapid pressure rise and yields a much lower peak cylinder pressure. Plus, you get the added benefit of a longer burn rate which helps improve your torque curve throughout the RPM range. Sure, there's a small HP penalty, but not enough to say that Stage 1's aren't effective, and certainly not enough to say that Stage 1's are inferior to Stage 2's. 6.0L injectors aren't any different. They just need to be tuned accordingly.
I'm not saying that there isn't a time and place for larger nozzles, but since pulsewidth isn't a concern (at least not for me) then there's no reason to suspect that I'll have any problems with 175cc/stock injectors. It's not any different than tuning a 7.3L at this point. If you move into a larger displacement injector, you are going to have to run a larger nozzle because at some point pulsewidth WILL play a significant role in fuel delivery. However, I'm not QUITE at that point... yet.
In the end, the point is that to call 175cc/stock injectors "inferior" or "misleading" in comparison to 175cc/75% injectors is completely inaccurate.
Okay, so I had time to read through all the posts on this thread, and honestly I'm with Charles on this one... How in the hell did it get to be 2012 and people are just now discussing this on the 6.0L? I mean seriously? We've had the injector displacement/nozzle arguments on the 7.3L for over a decade now and people think the 6.0L injector is any different? I don't mean to be rude or obnoxious (and I sincerely do not mean any disrespect to Jared's efforts), but this is so far from "groundbreaking" news that I can only say that this was little more than a marketing tactic used to try and make one set of injectors look inferior to another set of injectors. The fact is that they are comparing apples to oranges, to use the popular term.
Let's take a look for a moment at a set of injectors for the 7.3L. You've got your stock injectors that might flow around 135cc-140cc max. Then you have Stage 1 Single Shots that flow 160cc. Finally, you have Stage 2 Single Shots that ALSO flow 160cc. The difference is that Stage 2's have anywhere from 80% to 100% nozzles. All this means is that they will achieve 160cc with a smaller puslewidth than the Stage 1's. At this point it's all up to the TUNING to maximize the capability of the injectors, plain and simple. Split/Single shot differences aside, there's a reason why 160cc/stock nozzle injectors make 50-75 HP more than stock/stock injectors... they have the capacity for larger volume. You just need to turn up the pulsewidth a bit. The 6.0L isn't any different.
So, Jared has come up with the magic number of 2.46ms pulsewidth as the "limit" for the injectors. If that limit is no longer an issue, then 175cc injectors with STOCK nozzles will flow the same 175cc as the 75% nozzles, just with a longer pulsewidth. It will also, ideally, make close to the same power (much like the Stage 1's and Stage 2's on a 7.3L), but with a few differences. First, a longer pulsewidth with smaller nozzles provides improved atomization and better injection control. This not only means a cleaner, more efficient burn, but it also means a SMOOTHER combustion event. Anyone wonder why 7.3L trucks "windowed" running Stage 2's more than any other modified injector? The rapid injection of fuel (due to larger nozzles) combined with (arguably) aggressive timing curves causes an extremely rapid pressure rise and excessive peak cylinder pressure which results in evacuation of the rods through the side of the block. The 6.0L has a similar concern... except the results are blown head gaskets. Slowing the fuel spray with smaller nozzles prevents the rapid pressure rise and yields a much lower peak cylinder pressure. Plus, you get the added benefit of a longer burn rate which helps improve your torque curve throughout the RPM range. Sure, there's a small HP penalty, but not enough to say that Stage 1's aren't effective, and certainly not enough to say that Stage 1's are inferior to Stage 2's. 6.0L injectors aren't any different. They just need to be tuned accordingly.
I'm not saying that there isn't a time and place for larger nozzles, but since pulsewidth isn't a concern (at least not for me) then there's no reason to suspect that I'll have any problems with 175cc/stock injectors. It's not any different than tuning a 7.3L at this point. If you move into a larger displacement injector, you are going to have to run a larger nozzle because at some point pulsewidth WILL play a significant role in fuel delivery. However, I'm not QUITE at that point... yet.
In the end, the point is that to call 175cc/stock injectors "inferior" or "misleading" in comparison to 175cc/75% injectors is completely inaccurate.
Last edited:
wetnsloppy4x
New member
Well put.
This leads right back to my question of what size injectors NEED what size of nozzles in order to perform properly under real world tuning conditions. edit: Perhaps a better way of saying this would be a properly running engine/tune.
i.e. Is a 75% nozzle perfect for a 190 where a 100% nozzle is too big? Is a 100% nozzle perfect for a 205 where a 125% is too big, etc, etc?
There has to be an optimum nozzle size for each size of injector. That is the info us 6.0 owners are lacking. Can we take direct lessons from 7.3 stuff? Somehow I think this would be apples to oranges in some aspects. I don't know, that's why I''m asking.
This leads right back to my question of what size injectors NEED what size of nozzles in order to perform properly under real world tuning conditions. edit: Perhaps a better way of saying this would be a properly running engine/tune.
i.e. Is a 75% nozzle perfect for a 190 where a 100% nozzle is too big? Is a 100% nozzle perfect for a 205 where a 125% is too big, etc, etc?
There has to be an optimum nozzle size for each size of injector. That is the info us 6.0 owners are lacking. Can we take direct lessons from 7.3 stuff? Somehow I think this would be apples to oranges in some aspects. I don't know, that's why I''m asking.
07_powerstroke
New member
Nice post power hungry!
Stroker04
New member
We all realize that the larger nozzle will flow more fuel in a shorter amount of time, and I agree with Charles as well. I own a set of 175/stock nozzle injectors that I have in my DD. I ran Matts SRL tune with stock injectors and the truck ran extremely clean and was very satisfied. I then received my 175/stock nozzle injectors and took the truck for a drive with the same tune. The truck had much better low end throttle response and it fueled much harder. The stock turbo couldn't come close to cleaning them up even at top end where the pulse width is much shorter. I'm not disagreeing with any facts. Just thought I would post this and see what everyone thinks....thanks.
Power Hungry
Member
There is definitely a balance between injector volume, flow rate, and tuning limitations. The larger the volume of the injector, the larger the nozzle size required to empty the injector in the allotted time available. In this respect, it's not at all different than the 7.3L. The advantage that a 6.0L has is that the FICM controls all aspects of the injection pulsewidth and the injectors fire much quicker than a 7.3L and at a higher pressure, so it is much easier to completely evacuate an injector at narrower pulsewidth. This is why 135cc injectors make well over 400 HP on a tuned 6.0L while the 7.3L makes a measly 320-330 HP on 135cc.
So it comes down to... What is the SMALLEST nozzle size you can run that will still allow you to completely evacuate the injector? At one point, injection companies were offer flow charts for their injectors which included test pressures and flow rates at specific pulsewidths. For example:
160cc/Stock Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
238cc/80% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
400cc/200% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
455cc/460% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
If we had charts like these on the 6.0L injectors, it would really be helpful not only for the tuner, but for the customers as well. This way everyone can make an educated decision on injector selection.
It's good that this is being brought up, because it really helps to show how injector sizing and tuning go hand-in-hand. :clapping:
Charles
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,727
- Reaction score
- 41
To this I would reach a bit farther in saying that if you then took the same injector, but swapped to a larger nozzle, that the truck would again gain power, and potentially smoke less on top. If you pulled duration down low it could and probably would smoke less everywhere except very low power conditions while making the same or more power elsewhere.
Which is one point that seems to evade popular opinion.
F-250-Owner
New member
So Jared..... I run RCD 155s in my truck... they are older ones.... what nozzle is on them? do they indeed flow 155? ..... I also Pmed you awhile ago about going thru them and making sure there arent any issues with them.......... but I never recieved a reply.
Tim @ P.I.S.
Member
There is definitely a balance between injector volume, flow rate, and tuning limitations. The larger the volume of the injector, the larger the nozzle size required to empty the injector in the allotted time available. In this respect, it's not at all different than the 7.3L. The advantage that a 6.0L has is that the FICM controls all aspects of the injection pulsewidth and the injectors fire much quicker than a 7.3L and at a higher pressure, so it is much easier to completely evacuate an injector at narrower pulsewidth. This is why 135cc injectors make well over 400 HP on a tuned 6.0L while the 7.3L makes a measly 320-330 HP on 135cc.
So it comes down to... What is the SMALLEST nozzle size you can run that will still allow you to completely evacuate the injector? At one point, injection companies were offer flow charts for their injectors which included test pressures and flow rates at specific pulsewidths. For example:
160cc/Stock Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
238cc/80% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
400cc/200% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
455cc/460% Nozzles:
(click on image to enlarge)
If we had charts like these on the 6.0L injectors, it would really be helpful not only for the tuner, but for the customers as well. This way everyone can make an educated decision on injector selection.
It's good that this is being brought up, because it really helps to show how injector sizing and tuning go hand-in-hand. :clapping:
Bill, i agree with everything you are stating. But i have a real problem with the graphs you post. There is one huge factor being overlooked here, RPM.
These graphs are all neat and pretty to look at, but without the factor of RPM shown these graphs really do squat. After exstensive testing on a flow bench with my own product and while testing repairs made to other vendors injectors it is shocking what has been going on for years.
I can easily see why many dyno graphs peak where they do when the injectors seem to fall on there face at nearly the same rpm on the flow bench.
Just how would you as a customer of very popular branded injectors like to look at this graph of your 230cc stage 3 injector and then find out that if you throw the extra factor of 3000 RPM's into the equation you find out your not injecting 230cc, but more like 125cc. It is happening, and to ALOT of people.
On edit: my testing has been done on the 7.3 injectors these graphs represent. 6.0 to follow soon.
Power Hungry
Member
Tim,
RPM is definitely a consideration that plays into injector delivery capacity. Without enough "recovery" time at higher RPMs, you could conceivably fire an injector before the plunger has fully returned to its initial state or even before the fuel chamber is adequately refilled. High volume 7.3L injectors frequently have the oil and fuel inlets modified so that they can actually fill properly on each injection event at higher RPMs.
It wasn't the intention of the graphs to be the end-all be-all of injector rating, but to provide at least some idea of how much the actual injector flow is affected by nozzle size, ICP, and Pulsewidth. There are a number of factors that must be taken into consideration when making the decision on which injectors to purchase as well as what tuning approach is going to maximize the capabilities of the injectors. Drivability characteristics, power curve, smoke control (particularly at lower RPM), hardware limitations (HPOP, Turbo, etc.), and other minor factors play into injector selection and tuning, and adequate flow charts would help make some of those choices a little easier.
Just for reference, I spoke to the individual that provided the flow rates for the injectors listed and they indicated to me that the injectors were tested at the maximum reasonable RPM that would be commensurate with the test pulsewidth. So, at 2ms pulsewidth, the injectors were tested at 5000 RPM. At 3ms pulsewidth, the injectors were tested at 4000 RPM. At 4ms pulsewidth, the injectors were tested at 3000 RPM. Given that, I think these graphs would be a fairly accurate representation of what to expect when installed in a vehicle. Of course, what is seen on a bench without the effect of cylinder pressure at the nozzle (which ideally isn't significant, but still a factor) and with a very well controlled, stable HP oil rail and fuel rail is going to be a fair bit (and sometimes considerably) different than what is seen in an actual running vehicle. There's no question about that. The whole point, though, is to provide some common point for comparison between different injectors. Much like how camshafts have a grind spec sheet and are rated at Deg. duration @ .050" lift, injectors should be similarly rated along some common test specification. As for what that specification should be... Well, I leave that up to the guys that actually build the injectors.
Breaking Habits
New member
I will need to know when we built your injector along with a name on the account. Also, many customers pm'ed my old account, as you can see this is a new one.. The army crashed 2 days after we started this thread and my account along with one of the boys from cutting edge was wiped out.. thats probably why you didnt get a response. Shoot me the info and I'll check things out for you.
Jared
F-250-Owner
New member
pm sent..with info
interesting topic.
I had/have my reasons for having 175cc/stock nozzle injectors installed(mainly Ca emissions test - I can run them without tuning and pass the throttle snap test no prob-I think/hope)(well, that and current budget at time of studs/gaskets cooler/turbo job)
Sooo there was an issue found with one injector post installation when restart was attempted. I didnt do the install so I dont know if the injector damage occured during install or not, so no ill feelings for very reputable popular builder.
I could deal with truck being down until I have injector swapped with supplier, but mechanic could not, so he put one of my old injectors back in and I'll have to install the 8th rebuilt injector myself later.
in the meantime...
I expect there to not be any imbalance issues with stock tuning on this set of slightly mismatched injectors(the old injectors did not have issues), but am curious about y'alls input as to how it'll run with any kind of tuning,
let's say just a street tune for stock injectors and powermax?
Might be interesting to see the felt difference and injector readings from Insight CS (as long as I dont run the chance of doing any damage - please advise.)
If there is any fuel increase from stock injector/stock nozzles to 175cc/stock nozzles without any crazy pulse width tuning written for 175cc/stock nozzle injectors, say just tuning written for stock injectors and powermax, then it would run ****ty and vise versa if fuel increase over stock isnt there without special tuning correct?
I had/have my reasons for having 175cc/stock nozzle injectors installed(mainly Ca emissions test - I can run them without tuning and pass the throttle snap test no prob-I think/hope)(well, that and current budget at time of studs/gaskets cooler/turbo job)
Sooo there was an issue found with one injector post installation when restart was attempted. I didnt do the install so I dont know if the injector damage occured during install or not, so no ill feelings for very reputable popular builder.
I could deal with truck being down until I have injector swapped with supplier, but mechanic could not, so he put one of my old injectors back in and I'll have to install the 8th rebuilt injector myself later.
in the meantime...
I expect there to not be any imbalance issues with stock tuning on this set of slightly mismatched injectors(the old injectors did not have issues), but am curious about y'alls input as to how it'll run with any kind of tuning,
let's say just a street tune for stock injectors and powermax?
Might be interesting to see the felt difference and injector readings from Insight CS (as long as I dont run the chance of doing any damage - please advise.)
If there is any fuel increase from stock injector/stock nozzles to 175cc/stock nozzles without any crazy pulse width tuning written for 175cc/stock nozzle injectors, say just tuning written for stock injectors and powermax, then it would run ****ty and vise versa if fuel increase over stock isnt there without special tuning correct?
Latest posts
-
-
-
Will a 1996 F6TZ-9A451-F engine wiring harness work on a 1997 f250 HD ?- Latest: Patrick Feeley
-
-