Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Power Hungry, post: 262573, member: 1375"] 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 [B][U]ALSO[/U][/B] 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 [B][U]SMOOTHER[/U][/B] 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 [B][U]WILL[/U][/B] play a significant role in fuel delivery. However, I'm not [I]QUITE[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]