Author Topic: Caddy to go Fuel Injected ? (Read 2265 times)

F Body · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2007, 04:34:38 pm »

Now that is frigging sweet

Just don't ask me to set it up

HardRockCamaro · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2007, 04:35:50 pm »

That's proper pretty...

EDGE · « **Reply #27 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:52:21 pm »

thats very very nice..

F Body · « **Reply #28 on:** June 26, 2007, 06:57:46 pm »

Quoting: F Body

Now that is frigging sweet

Quoting: HardRockCamaro

That's proper pretty...

Quoting: EDGE

thats very very nice..

So it's decided then, the Caddy's not going fuel injected

Roadkill · « **Reply #29 on:** June 26, 2007, 09:50:06 pm »

Quoting: F Body

Just don't ask me to set it up

Quoting: F Body

So it's decided then, the Caddy's not going fuel injected

Err.

That IS the fuel injection !

F Body · « **Reply #30 on:** June 27, 2007, 05:27:48 am »

Quoting: Roadkill

Err.

That IS the fuel injection !

Well it "shiney" and that's what counts

Roadkill · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2007, 08:08:26 am »

It's Retrotek . . . They model the injector body on the stromberg '97 perfectly . . . Then chuck in a single (or double) injector to suit your needs . . .

Roadkill · « **Reply #32 on:** July 02, 2007, 09:54:33 am »

Titsy - you wanna add you

worth to this thread ?

(What you was talking about yesterday at Bletchley Park . . . )

EDGE · « **Reply #33 on:** July 02, 2007, 10:37:08 am »

i cant see you 4 paragraphs discussing the merits of burger relish over mustard is going to help the fuel injection issues ?

Roadkill · « **Reply #34 on:** July 02, 2007, 11:11:03 am »

I had a beer, not burger.

Anyway.

Roadkill · « **Reply #35 on:** July 02, 2007, 11:48:24 am »

Quoting: Roadkill

Titsy - you wanna add you

worth to this thread ?

Ahem,

Titsy · « **Reply #36 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:04:39 pm »

I sais something along the lines of, the shorter the distance between the injector and the port, and better the control/efficiency at high RPM's...

I once went through the process of working out fuel/air velocities on the eco car engine, and with the 150mm ofset from the injector to the port (which was sadly unavoidable because of the head design). At top end it taking something like 6 cycles for the fuel to reach the port, which gave very poor control over fueling at high RPMs.

Roadkill · « **Reply #37 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:06:03 pm »

So if I want low-mid range grunt I need a high manifold/long intake runners ?

Roadkill · « **Reply #38 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:06:46 pm »

That makes sense as my Torker II on the Maro is sh!te for bottom end and is as flat as a pancake . . .

Titsy · « **Reply #39 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:11:42 pm »

Quoting: Roadkill

So if I want low-mid range grunt I need a high manifold/long intake runners ?

Not so much need as can get away with...

Although this is really Edge's field of expertees..

Roadkill · « **Reply #40 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:13:13 pm »

How do you mean "get away with" ?

EDIT - Is a high set-up better for me in other words . . . . ?

EDGE · « **Reply #41 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:31:03 pm »

titsy's talking about where the injector sits in relation to the valve, thats part of the inlet runner, but it can extend way further than that..

Titsy · « **Reply #42 on:** July 02, 2007, 12:54:47 pm »

Quoting: EDGE

but it can extend way further than that..

Disclaimer: The effect I described was specific to the 30cc 4-stroke, single cylinder setup that was using a specific type of injector... The effects on any other engine could and most likely would be entirely different...

But in my mind it's best to get the injector as close to the valve as possable...

Roadkill · « **Reply #43 on:** July 02, 2007, 01:13:17 pm »

Quoting: Titsy

But in my mind it's best to get the injector as close to the valve as possable...

So now the complete opposite to what you were saying yesterday.

Pod · « **Reply #44 on:** July 02, 2007, 01:36:16 pm »

Quoting: Roadkill

So if I want low-mid range grunt I need a high manifold/long intake runners ?

It doesn't totally answer your question, but I've seen a dyno test of a stock Mustang EFI intake that's been shortened. It made more HP at the top of the rpm range.

These might help a bit:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question517.htm
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=intake+runner+length

Sounds incredibly complicated, but very simply, a long runner intake makes more low end torque, but less high rpm power. A short runner makes less low end and more high end.

Roadkill · « **Reply #45 on:** July 02, 2007, 01:44:09 pm »

How long is too long, I wonder . . .

Pod · « **Reply #46 on:** July 02, 2007, 01:53:30 pm »

Quoting: Roadkill

How long is too long, I wonder . . .

Depends what rpm range you are looking at using.
Anything will 'work' - just maybe not as efficiently (ie less power) than it could be.

Roadkill · « **Reply #47 on:** July 02, 2007, 02:12:31 pm »

Rev band will be idle - 4000 revs . . don't fancy going higher.

Question is Tri-Power or go 6x2 (which'll require another 7" or so of intake) . . . . ?

Pod · « **Reply #48 on:** July 02, 2007, 02:39:30 pm »

Arrange these in order of priority and see if it helps:
Looks
Price
Performance

Roadkill · « **Reply #49 on:** July 02, 2007, 02:57:23 pm »

1 - Looks - It is a Caddy after all.

2 - Performance - I must be at least as good as "stock"

3 - Price - It's gonna cost a bomb regardless so I want it right first time.

. . . . . . .