Injectors: Design I or Design II???

[Gregs///M]

In terms of overall rating...Which design is ideal? Is it worth it to change the Design I's to Design III's?

Importance is primarily fuel economy, quality of idle, and running smoothness. OEM ECU, OEM everything.

For those with experience with Design III's did you notice a significant increase in idle and running quality with a huge loss of MPG?

Since design III's atomize fuel better...was there a loss of MPG's?

Please chime in with experience.

[stamar]

Theres someone here who put design 3s in his m42, and he said he got a un verified increase in mpg with no chip

those are the 19lb mustang ones.

[TurboJake]

There is absolutely no way that fuel being atomized better can result in lower MPG when keeping flow static... Better atomization = more complete burn = more power for same fuel = less fuel needed to make same power = more MPG.

[e30leigh]

i agree. all youll get is better running.

[stamar]

actually just like the guy said you at least couldnt get worse gas mileage right?

I could argue theories that seem logical.

I disagree that atomizing the fuel better creates any more power. but at the very least, starting faster uses less fuel.

i honestly believe the purpose is a design that flows more evenly and uniformly and leaks less. the holes are smaller now and not pointing straight down. I honeslty think thats all it is.

necessitated by the increase in pressure, which would cause more liquid pooling in design 1( again look at the first design)

it also follows logic that multiple holes are harder to completely clog. Yet easier to partially clog. Those are theories.


i dont think Ive seen someone verify an increase in gas mileage but some say they think it does.

Its my opinion that it would barely increase gas mileage, but it would make all the cylinders fire more evenly eliminate some uneven flow problems often seen in type 1 injectors.( but not necessarily present in yours)

[TurboJake]

I disagree that atomizing the fuel better creates any more power. but at the very least, starting faster uses less fuel.

Take the same amount of fuel, and change the amount of time it takes to burn. The amount of power coming out is the same, but the amount in a given timeframe is increased with better atomization.

The timeframe the engine needs to burn all of the fuel is very, very short. So while no, the better atomization does not create power, it allows a fuller more efficient burn quicker. The timeframe is the critical component here. More of fuel will be burned in the same time with better atomization, thus being more explosive power exerted onto the piston.

Resulting in more power to the wheels due to inefficiencies being eliminated.

[übersteuern]

I swapped from OEM to Design III a while back. Ran slightly better and slight improvement in economy.

Now that's all good and well, BUUUUT it's a comparison of brand new (Design III) injectors with ones that have probably been in the car 20 years. I suspect replacing with brand new OEM would give the same improvements. Keep this in mind cos whenever someone tells you how great Design III are, they are probably comparing them to flogged out injectors.

[stamar]

Take the same amount of fuel, and change the amount of time it takes to burn. The amount of power coming out is the same, but the amount in a given timeframe is increased with better atomization.

The timeframe the engine needs to burn all of the fuel is very, very short. So while no, the better atomization does not create power, it allows a fuller more efficient burn quicker. The timeframe is the critical component here. More of fuel will be burned in the same time with better atomization, thus being more explosive power exerted onto the piston.

Resulting in more power to the wheels due to inefficiencies being eliminated.


Thats a respectable theory.

However your time frame of ignition ( not when the car is starting but when its running) difference between type 1 injectors and type 3 injectors first should be given a number.

Ok, its X is the amount of time it possibly ignites earlier.

y is the speed the engine spins. Ok what we have to establish here is does X actually change anything in the way the engine is moving? Or is it so short a time the engine doesnt notice.

I believe the engine doesnt notice. But it doesnt matter what I believe I just dont know and wont know til theres some proof.

Lemme put it this way, if it could be proven that type 3 injectors in your old ass car increase 1 mpg then they would advertise that and everyone should get them.

I think the amount of fuel saved based on your great video is more like drops....

I think type 3 are a design less likely to flow wrong than type 1, and more likely to be consistant longer. But i think if both types are working right the difference is very small. I think everyone who posted agreed.

[TurboJake]

Thats a respectable theory.

It's not a theory. It's fluid dynamics applied to chemical reactions

However your time frame of ignition ( not when the car is starting but when its running) difference between type 1 injectors and type 3 injectors first should be given a number.

Ok, its X is the amount of time it possibly ignites earlier.

It doesn't ignite earlier. The spark is at a given time, no matter the injector change.

y is the speed the engine spins. Ok what we have to establish here is does X actually change anything in the way the engine is moving? Or is it so short a time the engine doesnt notice.

What?
No, the movement won't change. The movement is cyclical, and unless you have a problem somewhere in the engine, will not be changed.

The length of time is static between the two injectors. The only difference being that the better atomized fuel will burn quicker, exerting more force on the piston.

I believe the engine doesnt notice. But it doesnt matter what I believe I just dont know and wont know til theres some proof.

The engine couldn't give two shits less. It doesn't think.

But here's your freaking proof. It's the exact same principle. This has to be the worst place to find this video, but it's the best quality. Everything else was freaking cell phones. The link fast forwards you to 7 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVLCQYBQPQY&t=7m0s

The difference is the fact the first balloon is just hydrogen (Unatomized, relying on oxygen outside of the balloon to burn. The same as pooled and poorly atomized fuel). and the second is hydrogen + oxygen (Atomized fuel)

The exact same amount of energy is exerted out by both of those balloons, Just the one with atomized fuel is quicker. I can't stress quicker enough. The same amount of power is exerted in a shorter time. The shorter you can make that time, the more efficient the combustion will be. The amount of fuel burned in a conventional ICE, is not 100%. If you take off your exhaust manifold and fire you your car. fire WILL come out of there, because all of the fuel is not being burned fast enough. It's simply not possible. Getting 100% fuel combustion is the holy fucking grail of the internal combustion engine being powered by any fossil fuel.

Lemme put it this way, if it could be proven that type 3 injectors in your old ass car increase 1 mpg then they would advertise that and everyone should get them.

Who will?
Certainly nobody in the USA. Everyone is paid for by advertising. Why should you buy injectors for you car, when you can just go buy a new freaking car?

We are a consumer country. Do not forget that companies would rather have you buy something new, than upgrade or fix the old. Cash for clunkers ring any bells?

I think the amount of fuel saved based on your great video is more like drops....

Drops add up! Ever had a leaky faucet in your house?

I think type 3 are a design less likely to flow wrong than type 1, and more likely to be consistant longer. But i think if both types are working right the difference is very small. I think everyone who posted agreed.

Yes, the difference will be small. But it's not about it being a massive gain or huge breakthrough. It's at MOST 10%

2mpg streched over 15 gallons, is 30 miles. An extra 30 miles per tank. It adds up.


Also, a side effect of better atomized fuel that burns better is the fact that stoich is achieved with less fuel and is picked up by the 02 sensor, causing the DME to lean the mixture out more, using less fuel.

[stamar]

Hey thanks for your research regardless. Salute the videos

If it were just atomization that improved gas mileage, then wed be at the point of 20 pintle caps. 100 pintle caps or what, 1000.

will a 1000 pintle injector increase a little more?

Where the two things go hand in hand is the increased pressure requires more atomization to prevent pooling. pooling makes it harder to start and wastes gas. So you need to have the pressure . Thats part of why the injectors are rated by pressure. these type 3 injectors, are 19 lb pressure injectors, yet our m20s are not 19 lb fuel rail cars. Do you follow? Youre installing better atomization made for a higher pressure fuel system. Now you have to to prove it helps a lower pressure fuel system....

youre right there is no data but word of mouth and theory.

so a very high pressure bosch injector has 16 pintles now. That doesnt mean that your m20 needs 16 pintles or it will improve it.

It doesnt mean it wouldnt necessarily. It would just run smoother and probably start faster.

It wouldnt make a huge difference in general operation because the fuel pressure of the m20 does not seem to pool up at all with 4 pintles, so how is 16 going to improve that? I mean if atomization is great is more better? No. First we have to put a quantity on how better atomization would help a m20, it might not at all. It might be as atomized as it needs to be already.


( btw Im getting 19 lb injectors for my car and I do expect like 1 mpg. 19 lb injectors are literally cheaper than stock for what it matters)

[übersteuern]

Stamar and Jake, your theoretical argument is entertaining. But unless you have results for consumption on an M20 (or similar engine) for OEM vs Design III in a similar wear condition, then I don't think it amounts to much.

But have fun ranting, I look forward to seeing who will be first to bring the coriolis effect into this.

[stamar]

I do not have that data. It does not exist.

I dont think jake disagrees with that. These are just theories based on logic.

Im buying 19 lb injectors for my car but i cant even provide that data for you because my old injectors are ugly.

[TurboJake]

Stamar and Jake, your theoretical argument is entertaining. But unless you have results for consumption on an M20 (or similar engine) for OEM vs Design III in a similar wear condition, then I don't think it amounts to much.

But have fun ranting, I look forward to seeing who will be first to bring the coriolis effect into this.

Nah, I'm done.. I've explained more than enough.

[Gregs///M]

Just an update for this posts.

I did purchase and install Design III injectors. Noticed a significant difference!

MPG increased 8-10mpg per OBC
Low range torque increased slightly
Idle smoothed out slightly

Worn Design I's vs rebuilt Design III's.

Highly recommend Design III upgrade for M20 owners.

[digger]

the M20 is a innefficnet POS, using the original style injectors seems to have worked well for a long long time........

Also 19lb injectors is the mass flow rate (19lb/hr at a specified pressure) the fuel rail pressure on a B25 is 3b w.r.t manifold pressure.

the obc is a bad way to measure the MPG if changing to injectors that flow more