figuring out turbo fuel requirements ***long***

[rhyzin]

i guess it could be doable to do the fmu and rrfpr. but i'd pick one or the other. i'd much rather get the fpr and injectors.

i think the whole point between the two is to be able to have as low an injector size for under low load conditions to improve idle and cruise fuel consumption. then as boost increases, the increase in fuel flow will come from a different device than the injectors. if you just had really large injectors and a standard fpr, you'd either be spewing out a lot of fuel under low load or that the injector spray pattern is so dense that you'd be wasting fuel that didn't burn. some people think the fmu is just so crude because it ends up increasing the fuel pressure to 2-3 times more than stock. the bigger injector setup with the rrfpr 'seems' a bit less of a risk since fuel pressure can be kept down, but if not tuned correctly, can cause larger fuel consumption and/or a bad idle.

if i could have things my way, i'd have 2 injectors per cylinder. me and my friends were talking about hearing this one setup where 1 injector was a in the manifold as normal for low loads, then another injector would spray directly into the combustion chamber adding more fuel as well as controlling knock and hold a much more accurate AFR. but i guess that's OT on our cars. but 2 injectors per cylinder in the intake manifold would be feasible. good low load fuel delivery from the primary injector as well as more than adequate supply when needed by the secondary injectors. 2 240cc injectors seems to be more than 1 440cc injector anyways.

also looking at the difference between the g93 and g94 intake manifolds, the g94 manifold design seems 'more' suitable for an extra injector before the throttlebody if thats what some people have thought about. mostly since the 4 runners collect in a "square" like configuration. with the log style g93 design, the further runners may run leaner since the air fuel mix from the extra injector may get sucked down runners 3 and 4 instead.

[bahamut]

Damn, made a mistake here. where's the delete post button?

[Havoc_covaH]

so if i did my math correctly, a stock lancer actually has 137hp instead of 120hp. Is that right? I used the formula from rceng and replaced 200hp with the variable "x", replaced the injector size with stock size, and decreased duty cycle to the stock 75%.

[blaze_125]

Originally Posted by Havoc_covaH

so if i did my math correctly, a stock lancer actually has 137hp instead of 120hp. Is that right? I used the formula from rceng and replaced 200hp with the variable "x", replaced the injector size with stock size, and decreased duty cycle to the stock 75%.

Nope. A stock Lancer has 120 crank HP, and about 100 wheel hp.

[rhyzin]

mmmm, he was using the rceng.com template as a basis for his number. the problem with that is that no one really knows what the max injector duty cycle on stock map is.

[Havoc_covaH]

So if we have 120 crank hp then why does every car research website say that we have 120hp stock? I mean damn, as if 120hp wasn't weak enough, 100 would break my heart.

[rhyzin]

Search up. Car manufacturers measure engine power from the crankshaft rather than from the wheels like a dynojet or mustang dyno.

[ghostrider]

Originally Posted by Havoc_covaH

So if we have 120 crank hp then why does every car research website say that we have 120hp stock? I mean damn, as if 120hp wasn't weak enough, 100 would break my heart.

It's easier to sell 120 hp at the crank than it is to sell 100 whp.

[lancerrally45]

so whats the difference between a 12:1 fmu, or a boost sensitive fuel regulator? do i need both beause it looks to me like they are the same thing. or do i only need one?

[dibsen]

Originally Posted by Havoc_covaH

So if we have 120 crank hp then why does every car research website say that we have 120hp stock? I mean damn, as if 120hp wasn't weak enough, 100 would break my heart.

Its prob closer to 97, but whos counting.