Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
Tornado
I don't think there are any other options than Simon for edit tuning, no one else seems to be bothered trying to spend this amount of time to get maximun performace from cars with the edit.
Mate, there are other options, none I will mention in this thread in fairness but yes, Simon has done the testing with the F6, I agree..
My only questions are, if any one knows for sure....
Are the 968 injectors/drilled stock injectors 42Lb's??
Is a 3" dump/ exhaust enough, (twin 2 1/2" = 3.5") ??
What rpm limit is used??
Have u used the launch control feature yet?
Cheers..
Hey headache, Im not sure what the 968 injectors are i havent used them, ive tested the ones that capa sell and ive also tested the ones that nizpro sell, the nizpro are modified factory injectors , both i found work well.
Again this subject of zorst sizing comes down to the cat on the turbo.
regardless of the sizing of the rear section if its twin or single there is no point to having a a pipe that flows more then what the car can flow.
I would use a 3.5 dump 3.5 cat and then after the cat either a twin 2.5 or a single 3. Either way the cat will still be the restriction in the system.
I use stock limits.
No im not utilsing the launch controls.
__________________ Xtreme Ford Tuning Silhouette F6 TYPHOON 507 RWKW'S Turbo Territory SEDUCE AWD Fun
@Headache
I’ve been reading around the sites and doing some of my own research on these injectors and it’s a mess.
From what I can ascertain many have just been going for bigger injectors or drilled injectors without taking into consideration the working fuel pressure and atomisation.
There is no way you should use drilled without upping the pressure so as to maintain good atomisation.
I’m still leaning towards an increase in orifice numbers to maintain optimal atomisation. I.e. 3 orifices the same size as the STD two dual spray working at the same pressure and duration should supply the same atomisation but with an increase of 30% in volume of fuel.
Fuel that is not atomised will be wasted and may cause problems other than higher fuel consumption IMO.
Dual spray however does suit the head porting to a tee and you would imagine ideal if you do all the changes that are needed with bigger orifice as opposed to more orifice of the same aperture.
I’m thinking by keeping as much STD as possible it should be no more than an (Ideal) injector swap and EDIT??????
Sure you can go bigger pumps, Higher pressure, Bigger injectors, Inline pumps, and so on but to me that is crossing the line and into an area that there is no limitations or boundaries and something I don’t want to do personally.
I’m thinking:
1) Edit @ 260RWKW’s
2) Exhaust and Injectors @ 300+RWKW’s
This is keeping everything else STD and to my way of thinking about as sweet as it gets with useable power on the street with 2 ton of Ute.
Not a bad bang for buck I think and something I couldn’t do with the Pursuit Ute without wasting 3 times the amount of Cash.. Then worrying about the transmission etc handling it….
Actually when you think about it you can’t crank that from the XR6T or the GT without blowing the Clutch or Auto clean out of them. so Ford have done well to supply us with the F6 all ready to go the BIG RWKW’s without replacing or strengthening to much else.
__________________
BF F6 Tornado Rapid
APC Full stainless System
BF F6 Typhoon Rapid
2003 White RTV Ute
Tornado, I understand where u are coming from re: ideal fuel pressures with larger orrifice, and resulting atomisation, but just a thought.... Would it make such a differernce in a turbocharged engine?? I reaslise in an atmo V8 etc, the best possible mix of A/F would yield best results in ecomony and efficiency- hence power, but when operating under pressures of 14 PSI above atmospheric, would this not change?? - I don't know, so that's a question...
To me, the idea of forced induction is still a crude form of power production.. Yes, grab a high revving Honda engine, and the balance between maximum power/blowing an engine at 10,000rpm is critical. Grabbing a 4Lt 6 pot, hang a turbo off the side and tweaking it, while still an art in its'self, leaves the whole process open to too many variables. Yes forced has detonation to contend with, but unless u are really stretching the friendship, it should never come into play.
Turbo cars can run fine one day, but throw in some hot weather or some humidity, and things all turn to cr*p.. I think a set of injectors, while not perfect, are as much of a variable as any other.
Why not simply raise fuel pressure, i'm sure it would make 300 rw with just this??
Tornado, I understand where u are coming from re: ideal fuel pressures with larger orrifice, and resulting atomisation, but just a thought.... Would it make such a differernce in a turbocharged engine?? I reaslise in an atmo V8 etc, the best possible mix of A/F would yield best results in ecomony and efficiency- hence power, but when operating under pressures of 14 PSI above atmospheric, would this not change?? - I don't know, so that's a question...
To me, the idea of forced induction is still a crude form of power production.. Yes, grab a high revving Honda engine, and the balance between maximum power/blowing an engine at 10,000rpm is critical. Grabbing a 4Lt 6 pot, hang a turbo off the side and tweaking it, while still an art in its'self, leaves the whole process open to too many variables. Yes forced has detonation to contend with, but unless u are really stretching the friendship, it should never come into play.
Turbo cars can run fine one day, but throw in some hot weather or some humidity, and things all turn to cr*p.. I think a set of injectors, while not perfect, are as much of a variable as any other.
Why not simply raise fuel pressure, i'm sure it would make 300 rw with just this??
I suppose it’s a kw here a kw there.. They all add up and I think at present most are not worried about the finer points as you say and as such are fitting bigger injectors and are working fine to some extent.
Can this be refined? I think so and with the extra kw’s will come better fuel economy.
Is it worth it? Stuffed if I know I fix Bulldozers but I know we use many different injectors across many HP ranges and as we get higher we use injectors with more spray orifice to help gain the extra hp. Simply making the orifice bigger will probably achieve the same increase in fuel and power but stuffed if it will meet the emissions and fuel consumption goes through the roof.
The office actually increases in size over many thousands of hours of operation and as such the Fuel per cycle will increase, HP will actually rise with exhaust emissions.
Install a new set of injectors and the HP will actually drop.
Raising fuel pressure without changing the injector actuation time will increase the volume of fuel through the orifice for sure but not much good when you want to flash back to STD factory map as it will be Rich as at a guess.
That is the line I mentioned crossing before and I personally don’t want to go there at present. You could change out the non adjustable fuel regulator and fit an adjustable one which would then only require adjustment when changing back to the original factory Flash and if you done injectors then maybe only a few more mins to do.
It would be interesting to fit an adjustable fuel regulator and see just how many KW you can squeeze out of the STD Injectors?(300 you say)???????? Not sure the injectors will like the amount of pressure rise required to gain a respectable amount of HP without giving the orifice hell over a long period.
Either way maintaining an optimal atomisation will render the best results and ultimately more constancy across greater variables that presently exist even though they don’t appear to be a problem at present mainly because most haven’t thought about them or bother to refine them.
I really don’t know.
__________________
BF F6 Tornado Rapid
APC Full stainless System
BF F6 Typhoon Rapid
2003 White RTV Ute
@headache
Thinking about you question and there could be more to it the more I think about it.
Picture the injector in one cycle for example and let’s say it must stay open for 10ms for example.
10ms with a STd injector may be = to x amount of CC required for one power stoke at 2500rpm.
Let’s just say for this exercise it takes 10ms that way the engine has another 360 deg before its next injection cycle.
Then consider at 5000 rpm how far the engine has travelled in 10ms?
This would mean the injector must be open for argument sake 2 complete revolutions 720deg to supply enough fuel at that RPM to meet the correct amount of fuel.
It soon becomes obvious that we will soon run out of fuel and the injector must be cycling at 100% ..I think.
Ok we wack in bigger injectors and we now can supply more fuel in less ms and as such more HP. Simple hey?
But!!!
When you think a little further and imagine the injector cycling 100% or batch firing and add to that a Turbo and valve overlap which is used extremely well to flush all exhaust gasses out between strokes to maximise cylinder efficiency next power stroke, how much RAW fuel does it flush out with it?
Ideally sequential fuel injection with large enough injectors so at to only inject the required amount of fuel in 180Deg of crankshaft rotation would ensure no fuel is wasted.
__________________
BF F6 Tornado Rapid
APC Full stainless System
BF F6 Typhoon Rapid
2003 White RTV Ute
Just a thing to note tho.. more/bigger orrifice may be a way to go to achieve power, and u mention flushing of raw fuel to 'clean' the cylinder, so to speak... But this could be tweaked with the cam timing could it not?? there are more ways than fuel to make power, spark advance, cam timing and exhaust efficiency to name a few, as you well know. Also plenum design and such, although this gets away from your plan of just inj's+edit/exh.. BUT what I am getting at is this..
Why not get some improved pipework for the intake tract, this would surely free up some pressure drop on the intake side of the plenum chamber, and power could be produced at a lower PSI, hence less fuel. Check Simons' dealings with the Nizpro setup, nice power, from low boost.. Based on the least restriction theory..
I know injector sizing/flow will ultimatley decide the end result to a degree, but surely a couple of other mods in the way of freeing up restriction may lean the results in a favourable manner??
All in all tho, to supply enough fuel in 180 deg with seq injection, yes, ideal.. But is it possible in the BA?? does it fire seq or batch, i'm not up on that..?? Will there be a happy medium with power output v fuel economy, remembering we'll be running close to 370ish FW KW.. I'll email u a link to a discussion on Fuel economy and the factory PCM which I have read, might be up your ally if you haven't seen it already..
Silhouette F6 TYPHOON 507 RWKW'S 
Linear Mode
