Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 80
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torgus Click here to enlarge
    Subtract 1L or 25% from all numbers to make it a more apples to apples. Then rev the N54 out the same RPM or at least 8200 which is the limit of the stock DME.
    So what you're telling me is direct injection is such an advantage that to make things more comparable I have to reduce displacement, reduce my redline to match the N54, and otherwise take away from the engine architecture?

    You would think if direct injection was such an advantage none of that would be necessary.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torgus Click here to enlarge
    In other news, Sticky are you ever going to claim back the 1/2 mile E9X record? It was yours for a while IIRC.
    No. I think trying to hit 9's on the stock internals will be the final goal to accomplish and then I'm done with the M3.

    Investing in a billet block and new engine build just to say 'I told you so' doesn't make much sense.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    85
    Rep Points
    59.1
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    It's actually hilarious sticky is arguing the other dude thinks direct intention is just better because it's what he has yet that's what he's doing. Port injection is going the way of throttle body injection and carburetors before it. It's just a more precise and better form of fuel delivery. Any fuel you run will be act as a higher octane with direct injection because you're taking a lot of time that pre ignition can happen away from the equation.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JBacon335 Click here to enlarge
    yet that's what he's doing.
    No I'm not as I have both therefore you are incorrect.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JBacon335 Click here to enlarge
    Any fuel you run will be act as a higher octane with direct injection because you're taking a lot of time that pre ignition can happen away from the equation.
    Tell me why you see N54's drop compression then with aftermarket pistons?

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    85
    Rep Points
    59.1
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Because the head is garbage so you need more boost. N53 head changes that dynamic

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    85
    Rep Points
    59.1
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Boost has a direct effect on dynamic compression just like a bigger camshaft does so you reach an effective octane limit. If the head flows more air you get more into the chamber at lower pressure and therefore gain more detonation threshold since less pressure, less dynamic compression increase

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    New thread created for this topic.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    796
    Rep Points
    454.8
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge

    It was added as a fuel efficiency technology due to them being able to run leaner on pump fuels. The world's fastest cars are not direct injected.
    "Starting with the 2014 season, Formula 1 regulations shift drastically, and the most significant change is the switch from 2.4-liter normally aspirated V8 engines to 1.6-liter direct-injected turbocharged V6 units."

    There might be faster cars on a prepared track, but as a class, top to bottom, I would bet on a F1 car on most real tracks, or certainly on any current F1 certified tracks.



  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    745
    Rep Points
    1,766.2
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    18


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    IDK why N54 owners lower the compression on their cars especially considering they’re running e85. I came from the Honda community and when we built motors for e85 use we up the compression to 11:1. Even the new coyote motors run 12:1 compression. They do that on crappy 91 gas lol
    Click here to enlarge

    Left hand on the steering wheel right hand on that RTD Shifter
    -2Chainz

    07 6spd TI ag E92

    Mods
    Boostbox, e85, RTD shifter, and a 6766
    #BuiltByHaborFreight

    Instagram Oss_Cah5

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    279
    Rep Points
    426.4
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Port injection is flawed(as is DI) but in the context of the N54 and its propensity to misfire PI is just simpler and easier.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,483
    Rep Points
    1,757.0
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    18


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    No I'm not as I have both therefore you are incorrect.



    Tell me why you see N54's drop compression then with aftermarket pistons?
    Because the people building them are intellectually impaired and want their build to make less power+be slower. (Ok maybe that's harsh, maybe they're just afraid of having TOO much power so they spend a thousand bucks to slow themselves down.. or They believe it's still the 1990's where you have to run low comp to make big power/run big boost.

    They're dropping comp to BELOW 1000++HP JZ/RB motors (they tend to run 10 minimum on E85 these days on race gas, making more power than any n54 probably ever will)
    boop

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    "Starting with the 2014 season, Formula 1 regulations shift drastically, and the most significant change is the switch from 2.4-liter normally aspirated V8 engines to 1.6-liter direct-injected turbocharged V6 units."

    There might be faster cars on a prepared track, but as a class, top to bottom, I would bet on a F1 car on most real tracks, or certainly on any current F1 certified tracks.
    So are the cars faster because of direct injection or because they are turbocharged?

    The answer is because they are turbocharged: https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....-four-cylinder

    They were making DOUBLE the horsepower in the 80's that they are now without direct injection.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    Because the people building them are intellectually impaired
    I can't disagree with you there.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    8
    Rep Points
    10.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    So are the cars faster because of direct injection or because they are turbocharged?

    The answer is because they are turbocharged: https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....-four-cylinder

    They were making DOUBLE the horsepower in the 80's that they are now without direct injection.
    Your response is not valid. There was no restriction to fuel flow in the 80's or type of fuel utilized.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    8
    Rep Points
    10.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Pros and cons of both systems.

    PI is cheaper, more prolific in gasoline cars, allows higher rpm's.

    DI has better atomization. So you get better cylinder cooling due to latent heat of vaporization before burn starts. There is a study done that shows alcohols on DI engines show a much higher octane value then the standard AKI method. This allows more timing, more compression. This equals efficiency and power. You can also control when it's injected in the cylinder more precisely which is best for lean burn.

    DI should also allow an engine to flow more efficiently as well since you don't have to make room in the intake manifold for bosses. But generally DI engines I've seen have had lower VI.

    Given two identical fuels and engines without high rpm's, one car DI, one PI. DI should be able to make equal if not more power with less fuel.

    DI is more complicated, generally there is almost 0 aftermarket support for the injectors and hpfp's.

    Biggest downfall is probably injection window. Port wins hands down. Fueling headroom will always go to port.

    IMO having both is best.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 86azms3 Click here to enlarge
    Your response is not valid. There was no restriction to fuel flow in the 80's or type of fuel utilized.
    Doesn't change the fact they were making way more power with port injection a long time ago.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 86azms3 Click here to enlarge
    Biggest downfall is probably injection window. Port wins hands down. Fueling headroom will always go to port.
    What I have repeated time and time again, thank you.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 86azms3 Click here to enlarge
    IMO having both is best.
    Agreed.

    But if you can only have one, the best choice for a performance car is port and the fastest cars are port fuel injected.

  17. #67
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    796
    Rep Points
    454.8
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    So are the cars faster because of direct injection or because they are turbocharged?

    The answer is because they are turbocharged: https://www.bimmerboost.com/content....-four-cylinder
    Turbocharged with direct injection. Simple fact is port injection fuel takes up volume of the intake charge and is not as precisely timed and distributed in the cylinder.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    They were making DOUBLE the horsepower in the 80's that they are now without direct injection.
    True, but larger capacity engines in the 80's. Look at thermal efficiency. Today's F1 engines, love them or hate them, are about 52% thermally efficient whereas those '80s engine were lucky to be over 40%. More power on less fuel is the ultimate goal. Why turbos beat superchargers and direct injection beats port injection. The former forms of both are more thermally efficient.

    EPA did us a great favor. In the seventies, BMW, Porsche and Alfa Romeo were running mechanical port injection on certain US models with no additional pollution controls when Lamborghinis and Ferraris were still running carburetors. The latter were faster, but the former were a lot more efficient and burned cleaner.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    Turbocharged with direct injection. Simple fact is port injection fuel takes up volume of the intake charge and is not as precisely timed and distributed in the cylinder.
    How is not as precisely timed or distributed? You have far more time to distribute the fuel. You are not as limited which is why the motors revved higher on port injection. Much higher.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    True, but larger capacity engines in the 80's.
    Incorrect. The turbo engines were smaller at 1.5 liters. And based on factory blocks too.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    More power on less fuel is the ultimate goal. Why turbos beat superchargers and direct injection beats port injection. The former forms of both are more thermally efficient.
    There isn't any refueling today. So yes, they are all about fuel efficiency. Are we racing for laptimes or MPG's?

    Larger motors, plus direct injection, and they are still making much less power 40+ years later however you slice it.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    EPA did us a great favor.
    Yeah... like the great favors they are doing for us now. Right...

  19. #69
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    796
    Rep Points
    454.8
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 86azms3 Click here to enlarge

    Biggest downfall is probably injection window. Port wins hands down. Fueling headroom will always go to port.

    IMO having both is best.
    Au contraire! DI is much more controllable as to timing and pattern and frequency within the cylinder pre-combustion than port injection where once the fuel is sprayed into the intake charge path external to the remainder of the intake runners all control is left to fluid dynamics of the remaining intake path, valves and cylinder head.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    796
    Rep Points
    454.8
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 86azms3 Click here to enlarge

    Biggest downfall is probably injection window. Port wins hands down. Fueling headroom will always go to port.

    IMO having both is best.
    Au contraire! DI is much more controllable as to timing and pattern and frequency within the cylinder pre-combustion than port injection where once the fuel is sprayed into the intake charge path external to the remainder of the intake runners all control is left to fluid dynamics of the remaining intake path, valves and cylinder head.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    796
    Rep Points
    454.8
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    How is not as precisely timed or distributed? You have far more time to distribute the fuel. You are not as limited which is why the motors revved higher on port injection. Much higher.



    Incorrect. The turbo engines were smaller at 1.5 liters. And based on factory blocks too.
    No, there is no control of the fuel once it enters the intake air stream. It is all fluid dynamics after that.

    New F1 engine rules do limit boost and RPM, so yeah, the wide open era permitted wider parameters and less efficiency and refueling. Refueling in a race is mostly a reflection of fuel efficiency and an aesthetic F1 rule consideration. In fact, F1 added an additional 10 liters or so this year because of rolling resistance of larger tires and increased aerodynamic drag was leaving the cars too close to no fuel at the end of some races. Would have been interesting if they did not increase the fuel level. I personally like refueling like in endurance racing, but it is hazardous and F1 has already had enough barbecues from the fifties through the seventies which are not good for family viewing.



    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    There isn't any refueling today. So yes, they are all about fuel efficiency. Are we racing for laptimes or MPG's?

    Larger motors, plus direct injection, and they are still making much less power 40+ years later however you slice it.
    Lap times are approaching or exceeding the last era of NA fuel only V8 which sometimes were run on those stupid ribbed narrower tires. Loved the sound of those V8, and the previous V12 and V10 also.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Yeah... like the great favors they are doing for us now. Right...
    Well, look at 45 years ago and how many fuel injected, DOHC, 4 or 5 valve per cylinder, turbocharged engines with alloy blocks were available? 5 Speed transmissions were very exotic. EPA forced Automobiles into greater efficiency which the Europeans in particular translated into higher performance more thermally efficient engines we have today. Now one can buy a I6 sedan with automatic that will shame almost all '60s pre-'68 EPA cars. I remember those true Hemis and big block muscle cars. One was lucky to get double digits MPG if any urban driving was involved or at speeds over 65 mph on the highway.

    We will skip the discussion of handling and braking because back then it was not a consideration of any manufacturer of muscle cars either.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    New F1 engine rules do limit boost and RPM, so yeah, the wide open era permitted wider parameters and less efficiency and refueling.
    Doesn't change the fact they made more power 30 years ago without direct injection and they are making less power today.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    Lap times are approaching or exceeding the last era of NA fuel only V8 which sometimes were run on those stupid ribbed narrower tires. Loved the sound of those V8, and the previous V12 and V10 also.
    Not because of direct injection. Thank tire technology, suspension, and wind tunnels.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    Well, look at 45 years ago and how many fuel injected, DOHC, 4 or 5 valve per cylinder, turbocharged engines with alloy blocks were available? 5 Speed transmissions were very exotic. EPA forced Automobiles into greater efficiency which the Europeans in particular translated into higher performance more thermally efficient engines we have today. Now one can buy a I6 sedan with automatic that will shame almost all '60s pre-'68 EPA cars. I remember those true Hemis and big block muscle cars. One was lucky to get double digits MPG if any urban driving was involved or at speeds over 65 mph on the highway.
    And? How is the EPA legislating out large naturally aspirated motors helping anyone?

    How is a world with 1.5 liter direct injected garbage better than a world with 9000+ rpm screaming 4.0 liter+ I6's or V8's? Or V10's for that matter?

    Nothing you said changes the fact they made double the horsepower without direct injection over three decades ago in F1. Nothing you said changes the fact port injection is being ADDED to performance engines because it is the superior performance technology.

    Direct injection is overrated and basically seeing use for fuel economy benefits. Whoopty doo I want easy E85 fueling at 8500+ rpm and 700+ whp. Which I have in my M3 at higher compression than any direct injected BMW powerplant Click here to enlarge

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    137,678
    Rep Points
    41,003.1
    Mentioned
    2418 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    411



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    Au contraire! DI is much more controllable as to timing and pattern and frequency within the cylinder pre-combustion than port injection where once the fuel is sprayed into the intake charge path external to the remainder of the intake runners all control is left to fluid dynamics of the remaining intake path, valves and cylinder head.
    Um maybe the timing and pattern is more controllable but there is no denying direct injection has a shorter injection window which is exactly what he said.

    You're wrong, not him.

    There are some real challenges that come with direct injection, though, including the small window of time in which the injection event must occur and the effects of charge motion as the fuel and air charge collide and mix in the combustion chamber. As Porsche’s 2008 study showed, with port injection there was an 11 millisecond window in which to inject fuel as part of the 4 stages of combustion (see the colour coded events along the bottom of the graph above), but because the injection event happens later in the cycle with direct injection, there was only a 1.5 millisecond window to inject the required amount of fuel into the combustion chamber.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    48
    Rep Points
    196.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    1 out of 2 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    The thing is nobody makes bigger piezoelectric direct injectors than the factory ones and until it is financially viable for a company to lay the money out to develop and market them they will not be available. That is the only reason people have to switch to port injection, it's been around on EFI vehicles for so long that there are countless companies making whatever size injectors you could ever ask for, therefore making it easier. Easier does not mean better by any stretch of the imagination. As for cars making more power back in the day without direct injection, that's because they have been restricted as far as the power they can make so that the cars are not death traps on the track. You keep spouting out nonsense trying to argue that the inferior is superior, repeat it all you want, you're still wrong.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    80
    Rep Points
    353.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    1 out of 3 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    We're bringing this back up? Slow day I guess.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •