On Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:38:47 -0400 Trevor Boicey <tboicey@brit.ca>
writes:
>EMILY COWEN wrote:
>> According to David Vizard's engine dyno tests, the "A" series engine
>> develops LESS horsepower with fuel injection, than with SU's.
>
> I think he must have been testing a specific fuel injection
>system and getting those results. It's very possible that
>some carburetor combination will be better than some fuel
>injection combination, but it's highly unlikely that ANY
>carb setting is better than ALL fuel injection possibilities.
>
> Ironically, if you wanted to, you could program your fuel
>injection to duplicate SUs and get at least the same performance
>as SUs, faults and all.
>
> I don't want to open the whole argument again, but essentially
>fuel injection is as varied as carburation. Many setups are
>possible, many configurations are possible, and many programs
>are possible.
>
> Fuel injection generally gives more performance because it's
>adjustments and tunings can be done without compromise, generally
>unlike carburetors where most design traits are tradeoffs between
>performance and mileage, performance and emissions, or performance
>and driveability.
>
>--
>Trevor Boicey
>Ottawa, Canada
>tboicey@brit.ca
>http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
>
I think the point that Vizard was making was that for some reason (which
he didn't fully understand), the "A" series engine did not like a fine
fuel mist. In other section of the induction section, he mentions this
phenomenom, in connection with the Fish carb. Apparently there is
something about the "A" engine that seems to thrive on a somewhat coarser
fuel mist, which is what the SU provides.
Anybody got any ideas why this might be true?
OFM s want to know
(OFM= Old Fart Minds)
Rick Morrison
72 MGBGT
74 Midget
|