And folks like me appreciate being exposed to the thinking going on in the Forum. It's encouraging to see what can be done with the lowly 3.4 PR block, with 1 cam and valve train, and NA.
Just wondering if actively cooling the fuel, instead of the air, would help with timing/detonation ?? The incoming air has so little heat capacity compared to the liquid fuel, so (without the benefit of doing any calculations) it seems like a thermo-electric cooling block mounted on the fuel rail (?) could lower the temp substantially. Perhaps with a pre-cooling zone before the fuel rail?
And folks like me appreciate being exposed to the thinking going on in the Forum. It's encouraging to see what can be done with the lowly 3.4 PR block, with 1 cam and valve train, and NA.
Just wondering if actively cooling the fuel, instead of the air, would help with timing/detonation ?? The incoming air has so little heat capacity compared to the liquid fuel, so (without the benefit of doing any calculations) it seems like a thermo-electric cooling block mounted on the fuel rail (?) could lower the temp substantially. Perhaps with a pre-cooling zone before the fuel rail?
The heat capacity of air is about 0.25 btu/lb-'F and the heat capacity of liquid gasoline is about 0.6 btu/lb-f. At wide open throttle there is about 12 times more mass of air than fuel. You would have to cool the liquid fuel substantially to have a meaningful effect on the mixture temperature.
------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged
the latent heat of vaporization of the fuel is what does the majority of the cooling, but reducing the temperature of the fuel can make a not insignificant difference in power. Moroso used to make a product called a "cool can", it was a can with coiled tubing inside that could be filled with ice water, for cooling the fuel. realistically, the idea of cooling the fuel is only really viable for short duration operations, your heat sink has to be colder than the heat source to adequately remove heat. if you fuel temp is above ambient temperature, a small liquid to air heat exchanger could remove some of the heat, but would only be marginally effective.
Fuel vaporization is extremely effective at reducing charge temperatures, which is why carburetors can sometime outperform fuel injection systems when properly sized. that said, injectors placed further up the runners in the intake tract, or even above the intake tract, can have the same effect. the downside to moving the fuel source that far from the port/valve, is that it has longer to travel to get to the chamber, and can make throttle response and tip in tuning a little more difficult, along with requiring larger acceleration enrichment or pump shot to get a smooth transition from idle. a good compromise could be to run staged injection, with small port or direct injection handling transitional fueling, and high mounted injectors handling steady state fuel, I'm not sure there's currently support for such a fueling concept at the enthusiast level yet though.
For a while, I considered building a heat exchanger to go inside my A2W intercooler reservoir that would have a loop off of the air conditioning system to provide cooling to the intercooler water below ambient. if I were to do this, I could also install a small liquid to liquid heat exchanger in the fuel line, and run the supply from the intercooler pump through it, but, this seemed like a complicated solution, to a fuel temperature problem that doesn't really exist. I still may implement the AC mod though one day.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
Fuel vaporization is extremely effective at reducing charge temperatures, which is why carburetors can sometime outperform fuel injection systems when properly sized. that said, injectors placed further up the runners in the intake tract, or even above the intake tract, can have the same effect. the downside to moving the fuel source that far from the port/valve, is that it has longer to travel to get to the chamber, and can make throttle response and tip in tuning a little more difficult, along with requiring larger acceleration enrichment or pump shot to get a smooth transition from idle. a good compromise could be to run staged injection, with small port or direct injection handling transitional fueling, and high mounted injectors handling steady state fuel, I'm not sure there's currently support for such a fueling concept at the enthusiast level yet though.
Actually I am pretty positive the MS can do staged injection, it is used on some motorcyles.
Actually I am pretty positive the MS can do staged injection, it is used on some motorcyles.
it has the availability to do staged injection, I'm just not sure it can do it in the manner I described. because my engine isn't anywhere near a power level that could possibly require it, I haven't really explored. it. it could be very interesting to explore, and I might on one of my next builds. but I suspect that won't exactly need the fuel flow either.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
Originally posted by ericjon262: For a while, I considered building a heat exchanger to go inside my A2W intercooler reservoir that would have a loop off of the air conditioning system to provide cooling to the intercooler water below ambient. if I were to do this, I could also install a small liquid to liquid heat exchanger in the fuel line, and run the supply from the intercooler pump through it, but, this seemed like a complicated solution, to a fuel temperature problem that doesn't really exist. I still may implement the AC mod though one day.
right, and I agree with the ideas of that thread, the capacity of the water would only be good for a short duration, similar to adding ice to the tank, the key advantage I see, is that you don't need to add more ice between runs, or drain water out as you add ice. that said, I don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
right, and I agree with the ideas of that thread, the capacity of the water would only be good for a short duration, similar to adding ice to the tank, the key advantage I see, is that you don't need to add more ice between runs, or drain water out as you add ice. that said, I don't think the juice would be worth the squeeze.
Compared to a standard liquid to air intercooler freon chilling should be able to decrease the charge air temperature by over 60 'F which will increase the density by over 10%. Mass air flow gain is probably something less say 7%.
------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged
Compared to a standard liquid to air intercooler freon chilling should be able to decrease the charge air temperature by over 60 'F which will increase the density by over 10%. Mass air flow gain is probably something less say 7%.
but how long that could be sustained would depend on a number of factors, and typically, PCM's disable the AC at WOT, so the system would only function at some threshold below that. it also takes power to run the system, so the gains from the reduced air temps, and increased air density need to surpass the drag caused by the compressor, and the compressor needs to be able to maintain the system at the lower temperature, while not operating at WOT. for a true racecar, the system is also heavier, on a car that's already heavy, the difference might be negligible, on a stripped down lightweight chassis(without AC), it could make a difference.
For drag racing, IMO, the system is too complicated to be worth it, ice is cheap... For other types of racing, I would want to review data logs and see how the air temp changes over the course of a lap(s) with and without ice, and see how high steady state is once the system is heat soaked, and how long lower temps can be maintained with ice in the water box. I would also want to optimize the cooling capacity of the radiator for the intercooler as well before adding additional cooling measures.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
Originally posted by ericjon262: it has the availability to do staged injection, I'm just not sure it can do it in the manner I described. because my engine isn't anywhere near a power level that could possibly require it, I haven't really explored. it. it could be very interesting to explore, and I might on one of my next builds. but I suspect that won't exactly need the fuel flow either.
Have you been getting accurate AFR control lately?
A set of 15 lb/hr injectors near the ports could have your AFR pretty accurate for idle/calm driving... basically making dead-time issues with big injectors go away.
Understood, I'm just gently pointing out that your performance knowledge base coupled with the generalized statements can discourage with the assumption by others that they must be correct coming from an experienced motorhead, considering there are 3.6L swaps going on here. I'm sure some of what you've stated is true, I just haven't observed it with the GM platform, imports however, are a different story, particularly with BMW and VW at the advent of DI. I've made similar statements to yours in the past as a reason to keep it simple on projects, but have come to appreciate the benefit of the added tech & accept the additional labor in working with it. Making a project/plan work is part of the DIY experience. The cost is relative, it's a 4 cam motor, with 4 cam cost and benefits. I'm following your progress, not questioning your plan.
Point taken Joseph, what's coming next won't disappoint you!
Have you been getting accurate AFR control lately?
A set of 15 lb/hr injectors near the ports could have your AFR pretty accurate for idle/calm driving... basically making dead-time issues with big injectors go away.
Honestly, I haven't been driving the car enough to know for sure, but the injectors in the car came with a datasheet for MS3, so they should be very close. once I get the new tank in, I'll drive it more and hopefully get a better idea of how things are working. I'm not super interested in doing staged injection on this car, it would require a ton of custom work, if it happens, it will be with a different engine, and a one off intake manifold.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
Compared to a standard liquid to air intercooler freon chilling should be able to decrease the charge air temperature by over 60 'F which will increase the density by over 10%. Mass air flow gain is probably something less say 7%.
That is why I have the injectors high up in the runners. To give it enough time for the alcohol in E85 to evaporate and do its thing. There is no intercooler that will do a better job than that. And you may wonder about transient throttle response. Well, the Megasquirt has an algorithm to compensate for that. So now due to software technology I can have injectors farther away and be able to program them to make up for the difference of transient throttle response.
That is why I have the injectors high up in the runners. To give it enough time for the alcohol in E85 to evaporate and do its thing. There is no intercooler that will do a better job than that. And you may wonder about transient throttle response. Well, the Megasquirt has an algorithm to compensate for that. So now due to software technology I can have injectors farther away and be able to program them to make up for the difference of transient throttle response.
to a point, I'll agree that technology can make transient fueling acceptable even with the injectors further away, but only to a point, eventually, time and distance will become a factor and the fueling needs can start to change as the fuel is traveling down the ports to the cylinder when the injectors are far away. This is part of the reason I like the idea of direct injection, the engine could be provided with the exact amount of fuel required for that combustion cycle, AFTER, the valves are shut(ting)
a blended injection system could be awesome, port injectors spray a minimal amount of fuel for cooling and cleaning, direct, or near port injectors provide trimming for AFR, and getting the exact amount of fuel for maximum power. By spraying the minimum amount of fuel to provide cooling, you maximize the available air to enter the cylinder, because the fuel will displace some air, and therefore some available oxygen to support combustion. I'd love to implement a system like this, but I think it's probably outside the scope of what I'll ever do with one of my cars, definitely outside the scope of what I'll do to my Fiero.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
I invited Lou Dias to trash me in my own thread, he refused. sorry. if he trashes your thread going after me. I tried.
By spraying the minimum amount of fuel to provide cooling, you maximize the available air to enter the cylinder, because the fuel will displace some air, and therefore some available oxygen to support combustion.
Well said Eric! For pure gasoline that statement is absolutely true but if an oxygenated fuel like E85 is used more oxygen can be introduced in the combustion chamber compared by the air displaced by the fuel itself, in this case E85. By weight E85 is about 30% oxygen and the air we and our engines breathe is only about 23% by weight.
And folks like me appreciate being exposed to the thinking going on in the Forum. It's encouraging to see what can be done with the lowly 3.4 PR block, with 1 cam and valve train, and NA.
Notorio, we have a great thing here in this Fiero forum. There are forums like ThirdGen, S10, 60*V6 and some Pontiacs forums that share the 60* V6 engine platform but you'll never see any of those forums with the same amount of talented individuals as our Fiero community. I'm a nobody compared to the scientific minds of this Fiero group and I'm saying this without mentioning any names to keep them anonymous. I personally consider it an honor to be part of this Fiero family. Yes, we fight and fuzz but don't all families also do so? I have learned a lot over the years here and I can honestly say that I would never achieve my goals without the help and critics from the members of this forum. I think the common denominator we have is the Fiero, which now a days is a Unicorn and that makes us unique individuals!
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 02-25-2023).]
Originally posted by ericjon262: a blended injection system could be awesome, port injectors spray a minimal amount of fuel for cooling and cleaning, direct, or near port injectors provide trimming for AFR, and getting the exact amount of fuel for maximum power.
For a hybrid DI / MPFI system, I'd want to use the DI injectors for normal operation, and the MPFI injectors for WOT enrichment... like the pump shot in a 4-barrel carb.
Edit to add: That dry sump is gonna be a game changer! You can probably get a few ponies via crankcase vacuum, as well.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 03-04-2023).]
Since the goal seems to be to get as much atomization as possible in the big plenum, I was wondering if it would make sense to use single stage high pressure drop (direct injection) injectors .
------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged
Since the goal seems to be to get as much atomization as possible in the big plenum, I was wondering if it would make sense to use single stage high pressure drop (direct injection) injectors .
Sanderson, the problem with that is that to get that hi pressure drop those injectors demand very high pressures. Right now I'm using 55psi on 43.5psi injectors which means I use a smaller injector and via increased rail pressure I can make the lbs/h requirement to get to the size injector the engine needs.
Sanderson, the problem with that is that to get that hi pressure drop those injectors demand very high pressures. Right now I'm using 55psi on 43.5psi injectors which means I use a smaller injector and via increased rail pressure I can make the lbs/h requirement to get to the size injector the engine needs.
Yes the direct injection injectors would require a direct injection fuel pump
That is why I have the injectors high up in the runners. To give it enough time for the alcohol in E85 to evaporate and do its thing. There is no intercooler that will do a better job than that. And you may wonder about transient throttle response. Well, the Megasquirt has an algorithm to compensate for that. So now due to software technology I can have injectors farther away and be able to program them to make up for the difference of transient throttle response.
I did some flash calculations with E85 and the temperature is substantial if there is enough time for it to vaporize. The temperature drop across the plenum would be an indication of the extent of vaporization
------------------ formerly known as sanderson 1984 Quad 4 1886 SE 2.8L 1988 4.9L Cadillac 1988 3800 Supercharged
Rei (La Fiera) do you have a deadline to finish this supernatural 3.7L With a cool 9,000RPM red line
I can't wait to see it on the dyno (test bench)
Claude
The goal is to have it broken in and tuned on an engine dyno but I've called lots of places here and no one is willing to but a V6 on their dyno. I have another Megasquirt, water pump intake and injectors ready to just put on the dyno an let her rip. But The shops around here if you don't have an LS or a SBC or SBF with a carburator they don't want to do it. So, I just gave up on that idea. I'll put the short block together this week and just leave it there until the currently 3.7L on the car has given me the last ounce of HP and torque an I'm done testing and enjoy it on some track days this year. So I guess by the end of the year I'll pull out the short rod 3.7L and the long rod will go in for a year of testing. I have another engine on the works that the only thing I'm waiting is the piston set.
Originally posted by La fiera: But The shops around here if you don't have an LS or a SBC or SBF with a carburator they don't want to do it.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
That makes no sense...unless they are thinking THEY are doing the tuning.
I find a lot of these professional tuners are 1 trick ponies. I have shops around me that only tune Mustangs, and others that only tune F-bodies.
You just got to tell them you just want dyno-time...not their tuning abilities.
I suspect the issue is they don't have the proper engine mount setup, bellhousing flange or the crankshaft coupler to mount the 60 degree V6 onto their dyno. All could be purchased, but that likely far exceeds the revenue they would get ffrom a dyno run or two. You are probably the only one looking to dyno that particular engine, so there isn't enough demand to justify the investment.
I suspect the issue is they don't have the proper engine mount setup, bellhousing flange or the crankshaft coupler to mount the 60 degree V6 onto their dyno. All could be purchased, but that likely far exceeds the revenue they would get ffrom a dyno run or two. You are probably the only one looking to dyno that particular engine, so there isn't enough demand to justify the investment.
You are absolutely right Guru! I do have a Mustang dyno ten minutes from me, the same dyno I've been using for the past 12-14 years. The reason I want to bench test, tune and dyno is because I need research and data collected and use that info on my new endeavor. If I do find someone willing to work I would not mind getting what they need as far as to put my engines on their dyno. I even was looking into getting my own engine dyno. I'm pretty sure I can find something affordable maybe used. It's about $750 to 1200 to run on an engine dyno depending on the complexity of the dyno installation and tuning.
Got the mounting block for the drysump pump modified and that allowed me to mount the pump at the right location.
And I was able to test fit the location of the pump on the chassis. there's plenty of space to run the hoses from the pump freely. The reason I didn't take out the hurt engine sooner was because I wanted to test fit the pump on the car, now I can take the engine out.
Looking good! I'm curious about the "water pump delete" timing cover. Was that custom made? Sorry if you covered that already.
The front cover is from a 2000 3400 minivan that I modified. This timing cover only fits the aluminum pan on the 2000 block. The pan in the other hand has a different bolt pattern from the '94 camaro block. So I have a 94 camaro steel oil pan coming that looks like it will work with this cover. If not, I'll modify the Fiero front cover, no big deal.
Rei I am surprised you didn't tulip those big valves to lighten them a few grams. sleek
Well, this are the weight comparison between the stock valves and the valves on these heads. The Stainless Steel valves from TFS are much heavier than the stock ones. Stock intake valve
