Bigger injectors and fuel useage.

On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 9:35:07 PM UTC+8, wrote:
>
>
> I would really like for this thing to have a little more power, but to be honest, I like the 21 mpg I am getting when I drive to work which is about 20 miles one way. I would like to keep the gas mileage good if at all possible but it seems anything that ads power hurts gas mileage.
>
>

If you put in bigger injectors before the supercharging, you are going to
run richer -- for a short while.
Most ECUs use a slow average of the exhaust oxygen sensor to tweak the maps..
It will keep shortening the injector pulses until it gets back to the
correct air-fuel ratio. It is possible that if you double the flow rate
of the injectors, your ECU might not be able to shorten the pulses enough
and you would waste fuel.

On 2/26/14, 16:35, wrote:
> I have a 1990 mustang gt that is bone stock. Someday I would like to fabricate a turbo for it. (I like fabricating).
>
> Anyway, I know adding a turbo necessitates increased fuel and a "computer tune". I cant afford to do everything at once.

Which got me thinking: why the **** do you want to mess with something
that you'd likely to get worse by your tinkering. The fuel system would
be the last on my car**** list due to the potentially costly
consequences. And since you have make it clear the money are an obstacle
I just have to remind you of the possible unsuccessful and costly
outcome that pedro 1492 have explained in another reply.

In fact I would not even **** with the needle sizes in a carburetor.
Get an ECU into the picture and it's just becomes "forgetaboutid".

You do know that carburetor (and injectors by extension)
in french means "don't mess with me", right?

> and making close to 200 hp. They can make the throttle control excellent
> at low loads by only turning on the smaller injectors, and as the load

Remember Yamaha GTS1000A low speed surging? Chuckle.
That ****ing thing was undrivable at the parking lot speeds
cause yamaha had probably saved on that one needle.
Ironically the bike was(would've been) very comfy around town despite
the prodigious heft (if it was not for the sad fact
that the fuel injection was horribly ****ed up).

I'm sure they had it all fixed by FJR but, sadly,
that font suspension layout that was not appreciated in the 90s
was gone by than :-[[[[[

The reason I'm posting to this thread again is this:
if yamaha ****ed this up on a 1000+ units a year volume bike
what is the likelihood that a guy in a garage would do
the job right?

Think twice before *******azing the fuel system on that gt.

Thinking of just 6psi
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 7:35:07 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> I have a 1990 mustang gt that is bone stock. Someday I would like to fabricate a turbo for it. (I like fabricating).
>
>
>
> Anyway, I know adding a turbo necessitates increased fuel and a "computer tune". I cant afford to do everything at once. Which got me thinking.
>
>
>
> I have stock injectors. I think they are 19 lbs or something like that. If I were to put 42 lb injectors or whatever on it, with a stock motor, would it use more fuel?
>
>
>
> I guess what I am confused about, is whether fuel useage is determined by the size of the injector or strictly the computer? (i.e. if you have a bigger injector, but the fuel demand is stock, does the computer only allow the amount of fuel that is needed to be delivered?
>
>
>
> I would really like for this thing to have a little more power, but to be honest, I like the 21 mpg I am getting when I drive to work which is about 20 miles one way. I would like to keep the gas mileage good if at all possible but it seems anything that ads power hurts gas mileage.
>
>
>
> Anyway I appreciate the education!

On 3/10/2014 6:23 AM, I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the
rear, please wrote:
>
> Remember Yamaha GTS1000A low speed surging? Chuckle.
> That ****ing thing was undrivable at the parking lot speeds
> cause yamaha had probably saved on that one needle.
> Ironically the bike was(would've been) very comfy around town despite
> the prodigious heft (if it was not for the sad fact
> that the fuel injection was horribly ****ed up).

That is called "character", and is a desirable characteristic to some.
Get rid of the quirks on a motorcycle and it is slammed for being bland.

--
T0m $herm@n

On 3/10/2014 6:16 AM, I hate front wheel drive, send most torque to the
rear, please wrote:
> On 2/26/14, 16:35, wrote:
>> I have a 1990 mustang gt that is bone stock. Someday I would like to
>> fabricate a turbo for it. (I like fabricating).
>>
>> Anyway, I know adding a turbo necessitates increased fuel and a
>> "computer tune". I cant afford to do everything at once.
>
> Which got me thinking: why the **** do you want to mess with something
> that you'd likely to get worse by your tinkering. The fuel system would
> be the last on my car**** list due to the potentially costly
> consequences. And since you have make it clear the money are an obstacle
> I just have to remind you of the possible unsuccessful and costly
> outcome that pedro 1492 have explained in another reply.
>
> In fact I would not even **** with the needle sizes in a carburetor.
> Get an ECU into the picture and it's just becomes "forgetaboutid".
>
> You do know that carburetor (and injectors by extension)
> in french means "don't mess with me", right?
>
Note that most professional racing series are moving towards "control"
ECUs to reduce costs - but then a shade tree mechanic knows more than a
MotoGP privateer team, eh?

--
T0m $herm@n