LEARNED ALOT BEN. ALWAYS DO!!!! AND I DON'T BELEIVE YOU WILL HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER, KEEPING YOUR CHANNEL GOING HMHMHMHMHMHM!! GTO MAN SO.ILL. 😊 AND HEY: THANKYOU FOR SHARING BEN.
Garden hosing the lawn in a very windy day alters the spray trajectory. Very clear explanation. Keep it up Kuya Ben. Whe I pee in the car window it does not always shoot straigh ha ha
Back when Smokey Yunick was running a turbo chevy v8 at Indy, he got frustrated with injection and elected to run a couple of Holleys with pretty good results.
Is that why the NASCAR engines have the injectors so far back up the port on the intake manifocompliance? Listened to one fellow say that is optimal in a racing application, but not for something that has to idle and pass emissions complience?
Pulling back the injectors upstream takes advantage of the Joule-thompson Effect of intake column charge cooling! That is one advantage of carbs over FI and moving it way up acts like the effects of venturi dispensing the fuel in fine mists and further mixing it as well or giving it a better chance of making them homogeneous to further the flame effectiveness inside the chambers.
Again excellent info, Ben! From your videos of the injector fuel spray during a cam IVO event, this looks like a FI SOIT (start of injection timing) fuel delivery setup that is being demonstrated (fuel injectors are timed to start fuel spray as the cam IVO event is occurring thus the fuel is trying to homogenize into air mass stream while the airmass is moving--not stationary). Now if the FI setup is a EOIT (end of injection timing) system in which the injector fuel spray is timed to end just before the cam IVO event starts (thus all the delivered fuel spray is deposited against the back of the closed hot intake valve(s) to promote full fuel homogenization into the IM runner airmass before the airmass is subjected to velocity from an opening intake valve), would this action help to minimize the issues shown here from running a FI SOIT fuel delivery setup? The reason why I ask this is due to my '09 Ford Mustang GT w\ 4.6L V8's SO ECU uses a FI EOIT delivery system in which the injector fuel spray is timed to end just before the cam IVO event occurs, not a FI SOIT fuel delivery system............. Again, I appreciate all that you do for us gearheads!
For racing indeed the DFI is superior because in traditional PFI the fuel stream, displaces the air a net reduction in ingested air column to the chambers! It may not seem like it but fuel mixed with the incoming fuel before the intake valve cools the mixture but is a net reduction in total airflow and dynamic compression until DI adds to these. Obtw, major issues on carbon on the intake on street engines! Good question Dale.
@@benalamedaracing2765 Ah Ok, I get it..........the fuel spray will indeed take up some cyl space if added to the IM runner airmass prior entry into the CC as well........fuel has mass too. Oh well, at least I'll have clean intake valves w\ my PFI!
I don’t like much the gasoline direct injection as well but it will work amazingly well if the fuel is already evaporated before the injection event . There are few generations of LPG injection systems : 4th generation , port inject already evaporated, gaseous propane-butane ( PB) , 5th generation, port inject liquid PB, and 6th generation, direct inject liquid PB.IMO 7th generation will direct inject gaseous PB or CNG ( natural gas ( NG) CH4) . It’s interesting how the gaseous state of the injected fuel impact the speed of burning . Air/ PB mixture burn slower than air/ gasoline mixture ( this is even more slow process for air/NG mixtures ) , so on the slow to middle range RPM such a mixtures require more ( than on gasoline)ignition advance angles but then on higher RPM , since mixing gas with other gas is much easier and faster and since the evaporation is already done outside of the cylinder the burning process ends faster and the engine requires less advance angles than on gasoline . Homogeneity of air/fuel mixture when mixing fuel with air in gaseous state is way better and the quality of combustion is better and the pollutions are lower. The only problem is that the evaporated ( outside of the cylinder) fuel do not provide any cooling of the combustion chamber but this could be resolved by water injection .
I'm suddenly curious what the air density is like flowing around the valve. If at high lift the intake air has so much inertia that it's actually all flowing around the long side with the fuel then its just a matter of getting air up above the fuel injection column to keep it from smacking the long side. I've seen flow models of 4V engines where the in cylinder tumble actually results in air flowing backwards through the valve on the short side getting carried across the back of the valve and being split to each side of the valve by the intake charge. At any rate, I don't think it's anything that can't be fixed by velocity stacks with showerhead injectors!
One obstacle I see with carbs and shower head injection is that there is so much surface area on the way to the cylinder. Fuel sticks to the walls on the way down, the closer the injection point to the cylinder, the less chance for wetting the intake port
Point understood and there is only so much height we can achieve in the port angles coming in and there will always be a short side! I have seen at one of the Advance Engineering Conferences I attended wherein the flow of the cylinder heads actually tumbled opposite of what the majority of 4v's does. In this instance it travelled downward from the shortside and upwards to the exhaust a complete reversal! Normally the flame propagation goes from center towards the exhaust valve and these tried to go to the intake valves because of its tumble effect. In short, it was trying to extinguished the flame front more than normal and was very good at emissions but horrible for power for what it is capable of producing!
@@rickrack78, there will always be wetting of the port walls specially @ high engine speeds and the intake valve suddenly shuts and residual fuel is still dripping from the injectors. DI was supposed to have fix these but somehow it ended up worse for street driven vehicles from performance engines to grocery getters. I will do that video soon as well showing what has happened and it is not very good...
Another eye opener Mr. Ben. So, the carburetor combination would be more even because, the fuel delivery is happening further away from the cyl. head? Thank You
Perhaps it will be better distributed compared to FI because it is injecting close to the flange and immediately gets pulled by the column charge going at high speeds! Carb venturis can perhaps make this a little better besides the cooling benefits of the Joule-Thomson effects on the mixture.
Ok what if we can progressively move the fuel spray path towards the shorter side of the port as the valve lifts? -either by pulling air towards the shorter side: taking inspiration from your w port, what if we implement a moving vortex generator that goes in and out of the port, driven by the valve train? -or by changing the injector angle: just keep moving the injector with the valve train.
We cannot pull the air to moving where we want it and that is not even possible. With the velocity it will travel in a straighter path and there are limits that we can do to alter its course! Moving the injector father up will really help but the weight of the fuel molecules will not want to turn @ speed and these is where air fuel separation starts...
@18:16 Looking forward to hearing about what is the right solution to the piston melting problem. Tighter sqiush clearence? Wider? Somander Singh grooves?
Tight squish sometimes backfires for many high compression competition engines so we got to be careful and open it up a bit. Depends a lot on rod stretch closing too much isolating the areas even more so! The grooves are good as long as you keep it @ about .040-048 the widest opening. It is very sensitive specially if you kept it tight perhaps a squish of .-039 and it does not function correctly.
Doesn't apply as much to a street strip engine that has to operate from 800-6500 rpm. Nascar cup engines don't even clean out and start to run right until 3500-4500 rpm, then you add the restrictor plates and it is an apples to oranges comparison. Unless you have a late model cup engine in your car.
Most modern cylinder heads have a heart shaped chamber with a ridge/vane running near the spark plug location (on the intake valve side of the plug). Is this to induce as much swirl and mixing as possible?
How about adding some dimples to the long side of the port to help atomize fuel? What are your thoughts on chamber softening for boosted engines? Seems to be a popular mod to combat detonation.
Chamber softening is good if applied correctly and how much of that chamber is concave to the point you might have turned it into an open chamber in your pursuit of said modifications. Dimples only work on certain applications but when port speed is involve then all bets are off it will be bypassed easily by the fuel and air. The problem really is the uneven weight of air vs. fuel and both will "travel differently" when subjected to the same conditions.
I have some questions. What happens to flow when the fuel speed isn't the same as air speed? Is their a sweet spot as far as rpm where possibly the air and fuel mix at a preferred speed? And I would assume that would be a runner to runner situation. Also fuel mass ( alcohol vs gasoline) vs air vs speed? Does alcohol evaporate and or disperse differently than gasoline?
When fuel speed is not the same as air speed within a port you have what is commonly called air/fuel separation! Alcohol based engines will definitely run a richer mix or stoichiometric ratio, therefore port wetting and/or fuel distribution and keeping it suspended with the airstream will take some good design applications!
Scott, well excuse me! I and others do not have production crews or professional videographers and directors. Most of us are one man operation like myself and what is most important is the content of my presentation, not the fancy video stuff with graphics and drawings. I started from nothing and not even computer proficient and thank you, after all you are the "first out of 70+K" to criticize my video not for its message but for some unimportant issue not related to technical subjects. Obtw, if this answer does not satisfy your qualms send me some $$$ and perhaps I can afford production crew! Out of 70+K ="1" criticism. LOL
what if your intake port was smaller...... and then "opened up" at the injector hole? . that fuel has to take up some space that would otherwise be used for oxygen (same with a carb.) but with FI.... you have part of the intake runner that is air only . so could you get better air velocity by making the first part smaller??? (everyone says a small port is better for low end torque, due to air velocity) but then open up the port past the injector.... EXACTLY enough to compensate for fuel at WOT . would the air just slow down..... and you end up with the same flow? or, would the "accelerated" air smash into the wider port.... and add some velocity?? . . . part of me says it would be exactly the same.... if not less HP the other half says "no, of course it would make more power"..... due to the air velocity not dropping instantly, and the "injector to valve' runner length being so short
and what about direct injection (which is great for MPG and HP...... till the valve gets covered in carbon............) . with DI.... their is ZERO "fuel displacement" in the entire intake runner its just all air....(well, air + PCV + EGR...if you still have an EGR!! LOL) . so you could either use a smaller, lighter, more compact intake to get the same HP or use the same intake size..... and get more HP
Conventionally it is better to have a big intake port and slight tapering while it gets close to the valve because it accelerates and rams the air or air fuel mix to the valve and seats. Doing the inverse will create fuel drop off because the air will lose momentum and separation will more likely occur! The same will happen when the injector is located above the intake valve in the port throat and having low airspeed here will create a slow responding engine.
Thats why F1 in NA era used 150 bars of fuel pressure to atomize good and get it in time in the cylinder at 18.000 rpm. To state a former F1 engineer : the step from 5 bars to 150 bars was gave the same power gain as from carbs to injection at 5 bars. Ok F1 na is diffetent then v8 with carbs. I know. Also : for a f1 at 18.000 rpm the carb delivers too late the fuel. Valves are closed ..then droplets hit the valve.... thats what another engineer told me.... So injection can be made better than carb...but tajes loads of effort !!!!
Point taken and the big drawback for DI is its great ability to wash out the oil film from the cylinder walls specially those that spray sideways instead of vertical! I will point these things out coming soon! Not at all a problem for racing engines that get torn down after a race where a street car has to live for many years and many without any kind of decent maintenance.
@@benalamedaracing2765 This was in the era of port injection in NA F1. For direct injection the dyno of , e.g. , Toyota in Cologne was equipped with 1000 bar injection pumps. That pressure ( 1000 bars /16.000 psi ) was estimated to spread fuel quick and evenly enough at 16.000 rpm in a NA F1 combustion chamber. But as F1 went from NA to turbo charged that set up wasnt used for NA F1 engine. For the port injected F1 NA engine , tests were done with increased injection pressure. But there was only a usable gain when increased from 150 bars to 350 bars. But the FIA limited pressure on 150 bars for port injected engines as 350 bar would result in a fuel pump equalling the prize of a F1 engine and that would limit smaller F1 teams.
Great video, it's so good to see someone on UA-cam who actually knows what they are talking about!
Thanks Daniel!
Another great lesson from my buddy Ben Alameda. Thank you sir for guiding us. I look forward to every class
Matt, take care buddy and everything will work out great for our project!
@@benalamedaracing2765 yes sir, BlackTop BrawleR will be a lethal machine.
Thank you Mr Alameda ....Best Engine Tech videos on You Tube !!!
Thanks Bob! I sometimes struggle if I go radical in the info or keep it simple street stuff with a little tech piled in. What do you think?
@@benalamedaracing2765 You are doing great . Don't change a thing !!!
Great information .How things work in real time.
Thank you Ben.
Another very informative video. Thanks Ben.
LEARNED ALOT BEN. ALWAYS DO!!!! AND I DON'T BELEIVE YOU WILL HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER, KEEPING YOUR CHANNEL GOING HMHMHMHMHMHM!! GTO MAN SO.ILL. 😊 AND HEY: THANKYOU FOR SHARING BEN.
Garden hosing the lawn in a very windy day alters the spray trajectory. Very clear explanation. Keep it up Kuya Ben. Whe I pee in the car window it does not always shoot straigh ha ha
That is the funniest comment so far on my channel! lol
Salamat and keep in touch and thanks for your support.
Back when Smokey Yunick was running a turbo chevy v8 at Indy, he got frustrated with injection and elected to run a couple of Holleys with pretty good results.
Yes sir and at that time the computer controls wasn't as advance as they do now. Still a good racing carburetor can still hold its own for sure!
Excellent insight
Ben is the MAN!
Thank you sir!
Love your videos
Is that why the NASCAR engines have the injectors so far back up the port on the intake manifocompliance? Listened to one fellow say that is optimal in a racing application, but not for something that has to idle and pass emissions complience?
Pulling back the injectors upstream takes advantage of the Joule-thompson Effect of intake column charge cooling! That is one advantage of carbs over FI and moving it way up acts like the effects of venturi dispensing the fuel in fine mists and further mixing it as well or giving it a better chance of making them homogeneous to further the flame effectiveness inside the chambers.
Again excellent info, Ben! From your videos of the injector fuel spray during a cam IVO event, this looks like a FI SOIT (start of injection timing) fuel delivery setup that is being demonstrated (fuel injectors are timed to start fuel spray as the cam IVO event is occurring thus the fuel is trying to homogenize into air mass stream while the airmass is moving--not stationary). Now if the FI setup is a EOIT (end of injection timing) system in which the injector fuel spray is timed to end just before the cam IVO event starts (thus all the delivered fuel spray is deposited against the back of the closed hot intake valve(s) to promote full fuel homogenization into the IM runner airmass before the airmass is subjected to velocity from an opening intake valve), would this action help to minimize the issues shown here from running a FI SOIT fuel delivery setup? The reason why I ask this is due to my '09 Ford Mustang GT w\ 4.6L V8's SO ECU uses a FI EOIT delivery system in which the injector fuel spray is timed to end just before the cam IVO event occurs, not a FI SOIT fuel delivery system............. Again, I appreciate all that you do for us gearheads!
For racing indeed the DFI is superior because in traditional PFI the fuel stream, displaces the air a net reduction in ingested air column to the chambers!
It may not seem like it but fuel mixed with the incoming fuel before the intake valve cools the mixture but is a net reduction in total airflow and dynamic compression until DI adds to these.
Obtw, major issues on carbon on the intake on street engines!
Good question Dale.
@@benalamedaracing2765 Ah Ok, I get it..........the fuel spray will indeed take up some cyl space if added to the IM runner airmass prior entry into the CC as well........fuel has mass too. Oh well, at least I'll have clean intake valves w\ my PFI!
Carburetors and spark plug indexing 🏁
thank you Ben!
How is the beast coming along?
Thanks Ben.
You're welcome!
I don’t like much the gasoline direct injection as well but it will work amazingly well if the fuel is already evaporated before the injection event . There are few generations of LPG injection systems : 4th generation , port inject already evaporated, gaseous propane-butane ( PB) , 5th generation, port inject liquid PB, and 6th generation, direct inject liquid PB.IMO 7th generation will direct inject gaseous PB or CNG ( natural gas ( NG) CH4) . It’s interesting how the gaseous state of the injected fuel impact the speed of burning . Air/ PB mixture burn slower than air/ gasoline mixture ( this is even more slow process for air/NG mixtures ) , so on the slow to middle range RPM such a mixtures require more ( than on gasoline)ignition advance angles but then on higher RPM , since mixing gas with other gas is much easier and faster and since the evaporation is already done outside of the cylinder the burning process ends faster and the engine requires less advance angles than on gasoline . Homogeneity of air/fuel mixture when mixing fuel with air in gaseous state is way better and the quality of combustion is better and the pollutions are lower.
The only problem is that the evaporated ( outside of the cylinder) fuel do not provide any cooling of the combustion chamber but this could be resolved by water injection .
Point well taken and of course the oil life is much better because the engine burns cleaner by far. Thanks for the info.
I'm suddenly curious what the air density is like flowing around the valve. If at high lift the intake air has so much inertia that it's actually all flowing around the long side with the fuel then its just a matter of getting air up above the fuel injection column to keep it from smacking the long side.
I've seen flow models of 4V engines where the in cylinder tumble actually results in air flowing backwards through the valve on the short side getting carried across the back of the valve and being split to each side of the valve by the intake charge.
At any rate, I don't think it's anything that can't be fixed by velocity stacks with showerhead injectors!
One obstacle I see with carbs and shower head injection is that there is so much surface area on the way to the cylinder. Fuel sticks to the walls on the way down, the closer the injection point to the cylinder, the less chance for wetting the intake port
Point understood and there is only so much height we can achieve in the port angles coming in and there will always be a short side! I have seen at one of the Advance Engineering Conferences I attended wherein the flow of the cylinder heads actually tumbled opposite of what the majority of 4v's does. In this instance it travelled downward from the shortside and upwards to the exhaust a complete reversal! Normally the flame propagation goes from center towards the exhaust valve and these tried to go to the intake valves because of its tumble effect. In short, it was trying to extinguished the flame front more than normal and was very good at emissions but horrible for power for what it is capable of producing!
@@rickrack78, there will always be wetting of the port walls specially @ high engine speeds and the intake valve suddenly shuts and residual fuel is still dripping from the injectors. DI was supposed to have fix these but somehow it ended up worse for street driven vehicles from performance engines to grocery getters. I will do that video soon as well showing what has happened and it is not very good...
@@benalamedaracing2765, I worked with Propane gas and also liquid injection too!
@@rickrack78, a friend of mine from years ago ran a propane powered F-150 and it ran very good and the oil seem to last forever!
Another eye opener Mr. Ben. So, the carburetor combination would be more even because, the fuel delivery is happening further away from the cyl. head? Thank You
Perhaps it will be better distributed compared to FI because it is injecting close to the flange and immediately gets pulled by the column charge going at high speeds! Carb venturis can perhaps make this a little better besides the cooling benefits of the Joule-Thomson effects on the mixture.
@@benalamedaracing2765 Thank You
Ok what if we can progressively move the fuel spray path towards the shorter side of the port as the valve lifts?
-either by pulling air towards the shorter side: taking inspiration from your w port, what if we implement a moving vortex generator that goes in and out of the port, driven by the valve train?
-or by changing the injector angle: just keep moving the injector with the valve train.
We cannot pull the air to moving where we want it and that is not even possible. With the velocity it will travel in a straighter path and there are limits that we can do to alter its course! Moving the injector father up will really help but the weight of the fuel molecules will not want to turn @ speed and these is where air fuel separation starts...
@18:16 Looking forward to hearing about what is the right solution to the piston melting problem. Tighter sqiush clearence? Wider? Somander Singh grooves?
Tight squish sometimes backfires for many high compression competition engines so we got to be careful and open it up a bit. Depends a lot on rod stretch closing too much isolating the areas even more so! The grooves are good as long as you keep it @ about .040-048 the widest opening. It is very sensitive specially if you kept it tight perhaps a squish of .-039 and it does not function correctly.
@@benalamedaracing2765 Thank you. :)
Take a look at the injection on NASCAR engines. The injectors are located just below the throttle air valve (high up in the intake port).
You are right on point and it gives it a good chance of further mixing instead of too close to the valve @ the cylinder head flange.
Doesn't apply as much to a street strip engine that has to operate from 800-6500 rpm. Nascar cup engines don't even clean out and start to run right until 3500-4500 rpm, then you add the restrictor plates and it is an apples to oranges comparison. Unless you have a late model cup engine in your car.
Most modern cylinder heads have a heart shaped chamber with a ridge/vane running near the spark plug location (on the intake valve side of the plug).
Is this to induce as much swirl and mixing as possible?
Yes it does and the spark plug is away from extremely rich (fuel) areas which kills the initial spark kernel from spreading effectively.
How about adding some dimples to the long side of the port to help atomize fuel? What are your thoughts on chamber softening for boosted engines? Seems to be a popular mod to combat detonation.
Chamber softening is good if applied correctly and how much of that chamber is concave to the point you might have turned it into an open chamber in your pursuit of said modifications. Dimples only work on certain applications but when port speed is involve then all bets are off it will be bypassed easily by the fuel and air. The problem really is the uneven weight of air vs. fuel and both will "travel differently" when subjected to the same conditions.
I have some questions. What happens to flow when the fuel speed isn't the same as air speed? Is their a sweet spot as far as rpm where possibly the air and fuel mix at a preferred speed? And I would assume that would be a runner to runner situation. Also fuel mass ( alcohol vs gasoline) vs air vs speed?
Does alcohol evaporate and or disperse differently than gasoline?
When fuel speed is not the same as air speed within a port you have what is commonly called air/fuel separation! Alcohol based engines will definitely run a richer mix or stoichiometric ratio, therefore port wetting and/or fuel distribution and keeping it suspended with the airstream will take some good design applications!
What does the video title even
Did you point your video camera at a TV to do the opening titles?
Scott, well excuse me! I and others do not have production crews or professional videographers and directors. Most of us are one man operation like myself and what is most important is the content of my presentation, not the fancy video stuff with graphics and drawings. I started from nothing and not even computer proficient and thank you, after all you are the "first out of 70+K" to criticize my video not for its message but for some unimportant issue not related to technical subjects.
Obtw, if this answer does not satisfy your qualms send me some $$$ and perhaps I can afford production crew!
Out of 70+K ="1" criticism.
LOL
what if your intake port was smaller...... and then "opened up" at the injector hole?
.
that fuel has to take up some space that would otherwise be used for oxygen (same with a carb.)
but with FI.... you have part of the intake runner that is air only
.
so could you get better air velocity by making the first part smaller??? (everyone says a small port is better for low end torque, due to air velocity)
but then open up the port past the injector.... EXACTLY enough to compensate for fuel at WOT
.
would the air just slow down..... and you end up with the same flow?
or, would the "accelerated" air smash into the wider port.... and add some velocity??
.
.
.
part of me says it would be exactly the same.... if not less HP
the other half says "no, of course it would make more power"..... due to the air velocity not dropping instantly, and the "injector to valve' runner length being so short
and what about direct injection (which is great for MPG and HP...... till the valve gets covered in carbon............)
.
with DI.... their is ZERO "fuel displacement" in the entire intake runner
its just all air....(well, air + PCV + EGR...if you still have an EGR!! LOL)
.
so you could either use a smaller, lighter, more compact intake to get the same HP
or use the same intake size..... and get more HP
Conventionally it is better to have a big intake port and slight tapering while it gets close to the valve because it accelerates and rams the air or air fuel mix to the valve and seats. Doing the inverse will create fuel drop off because the air will lose momentum and separation will more likely occur! The same will happen when the injector is located above the intake valve in the port throat and having low airspeed here will create a slow responding engine.
Thats why F1 in NA era used 150 bars of fuel pressure to atomize good and get it in time in the cylinder at 18.000 rpm.
To state a former F1 engineer : the step from 5 bars to 150 bars was gave the same power gain as from carbs to injection at 5 bars.
Ok F1 na is diffetent then v8 with carbs. I know.
Also : for a f1 at 18.000 rpm the carb delivers too late the fuel. Valves are closed ..then droplets hit the valve.... thats what another engineer told me....
So injection can be made better than carb...but tajes loads of effort !!!!
The solution for the late of a carb at high rpm, Big plenums !!!!
Point taken and the big drawback for DI is its great ability to wash out the oil film from the cylinder walls specially those that spray sideways instead of vertical! I will point these things out coming soon! Not at all a problem for racing engines that get torn down after a race where a street car has to live for many years and many without any kind of decent maintenance.
@@GUILHERMERSTEFENON, you got that right on point sir!
@@benalamedaracing2765 This was in the era of port injection in NA F1. For direct injection the dyno of , e.g. , Toyota in Cologne was equipped with 1000 bar injection pumps. That pressure ( 1000 bars /16.000 psi ) was estimated to spread fuel quick and evenly enough at 16.000 rpm in a NA F1 combustion chamber. But as F1 went from NA to turbo charged that set up wasnt used for NA F1 engine.
For the port injected F1 NA engine , tests were done with increased injection pressure. But there was only a usable gain when increased from 150 bars to 350 bars. But the FIA limited pressure on 150 bars for port injected engines as 350 bar would result in a fuel pump equalling the prize of a F1 engine and that would limit smaller F1 teams.
@@benalamedaracing2765 maybe therefore F1 went to turbulent jet burn system. To be able to use lean burn and prevent cylinder wall washing.