Help with ID1000's ....

[Bugermass]

I understand what your saying, but I don't think its really that critical at idle lol.. I mean most manifolds don't even flow consistantly at idle so how much difference is a tiny spec of a percentile gonna make? I understand the importance at higer pulse widths, but theres no argument there. And theres really no difference between ID and FIC injectors at those points..

[Tony1]

Kinda hard to say there's no difference when we've already confirmed that the flow bench at FIC has some major consistency issues, no?

[Tony1]

Wow, it just dawned on me what you are all about. Guys like you give the whole community a bad name and hold us all back, which is part of why the injector community is just now catching up with current technology. You have spent 2 pages arguing that we couldn’t possibly provide accurate matching at low pulsewidths. After we clearly showed that it is possible, AND backed it up with industry standard documentation that anyone has easy access to, you changed the argument. What is your real purpose here, to bring the facts to light for the benefit of everyone in the performance community as you claim, or simply to continue to cause trouble which does nothing good for the community? Why is it that we bring new technology to the market which is clearly beneficial (Accurate testing which gives better quality, battery comp values which are REQUIRED for proper operation, free seminars, blah, blah, blah) and you spend an inordinate amount of time on this forum and others trying to tear it down? I believe that you are a fraud because your actions clearly prove that your intentions are not what you say they are. As far as your thoughts that it doesn’t matter because the OEM’s don’t do this, actually they do. Bosch, Denso, etc do this by producing injectors with very good consistency across the pulsewidth range. Denso and Keihin are particularly good at this which is probably why Honda uses them in almost all of their motors. The problem is that once you modify the injector the excellent consistency across the pulsewidth range is ruined. Which is exactly why we do what we do. And to top it all off, the larger the injector is, the more important proper matching becomes. You’ve completely changed your story from it’s not possible to it doesn’t matter. What’s next?

[sewell94]

Long posted deleted

[xenocron]

what was I supposed to get out of it?? You didn't post anything about any solutions to the problems that you pointed out.. So to me it just seems that you've found all these things that cause erratta in testing and thats it.. So what are you doing differently than anyone else that makes your setup more acurate? I'm not trying to bash or anything I'm just trying to get the hard facts and details about why yours are so much better.. I understand about the battery comp tables, but your claiming that your ability to match them is much more acurate, but then you say that theres all these inherant problems with matching injectors, sooo oo wheres the solution? Where do you say what you have done about these problems that makes your way of doing it better.

We are trying to educate Consumers (customers, racers, end users), we are not trying to educate the competition. Even after reading Paul’s explanation you still have this “distrust� for Paul’s/Injector Dynamic's claims of a superior injector versus the competition (FIC) because no one else can verify or disprove Paul’s data. Problem is, with something like this…either the competition has to step up and invest in better equipment (or design their own) and my guess is those people who might be capable of doing so have no reason to because it will cost too much money and time to do that, and when they do…they will find that Paul has been telling the truth all along. So why would they want to do that unless they are TRULY interested in advancing technology? The posers won't, they will just keep claiming "hype" because that is the easy way out (or telling customers, "yes these are the same thing Tony sells") I know you aren't a poser Chris, if the FIC injectors work good enough for you, that's great. I think you should just reconsider your position on the ID injectors.

[Bugermass]

I never said that the ID injectors were bad.. i've even suggested to a few people that they buy them before I new about FIC.. But after using the FIC injectors I didn't really see any difference that would justifiy me paying more money for the ID ones.. So I started asking questions. VALID, PURPOSEFULL questions. Throughout this I've learned quite a bit more about injectors and what not.. Of course I have distrust, you have to realise what market we're in.. Tony could go on honda-tech today and say hey everyone, look, ebays got these great new turbos that make 800HP for $250, and like 85% of the people on there will say hell yeah I'm gettin one.. Not trying to take anything away from tony, cause I do respect him a great deal, but I also am not just gonna jump cause someone else says product A is the best. So I started looking around and asking questions, and finding out things, and asking more questions..

After we clearly showed that it is possible, AND backed it up with industry standard documentation that anyone has easy access to, you changed the argument.

Yes you had some nice pretty graphs and what not of \"matched\" injectors, thats great. But did I not have valid questions about the repeatability of test?? So then I read pauls articles on his findings, ok so, hes got a custom bench that can test better than anyone elses. Great.. So then I ask how much difference does it REALLY make having that small percentile difference at idle. And you call me a poser.. What kinda crap is that? lol.... I'm asking you and paul VALID questions and you attack me back with your a poser, and this is why technology blablabla.. Ok so what your saying is I shouldn't ask questions and I should just say yes, tony said its true so it must be.. Dude, your \"honda god\".. You didn't get that way by just accepting what everyone told you was right, so why would you expect any other respectable tuner to do so.. So back to my question.. Is there really any noticable difference at idle/low pulsewidths? And does it really matter in real world situations. If it does and you can proove it thats great. If not then theres not much reason to spend more money for basically the same thing..

[xenocron]

So back to my question.. Is there really any noticable difference at idle/low pulsewidths? And does it really matter in real world situations. If it does and you can proove it thats great. If not then theres not much reason to spend more money for basically the same thing..

In my understanding, depends on the application. For instance, take an E85 car, that's on the street wants good driveability, excellent fuel mileage, and 450 HP on pump gas. These 1000cc are the ideal injectors to use. If there is a variance at idle of +/- 5% (from cylinder to cylinder) using a fuel that takes about 20-30% more fuel (than typical pump gasoline) that swing is amplified and it would CERTAINLY be noticeable if the set wasn't matched. Does idle, driveability and part throttle matter on a race car, probably not so much from a safety stand point. On the opposite end of the spectrum (higher duty cycles), if you took injectors 3526, 3496, 3446, and 3486 from the graph below...and ran these injectors at a HIGH Duty cycle (as customers are prone to do these days), you will have a 5% difference in fueling from the cylinder that is receiving the most fuel, and the cylinder that is receiving the least fuel. I dont know about you...but I dont want a 5% difference from one cylinder to another and not know it (because you will NEVER know unless you have a wideband on each runner). Not doing the testing that Paul is means you MIGHT get that combo of injectors that have a 5% (or more) difference in fuel at these higher duty cycles as well.

[2a_ron]

So back to my question.. Is there really any noticable difference at idle/low pulsewidths? And does it really matter in real world situations. If it does and you can proove it thats great. If not then theres not much reason to spend more money for basically the same thing..

Take this for example, think about two injectors that flow 10cc different, ignoring dead times. That seems like nothing at static, only 1% at 1000cc and 1010cc. But you don't know what they flow at low pulsewidths.. What if they still flow 10cc apart? that becomes a greater percent error, 10% error at 100 and 110cc at 10% duty cycle.. The actual difference may be quite a bit less than that, but from the sounds of it, most flow benches can't even tell you accurately. I think that would definitely have a real world impact on idle quality and cruising, don't you? Once dead times are included, that percent error can become even greater, so what you don't know CAN hurt you... Some people may not think that the increased price tag is worth it, but that does not mean there is no difference between FIC and ID injectors.

[Bugermass]

I see what your saying.. That was alot easier than calling me a \"fraud\".. I can see the benifit.. While its not likely a saftey issue, It could make a difference at idle and part throttle. My question is lets say you were to get a set of FIC injectors, on avg how far off do you think they would be compared to yours, and compared to a set of like standard Precision or RCs (<< yuck).. Could you run the same tests on these injectors that you would run on yours and show us comparisions with a matched set that those companies would normally provide to the public??

[sewell94]

On the opposite end of the spectrum (higher duty cycles), if you took injectors 3526, 3496, 3446, and 3486 from the graph below...and ran these injectors at a HIGH Duty cycle (as customers are prone to do these days), you will have a 5% difference in fueling from the cylinder that is receiving the most fuel, and the cylinder that is receiving the least fuel. I dont know about you...but I dont want a 5% difference from one cylinder to another and not know it (because you will NEVER know unless you have a wideband on each runner). Not doing the testing that Paul is means you MIGHT get that combo of injectors that have a 5% (or more) difference in fuel at these higher duty cycles as well.

If your just saying this as a matter of fact, of course i agree, that could be a very bad thing. At that point the tuner should be reading the plugs, which would show that On that note, the injectors are being matched at static, so i'm not worried about that(and i read my plugs haha ).

[sewell94]

Take this for example, think about two injectors that flow 10cc different, ignoring dead times. That seems like nothing at static, only 1% at 1000cc and 1010cc. But you don't know what they flow at low pulsewidths.. What if they still flow 10cc apart? that becomes a greater percent error, 10% error at 100 and 110cc at 10% duty cycle.. The actual difference may be quite a bit less than that, but from the sounds of it, most flow benches can't even tell you accurately. I think that would definitely have a real world impact on idle quality and cruising, don't you? Once dead times are included, that percent error can become even greater, so what you don't know CAN hurt you... Some people may not think that the increased price tag is worth it, but that does not mean there is no difference between FIC and ID injectors.

Since we're having an actual discussion about this, some points i curious to what everyone else thinks about this, its stuff i've pondered from testing i've done(i'm not talking about the exceptions to the rule, i'm talking most of the time) (thinking of low pulsewidth stuff here) all of this testing is derivied data (multiple events being gouped together and being compared as a whole) We cannot know if the error in the individual quantities are going to cancel each other or compound each other. The engine doesn't see the fuel like a test bench, each injector pulse is getting ignited individually. So realistically we wouldn't see a wide swing in afr, well that and the data is going to get dampened by the software by time we see it from the wideband(well that and like mentioned earlier the other cylinders being combined into one data point if your using a single wb) The dead times make a difference, we all agree on that, but the flow bench doesn't compensate for it. Lets assume the injectors are getting identical signals, So if you had 2 of the "same" injectors being tested at high pulsewidths, If they had a significant difference in the dead times(lets say the bench is being run at 12v and 80psi, one injector has a dead time of 210 usec and the other 1570 usec) wouldn't the flow would be "off" by alot?

[2a_ron]

In response to bugermass, I did not literally mean a safety issue, but ya know like the saying \"what you don't know can't hurt you\", lol. We are not out to beat up on other injector suppliers, just trying to help people understand more about injectors and that this data and matching really is beneficial for our cars. Paul wrote this to answer the other questions you guys brought up: Quote - \"Could you run the same tests on these injectors that you would run on yours and show us comparisons with a matched set that those companies would normally provide to the public??\" Do you mean matched based on static flow? I suppose we could, but my approach has been to describe the quality matching that we do here based on its own merits, not compared to everyone else's stuff. Besides, as you guys have already hinted, I could just make it all up right? Prior to Tony bringing these to market, we did business in a small specialized market, dealing almost exclusively with Motec Dealers/Engine Builders. We supply injectors and testing to customers that are winning races and championships in all forms of motor racing. And I don't mean the fastest guy on the forum, I mean World Challenge, Grand Am, ALMS, SCORE, NHRA. The cars you see winning races on TV. We have even done work for emissions labs, and auto manufacturers on specialized race projects. Yes, you read that right. We have even done work for auto manufacturers. So when someone hints at the idea that we can't possible be doing what we're doing I say huh? And then I write nasty rants on the ID website. I should just let 2a_ron deal with this. He's much nicer than I am. Quote - \"(thinking of low pulsewidth stuff here) all of this testing is derived data (multiple events being grouped together and being compared as a whole) We cannot know if the error in the individual quantities are going to cancel each other or compound each other. The engine doesn't see the fuel like a test bench; each injector pulse is getting ignited individually. So realistically we wouldn't see a wide swing in afr, well that and the data is going to get dampened by the software by time we see it from the wideband(well that and like mentioned earlier the other cylinders being combined into one data point if your using a single wb)\" I'm not sure I understand the question but I'll take a stab at it anyway. I assume you are referring to the tests performed that showed a 10% variance over a 30 second test. 30 seconds is about as damped as you can get. If you're thinking more along the lines of flow per pulse, that's another subject. There is a point in the flow curve where the response becomes somewhat erratic and varies from pulse to pulse. This occurs when the pulsewidth is low enough that the valve does not open fully. This is the point we refer to as the minimum repeatable pulsewidth. Above this point, the flow per pulse is very repeatable. Aside from the Lambda sensor having some delay, the wall film on the intake runner performs somewhat of an averaging function, and this is why we can run an injector below the point of minimum repeatable pulsewidth and not have the engine run like total crap. It is problematic on an emissions engine though. At the end of the day, an error is an error, and we should strive to reduce this as much as possible.

[2a_ron]

Continued... (was too long for a single post) \"The dead times make a difference, we all agree on that, but the flow bench doesn't compensate for it. Lets assume the injectors are getting identical signals, So if you had 2 of the \"same\" injectors being tested at high pulsewidths, If they had a significant difference in the dead times(lets say the bench is being run at 12v and 80psi, one injector has a dead time of 210 usec and the other 1570 usec) wouldn't the flow would be \"off\" by alot?\" Absolutely, and that's really the whole point. When you talk about dynamic flow, you can not leave out dead time because it is part of what defines the dynamic flow rate. That's exactly why we match them based on dead time. We don't pick 2 test points, one high, and one low. We gather 450 data points across the flow range; calculate the flow and dead time, and then match based on that. The large deviation at low pulsewidths is the result of dead time variance between injectors. If we match based on dead time we get consistency across the range. So that's it for me. This is about the closest I've gotten to posting on a forum, and I need to get back to work. I have a new CNC machine that needs to be set up, and lots of fixtures that need to be built. Why? Well...the performance industry has been relying on OEM injectors for too long. It's time for something designed specifically for our purpose. Keep an eye out for something new in the future. PY

[Bugermass]

haha, well it took me beating the hell outta the same questions to get the ansers I was looking for.. The whole time I was under the impression that you guys were using the same flow benches as everyone else. So after reading between the lines I see that you guys have your own customised stuff to do the testing with and thats why you can get the results you do.. I was asking about comparing to other matched sets of injectors from other manufaturers, that way we can see how unclosesly matched they may be compared to yours using the same criteria you guy use to test yours.. Make sence? somtimes what I type and what i\"m thinking end up beig to different things lol.. A.D.D.. anyways.. Thanks for all the explinations.

[Tony1]

BTW, possibly worth noting. Kinsler Fuel Injection wanted to test a set of these before offering them to their customers. I sent them a set for testing and this is the result I got back from them. \"Dynamically, we observed all four injectors under 1% spread in total distribution with a 2 ms pulse. Pretty good! Thank you!\" They made their own flow bench as well, and is apparently more accurate than the ASNU and New Age machines as well.