Help with ID1000's ....

sewell94 · Post by **sewell94** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 4:47 pm

So if i type up a nice little reports with some pie chart and graphs that will change the results of the findings and/or if you believe in what i've been saying?? I could make all of the reports, excel charts, and powerpoint presentations i want, it would change nothing. You and I both already know what the hypothesis is. There really isn't a hypothesis, at this point in time its fact. The burden of proving a fact wrong is on the end of the ones who are making the claim. I've been digging into this Alot, for my own personal knowledge, if i'm wrong i'll be more than happy to say to admit i'm wrong. As to me having an adjenda about proving these claims wrong, i don't, i have nothing to gain from this. To be honest i hope i'm wrong, because that would mean thats theres that much better of an injector out there for me to use and tune with. As for me spreading rumors, hype, or claiming the injectors are overpriced, you haven't seen me do that nor will you. The only things i've said have been based on my actual findings, i've either done the tests myself, or been told the results, and then the tests have been repeated with me being there first hand. The last time we did some testing, ALOT of people learned alot, right or wrong i'm always interested in getting more correct info. These injectors claim to flow within something like 2% at low pulsewidths(i remember reading that somewhere, it may be the wrong percentage, but its something real low). Since your in the know with those guy's, why don't you ask them to take a random set of 8 injectors(i'm guessing his bench will test at least that many injectors at one time) run 10 30 second lowpulse(ie idle) tests back to back(it won't take long, maybe 15 minutes to do this), and see if they are all within the claimed % every single time, or a better test would be to run the set, and then see how many tests it takes to be out of the claimed tolerance. It was claimed not to know about them being really the same flow rate as a set of 880's, maybe they just don't know about this.

Humor me and lets just assume that what i'm saying is correct and they don't do as they are advertised at lowpulse widths (i'm guessing it'll be about a 10% swing between all 8 injectors over 10 repeated low pulsewidth tests, now thats just a random guess, i might just get lucky though

), what does that do for all of this info thats given that makes the ID injectors so much better than the FIC ones? Like i said this isn't about one companys product being better, or one person being wrong or right, its about finding the truth. Then the customers will know exactly what to believe. I still want to comeup and visit, do what we've been talking about. This could make a good field trip out of this and both watch the test being done. Loser buys lunch

xenocron · Post by **xenocron** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:53 pm

These are the same charts from Paul that have been out for a while.

This is a random sampling of (10) modified injectors, run at varied pulsewidths, all the way from 2ms to 10ms. Now I believe the test was run once...not multiple times so for the record, I dont KNOW the results would have been identical. What I do know is that every injector has a serial #, and if you ever have an issue with them, you send them in and the new graph will be compared to the old graph. What I do know is that I asked Paul a specific question at one of his seminar's at PRI this last year...I asked if when he has compared an injector (any brand) or a set over time, if these flow deviation \"patterns\" change and his answer was no. Now if there is information, from multiple people that have all independently tested the same injectors (or set) in the same (scientific) manner that shows that there is a variance at low pulsewidths, that information needs to be presented. BUT, there cant be holes in those statements. Sounds like you are taking offense to my post Tom, but you don't need to...I'm not trying to call anyone out or tell you your info is false.

sewell94 · Post by **sewell94** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 9:10 pm

Thats 100% true from what i've seen, those \"patterns\" dont change. But you asked about the pattern, and that basically that the flow rates vary the most at both ends of the flow spectrum. Look at the low pulsewidth part of the chart, say from 2-3ms thats EXACTLY how 1 injector does/can/would/could/ look like if you ran the same test over 10 times. We'll thats the thing, you said hes flowing them at high pulsewidths, then matching those up, and then flows them at low pulsewidths and matches them. He maybe flowing them and matching them at low pulse widths 1 time, but when flowed at low pulsewidths again they will flow different at low pulsewidths. We tested them(the id1000's at low pulsewidth), over and over and over, and over, and the injector that had the lowest amount of deviation was 5% with the highest being 10%, the others were 6% and 8%. We then did a set of jens injectors, and the results were almost identical. That basically says that w/o repeatable low pulsewidths flow, \"how is low pulsewidth matching possible?\" Thats whats supposed to be so much better about the ID injectors is that they're matched better than any other injector out there, low and high pulsewidths. If the low pulsewidth is basically a bunch of BS, how are they better then than any other injectors out there? I understand his battery comp stuff is very good, but theres a bunch of issues with how he groups them into 4 different categories, i know you've looked at all four different group battery charts. Try this, plot all the data on an excel spread sheet and get a 2d graph.

So that that point how are the ID injectors any better than the FIC's?

xenocron · Post by **xenocron** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 8:34 am

sewell94 wrote:So that that point how are the ID injectors any better than the FIC's?

Because Jens isnt doing the same testing that Paul is.

This is a matched set. Jens takes the above 10 injectors, flows them at one duty cycle (80-90%) and matches them based on flow at that one point. Paul takes 10, or 100 or 200...and matches them into sets where the pattern is the most similar over the entire spectrum. This results in a more even distribution of fuel to each cylinder. Because these injectors (from the start) are better than anything else, its not as noticeable when a set isnt matched like Paul does it...the ID injectors just have that extra step built in for flow matching (and matching based on Dead Times).

Post by **Bugermass** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:42 am

woohoo, we just won our 2nd IFO event in a row.. The cars in the N/A class were all running slow, so we actually eased the car out, reved it to about 8K and babyed it down the track and still ran 10.8@ 127 MPH lol... On the FIC 1000CC injectors lol..

sewell94 · Post by **sewell94** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:53 pm

Well thats my whole point, the flow patterns are the same, with the variances being at the ends of the spectrum, matching them at the low end isn't possible because they are inconsistant. So all you can do flow wise is to match them at full flow. Did you graph the 4 different battery comp tables, please do, it won't take you long at long to do it, i know you love doing charts and graphs

Then post them up. Somethings not right about those.

xenocron · Post by **xenocron** » Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:08 pm

Paul has addressed these specific questions on his site as I asked him how I was supposed to answer questions like the ones brought up here. I hope everyone reads, learns and comes up with new questions...I love learning

Bottom #3 http://www.injectordynamics.com/questionsanswered.html

Post by **Bugermass** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:20 am

basically all he said is that his testing is inacurate because of naturally occuring erratta in his test equipment..

2a_ron · Post by **2a_ron** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:37 am

Is that what you got out of it?? Hmm...

Tony1 · Post by **Tony1** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:18 am

Bugermass wrote:basically all he said is that his testing is inacurate because of naturally occuring erratta in his test equipment..

Who is "his"? I'm sure Sewell has read this, no comment?

xenocron · Post by **xenocron** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:27 am

Bugermass wrote:basically all he said is that his testing is inacurate because of naturally occuring erratta in his test equipment..

You're too funny Chris... Don't let your stubbornness get in the way of greatness, that sort of mentality has taken down bigger fish and is the pitfall of most great men/women that do fail.

Post by **Bugermass** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:40 pm

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.

Tony1 · Post by **Tony1** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:46 pm

Maybe you should read it again. There ARE solutions to those problems. You really think Paul is going to share the details on how to fix your machine?

Post by **Bugermass** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:55 pm

Your right, I guess the first time I read it I wasn't paying 100% attention to it.. So basically what hes saying is that hes built a test rig that dampens resonance, he uses some other method for meauring the output besides graduated cylinders, and hes still making more improvements to his testing equipment.. Ok, I see.. Now, let me ask you this.. How much real world difference does it make? I know theres is a big difference between say Precision 1000s and the bosch 1000s. But honesly how much difference does it make having the low pulsewidth matching? I mean, if its that critical would't large manufacturers like Ford and Toyota and Honda already be doing these sorts of things with injectors?? I've never really had problems making a car drive at part throttle with 1000CC injectors.. Now I can see the benifit of running 880CC injectors that can flow upwards of 1600CC stabily, over running a set of 1600s on a daily driver. I agree that in theory they are better.. But in real world, how much difference does it really make. I've got a set of FIC bosch 1000s in our all motor car.. Its a pretty beefy motor and it starts up and idles like a stock engine.. I don't see what I would gain by paying a higher price for the ID injectors.

Tony1 · Post by **Tony1** » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:13 pm

I guess if you can't see the benefit in having more consistent fueling from cylinder to cylinder then there's not much I can say to help.