• Hi Guest! Being a Paying Supporter is NOT a requirement to participate at BCF. However, subscribing will help ensure we can continue to serve the LBC community for years to come. If you enjoy BCF and find our forum a useful resource...Please consider supporting us by **Upgrading**
    (PS: Subscribers don't see this banner)
Tips
Tips

TR6 TR6 Fuel Injection

michalotti_tr

Jedi Knight
Offline
I've corresponded with this guy and although the website doesn't say it, these TBI can be mounted on the TR2 - TR4A as well - pretty sharp setup I think!
 

aeronca65t

Great Pumpkin
Offline
You guys may also wish to look here for a DIY, low-cost fuel injection system (there's also a forum associated with it for tech questions):

https://www.megasquirt.info/
 

vettedog72

Jedi Knight
Offline
Now THAT's WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT1! An inexpensive fuel injection that will hold an optimum fuel to air ratio.

Any body got it?
 

piman

Darth Vader
Offline
Hello all,

as someone who runs an injection Triumph, I think that the above is an interesting exercise but I doubt that it is significantly better than the original carburettor system as it retains the original manifold so has the same restrictions and fuel distribution drawbacks that the original six throttle body injection does not have.
There have been a few people over here who have utilised the Lucas throttle bodies and fitted electronic controlled injection systems.
While the Lucas mechanical system is very basic it does have the facility to be tuned without requiring a computer to so do.

Alec
 

vettedog72

Jedi Knight
Offline
If the system works as describe, it is 35% better in fuel management (avg 20mpg vs 27mpg). The even burn at 14.7 is incredible. All of this with a stock manifold. I don’t know the theory of manifold flow, but common sense would make me think the individual “tube” per cylinder with the same lengths from the atomizers would be superior to the conventional manifold (it would seem that cylinders 2 and 5 would all ways be rich vs. 1,3,4 and 6 with the stock manifold). On the other hand, I wonder how efficiently the stock PI system actually gets the fuel to air ratio over the normal RPM range.

Consequently, I am interested in how well the throttle body would perform vs stock carburetors, as this new FI system appears to cost a little more than the professional refurb of 2 carburetors.

Even more convincing would be before and after dyno test.
 

piman

Darth Vader
Offline
Hello VD,

quoting fuel consumption is not a good indication unless you do a strictly back to back evaluation, ideally as you say on a Dyno. 14.7 to me is an economy value and not a performance one, so that is one factor. I would certainly expect some improvement in control with a sensor feed back system to control fuel but it is, of course, an average reading of all six cylinders. That is why I query the benefit and expense.
The original mechanical P.I. system is not as good as a computer controlled systems in controlling the mixture, I would say but from a performance point of view the six throttle bodies must be better than the 2 x 1 into 3. That is why there has been some discussion as how much better the triple carburettor set up is as the air flow is improved.

Alec
 

vettedog72

Jedi Knight
Offline
Your correct about the ratio, I was thinking ecologically (without cats, EGR’s etc that may reduce the power performance and add maintenance problems). There is no one air/fuel ratio where all emissions are minimized. At an air/fuel ratio of 14.7:1 oxides of nitrogen peak, while hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide (CO) increase substantially as the air/fuel ratio richens.

Bosch states that most spark ignition engines develop their maximum power at air/fuel ratios of 12.5:1 - 14:1, maximum fuel economy at 16.2:1 - 17.6:1, and good load transitions from about 11:1 - 12.5:1. However, in practical applications, engine air/fuel ratios at maximum power are often richer than the quoted 12.5:1, especially in forced induction engines where the excess fuel is used to cool combustion and so prevent detonation. I wish I were at that point of concern.

My interest in the new system is the simplicity (fewer parts vs a complicated system as noted by Webb Sledge), low cost (initial cost and up-keep) and apparent reliability (pump failure on PI’s are pretty common). The technology advances of the new system are, no doubt, a significant improvement over the old PI (feed back for control for one). The ultimate tuning of each system to produce the most power could be a continuing challenge. I am interested in a system that would give maximum power and good behavior when starting cold, stop and go driving as well as spirited driving. For me, there is no doubt that a separate injector for each cylinder would be an improvement, especially if they are monitored and controlled electronically. How does the PI compare to these requirements?
 

piman

Darth Vader
Offline
Hello VD,

there is no comparison between modern electronically controlled injection systems and the old mechanical system.
What I queried initially was that I did not think there would be a significant benefit over the twin carburettor system, in terms of performance, with a much more complicated and expensive set up.
The reason that Triumph went to the injection system was because of the then stringent emmission regulations that America introduced and it was felt that an injection engine would be the way to go. In the event it didn't work as they thought and Triumph found that they could meet the required regulations with the Stromberg carburettors.
The injection engine, however, was a powerful engine which the British market was fortunate to have all because of your emmission regulations :smile:

Alec
 
R

Rabid_Dolphin

Guest
Guest
Offline
I think part of the modern FI allure that entices the carbed crowd comes from the element of computerized control as much as the actual injection. Modern fuel systems incorporate not only fuel curves(and usually indv cylinder injection) that automaticaly adapt to load and ambient environmental variations, but also alter timing to increase power and decrease detonation in all scenarios. heck, I can even program a seperate fuel/timing table that would go into effect should I get a tank of crappy gasoline. That tends to be a little more difficult with a distributor. The benefits of a good TR6 system would include better gas milage, more power, easier cranking, and better overall driving manners. Having said that, I don't think a really good FI system has been produced for this application. I think two things really hold back the benefits of any induction system on this engine: manifold design and lack of ignition control. Honestly, I don't think the side draft design is such a hot idea. Even if you could get the air flowing well enough through the runners, I don't think the imperfect atomization of the mixture allows it to behave in a beneficial manner over such a horizontal distance.

Now, if you could pop an injector into the runner of each cylinder and angle it towards the head, I think you would be in business even without ignition control. You could still use TBs and maybe a speed density unit to meter the air on the end of the manifold, you get the charge moving the length of the runner without the impedence of (comparatively)poorly atomized fuel, then hit it with nice, FI, computer controled, atomized fuel as its entering the head. There may be some trouble with the the angle of injection and the angle of the port entering the head. I would hope it could be minimized.

That may not be the most practical approach, but I think it would help with one of the major drawbacks of the TR6 induction system. Next up: putting the frigging exhaust ports on the other side of teh head.
 
R

Rabid_Dolphin

Guest
Guest
Offline
[ QUOTE ]

The injection engine, however, was a powerful engine which the British market was fortunate to have all because of your emmission regulations :smile:

Alec

[/ QUOTE ]
We do what we can. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 

martx-5

Yoda
Country flag
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
...
The reason that Triumph went to the injection system was because of the then stringent emmission regulations that America introduced and it was felt that an injection engine would be the way to go. In the event it didn't work as they thought and Triumph found that they could meet the required regulations with the Stromberg carburettors.
The injection engine, however, was a powerful engine which the British market was fortunate to have all because of your emmission regulations :smile:

Alec

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I understand, the mechanical FI'ed 6 cylinder engines produced about 150 hp. That's almost 50% more power then the carburettor counterparts. I find it difficult to believe that the increase was just due to the injection system. There had to be other differences such as compression ratios, cam lift and timing, etc. that accounted for the increase.
 

Hayfever

Jedi Trainee
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
From what I understand, the mechanical FI'ed 6 cylinder engines produced about 150 hp. That's almost 50% more power then the carburettor counterparts. I find it difficult to believe that the increase was just due to the injection system. There had to be other differences such as compression ratios, cam lift and timing, etc. that accounted for the increase.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to this article from 1991 the PI cars have 9.5:1 compression (US cars had 8.5:1 or 7.75:1 depending on year) and a hotter cam.
 

Hayfever

Jedi Trainee
Offline
[ QUOTE ]
Now, if you could pop an injector into the runner of each cylinder and angle it towards the head, I think you would be in business even without ignition control. You could still use TBs and maybe a speed density unit to meter the air on the end of the manifold, you get the charge moving the length of the runner without the impedence of (comparatively)poorly atomized fuel, then hit it with nice, FI, computer controled, atomized fuel as its entering the head. There may be some trouble with the the angle of injection and the angle of the port entering the head. I would hope it could be minimized.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I did for my Megasquirt setup. I used a set of PI manifolds that I removed the butterflies from and used a single throttlebody on the airbox. I'm also planning on drilling a carb manifold for a friend which will be fitted with twin throttlebodies.
 
R

Rabid_Dolphin

Guest
Guest
Offline
[ QUOTE ]


That's what I did for my Megasquirt setup. I used a set of PI manifolds that I removed the butterflies from and used a single throttlebody on the airbox. I'm also planning on drilling a carb manifold for a friend which will be fitted with twin throttlebodies.

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds pretty sweet. What are you using to control the injection and mixture? The PI manifold sounds like it would work fine, but I was thinking more along the lines of the carb manifold you are talking about with twin TBs.
 

Hayfever

Jedi Trainee
Offline
I'm using Megasquirt for fuel control initially, then adding spark control once I have the fuel control tuned well.

For the carb manifold, Datsun 300ZX's have twin throttlebodies that are almost bolt-on to the TR6 carb manifold. Note the ALMOST. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif That's what's holding the carb manifold back, I haven't decided whether to redrill the manifold studs or redrill the TBs.
 
R

Rabid_Dolphin

Guest
Guest
Offline
[ QUOTE ]

Note the ALMOST. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif That's what's holding the carb manifold back, I haven't decided whether to redrill the manifold studs or redrill the TBs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is cheaper? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
hondo402000 TR6 TR6 Fuel Injection made easy Triumph 12
G TR6 TR6 Fuel Injection ? Triumph 8
I TR6 Fuel injection for TR6 Triumph 4
I TR6 TR6 - Fuel leaking from bottom of Evaporator Canister Triumph 11
P TR6 TR6 fuel pump question - glass bowl pump correct? Triumph 8
K TR2/3/3A TR6 fuel gauge in a TR3? Triumph 1
F TR6 TR6 Fuel Pump Priming Triumph 11
sundown TR6 1973 TR6 fuel pump Triumph 4
B TR6 TR6 Fuel Filter keeps clogging Triumph 9
Gliderman8 TR6 Mounting location for electric fuel pump on TR6 Triumph 42
D TR6 1976 TR6 Fuel Lines Triumph 7
I TR6 75 TR6 Fuel sending unit gasket Triumph 1
T TR6 TR6 fuel line / mechanical fuel pump compression? Triumph 5
G TR6 TR6 fuel tank fitting size. Triumph 14
Gliderman8 TR6 Troubleshoot a TR6 Fuel gauge problem Triumph 36
Got_All_4 TR6 Moss TR6 mechanical fuel pump TR6 Triumph 25
M TR6 TR6 Fuel Delivery Issue Triumph 18
I TR6 TR6 fuel pipe nut source? Triumph 5
I TR6 TR6 fuel pump - how do I replace these? Triumph 18
T TR6 Bolt size/thread count for fuel sender TR4/TR6 Triumph 16
wangdango TR6 76 TR6 electric fuel pump? Triumph 3
T TR6 tr6 fuel sending unit Triumph 5
T TR6 Fuel tank question - TR4a & TR6 truly identical? Triumph 3
BobbyD TR6 TR6 Fuel Pump Triumph 1
Brosky TR6 Fuel Pump Kit for TR6 Triumph 3
Gliderman8 TR6 TR6 Fuel electric pump? Triumph 14
DNK TR6 TR6 fuel lines. Triumph 20
B TR6 TR6 Fuel Odor in the Brake Servo Triumph 7
B TR6 71 TR6 Fuel Tank firewall? Triumph 6
J TR6 Just another whining TR6 fuel pump again? Triumph 19
SCguy TR6 How can you tell if your TR6 fuel pump is working? Triumph 4
I TR6 TR6 Fuel gauge help Triumph 7
E TR6 TR6 Fuel / Mixture ? Triumph 4
71tr TR6 fuel line TR6 Triumph 2
V TR6 Oil and Fuel for TR6 Triumph 6
G TR6 Free OE TR6 Fuel Pump.....................8 bucks. Triumph 2
71tr TR6 fuel line TR6 Triumph 6
V TR6 TR6 Fuel pump spares Triumph 8
F TR6 Changing TR6 fuel tank sending unit... Triumph 6
T TR6 Repair or replace TR6 fuel level sender unit Triumph 4
G TR6 Fuel sender resistance for TR6 Triumph 1
I TR6 fuel lines for 69 TR6 Triumph 3
Tullamore TR6 TR6 Fuel Leak Triumph 4
padjo TR6 TR6 Fuel Pump Triumph 1
M TR6 TR6 FUEL TANK VENT PIPE Triumph 3
nichola TR6 Another TR6 back on the road Triumph 0
TR6Canuck TR6 Wire spoke rims to fit Michelin Red Line Tires on TR6 Triumph 12
E TR6 74 TR6 - “ A Post Seal” Triumph 0
J Wanted TR6 seat vinyl Triumph Classifieds 1
E TR6 Temp Gauge - 74 TR6 Triumph 11

Similar threads

Top