4 cylinder TBI from Ranger and Taurus for injection setup.

[Rod Beauvex]

These are fairly plentiful on Ebay, and strike me as a possibly good basis for a TBI injection setup. They have the injector, the TPS, and IAC, as well as what looks like a fuel pressure regulator. It  looks like they have the 1bbl foot print, but after reading this thread, I'd be leery of trying something like this just to find it didn't fit.

 

[PSIG]

More injectors. While the concept is good, for optimal fuel distribution to all the cylinders, multiple injections would be required. Cylinders/2 injections (3 per-cycle) is common and seems to work OK on most, but one injection each (6 per-cycle) is of course optimal. For one injector to open and close with full injections 6 times per-cycle (3 per-rev) means a very large injector, else it simply runs out of time to deliver 6 of them.

The secondary issue here that isn't always obvious, is that control resolution with one giant injector to then accurately squeak fuel at idle and low-cruise to each cylinder can be a daunting job, unless the injector is very quick (injector latency).

I have not checked the injector latency (time to open and close) in order to run the calculations to see if this one could do it, but that would be the primary issue faced by a single large injector for I6. I said 'more injectors', as just moving to two injectors greatly reduces the injector load, only requiring 3 injections per injector for each cycle (two crank rev's). The Ford V6 CFI 2V (random example) could be an example of that. Sorry I don't have time at the moment, but I'll run some numbers to see if the Taurus injector a reasonable option in the first place.

 

[Rod Beauvex]

I mean, surely if the single injector Sniper 1100 can do it, so can this thing, assuming the injector can flow enough.

 

[rocklord]

A long time ago someone (can't remember who) on this forum ran his 200 with Megasquirt and one of these units.
I believe he didn't have Megasquirt adjust timing, instead using the distributor to handle that.

 

[PSIG]

OK, so I looked at one of the injectors listed for that engine by RockAuto as a CM4362, which is shown as a Bosch 0-280-150-601, which shows as 48.5 lb·hr at 2.5-bar (36.25 psi) stock pressure. By standard calculations at 85% duty cycle, that injector will support 82hp with one single injection per-cycle.

We need 3 to 6 injections per-cycle (more than it was designed-for), and that takes more time, reducing total flow and the hp it can support. To re-state why, the I6 has really poor fuel distribution in its log manifold, and more injections really help to ensure more even flow to each cylinder, so some aren't lean while others are rich. The little Taurus does not have anywhere near the same trouble with manifold distribution.

Although we hope it's quicker than this; assuming 1ms to open the injector and 0.4ms to close = 1.4ms latency, for 6 injections would be 8.6ms wasted time for latency. At 5000 rpm we have 24ms for two crank revolutions (one 4-stroke cycle) - 8.6 = 15.4ms for fuel flow, or 64%. 48.5 lb·hr x 64% = 31.1 lb·hr effective flow. 31.1 lb·hr can support about 53hp at 6 injections per-cycle (61hp with 3), with the loss of available time for each added injection.

That's the time factor with multiple injections from one injector, and the loss of total flow (hp support) as you add more injections. From this, we can see an injector to support about 100hp at 6-per, would be approaching 60 lb·hr. Increasing fuel pressure to 4-bar (58 psi) would increase flow to 39+ lb·hr, which still isn't enough, supporting about 67hp. Perhaps OK for a local 144 to 200 c.i., cruiser, limited to perhaps 3500-4000 rpm, if that's all you need. Two Taurus units with increased fuel pressure would get it, or one V6 CFI unit with stock 33 lb·hr injectors to max stock rpm.

The Sniper 1100 uses a 100 lb·hr injector, with less than 6 injections per-cycle. That's more than double the flow of the Taurus unit. You likely would not need that much, but you can see where you are in a gray area of not enough flow or not enough injections (or both) with one Taurus TBI. Hope that helps!

 

[PSIG]

If you want to use the Taurus TBI, then I would start shopping for a higher-flow EV10 injector. I didn't find the the 0-280-150-604 (86 lb·hr @3-bar in turbo Escorts) in 3 minutes, but I did see the 0-280-150-651 (78# @ 3-bar used in VWs). Keep poking around, and I'll bet you find something suitable. Not to push the Ford V6 CFI with the Holley 2300 base, but one reason I like to use it as the injectors are standard and common-everywhere EV1 type, and easy to swap for any size you like. Factory manifolds require an adapter to use one though. Just for options.

 

[Rod Beauvex]

(delete this)

 

[Rod Beauvex]

I'm starting to think you're right. I've found a few of these EV10 injectors on Ebay, for both Ford and GM, including a a few from a TBI meant to run a 454, but I cannot find any sort of data on these things, unless my search skills are lacking. I think the 2-1 adapter and a 2bbl CFI unit is looking more likely. I really just like the idea of using Ford OEM stuff, wherever possible. I appreciate everyone's help.

 

[bmbm40]

May be some info here that will help.

https://fordsix.com/threads/my-tempo-efi-conversion.38349/#post-280925

https://fordsix.com/search/28624/?c[users]=larryejoh&o=date

 

[PSIG]

I think the consensus here is to mill or carefully grind the manifold for a straight 2V adapter into the manifold, without tapering to a 1V first. Others can lend more insight, and this may not be in-context for your purposes:

Classic Inlines dyno tests: "We gained a maximum of 5RWHP when we used an adaptor, and 24RWHP when the carb was mounted directly to the log intake, or a gain of 6% verses 24% respectively. That's a huge difference considering we used exactly the same carb."

However, wall-wetting in a taper with the injections would render some of the atomized fuel back to sticking droplets, and perhaps impact throttle response by delaying fuel to the cylinders. That said, one suggestion for a 2v -> 1V adapter was the

Autolite/Holley 1V-2V Adapter - Small Log | Vintage Inlines

This billet adaptor is used to install any Autolite, Holley, or MotorCraft 2V carb on a stock SMALL LOG cylinder head with a 1.5" carb bore. The adapter comes with a custom billet insert, which improves air flow and horse power, and two stainless steel Allen head cap screws for mounting (carb...

www.vintageinlines.com

Note in those links from @bmbm40 that injector is a different spec, at 64# @ 16 psi differential pressure, and he's running it at 25% higher pressure (20 psi) for about 72 lb·hr.

The one I spec'd above that your described unit should have is rated 48.5 but at 36.25 psi. If pushed +25% fuel pressure, would flow 54 lb·hr, so you can see where he's getting enough flow for 6 injections per-cycle with his low-pressure injector version. Just because it's EV10 doesn't mean it will fit the housing you have, so look carefully.

You can search either direction, by either finding an injector that fits, then look-up the application somewhere like RockAuto for a searchable number for spec's, or search an application that should fit and then search for spec's on that number. Not a lot of info on these little injectors, compared to more common performance types. Persistence pays.

 

[Rod Beauvex]

OK, so one question I have already is Flow Rate vs Horsepower.

How should horsepower be considered in the context of a given injector's flow rate?

My 1979 Granada has the 250 six. According to Wikipedia, the 250 was rated at 155HP Gross, but later rated at 98 (and then 88) Net. Another source about the 79 Granada suggest 97 HP Net, and 91/92 HP Net for the 1983 200 six-powered Fairmont.

So what should I assume?

Also, as far as manifold, I really don't want to alter it. I don't have the tools or skill to do that, and I honestly just don't like the idea of such a permanent alteration. Don't want to ruin the collectability of my Granada now.

 

[PSIG]

All of those are "good" numbers, as they are ratings under different conditions. Calculations are made to gross hp, and various SAE tests are with accessories, or sometimes also transmission, mufflers, stock air filter, etc. So, we use gross hp for our calculated numbers, which will produce gross hp, and also SAE net test numbers under those different test conditions. It's like the difference between an engine dyno cell number and a chassis dyno number - both true but different. Make sense?

This is very loose, as different years and engine models did have differences, especially entering the smog years. Likewise certain engines had skewed ratings for various reasons, from insurance to competition edge, or fleet requirements to economy justification. But for us and figuring injector flow, aiming for the "old" or else peak non-smog numbers get us close enough. We can adjust stuff from there to get a good match most of the time. Don't forget the mode of use I posted earlier, which will alter the available flow.

I'll also say that 90% of success is just doing what you can to get it done. A 2-into-1 adapter will still run very well, and certainly no worse than a 2V carb swap. It just won't have quite as much peak hp potential or other compromises that an open-flow mount might give. Everything is a compromise. Try it any way you can get it done, see the reality of results, and decide for yourself. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

 

[Frank]

OK, so one question I have already is Flow Rate vs Horsepower.

How should horsepower be considered in the context of a given injector's flow rate?

I can't find the thread now, but I think each injector-pound of fuel = 2 hp. Example, the 300: 14lb x 6 = 84lbs/hr. Engine max hp = 170.

 

[Rod Beauvex]

I can't find the thread now, but I think each injector-pound of fuel = 2 hp. Example, the 300: 14lb x 6 = 84lbs/hr. Engine max hp = 170.

This table seems to be a good list for flow rate vs HP, and seems to track with the figures I see on Wikiepdia for the Lima and HSC engines, and, reading between the lines, provides an insight into why the 300 six never got factory CFI.

 

[rocklord]

This table seems to be a good list for flow rate vs HP, and seems to track with the figures I see on Wikiepdia for the Lima and HSC engines, and, reading between the lines, provides an insight into why the 300 six never got factory CFI.

Here is the table from Microsquirt:

 

[Rod Beauvex]

All of those are "good" numbers, as they are ratings under different conditions. Calculations are made to gross hp, and various SAE tests are with accessories, or sometimes also transmission, mufflers, stock air filter, etc. So, we use gross hp for our calculated numbers, which will produce gross hp, and also SAE net test numbers under those different test conditions. It's like the difference between an engine dyno cell number and a chassis dyno number - both true but different. Make sense?

This is very loose, as different years and engine models did have differences, especially entering the smog years. Likewise certain engines had skewed ratings for various reasons, from insurance to competition edge, or fleet requirements to economy justification. But for us and figuring injector flow, aiming for the "old" or else peak non-smog numbers get us close enough. We can adjust stuff from there to get a good match most of the time. Don't forget the mode of use I posted earlier, which will alter the available flow.

I suppose you might be able to up the pressure on the 65# injector (110-112HP at default psi), though I don't know if you could run it that far out of spec to get the full 155HP gross without suffering at idle speeds. Though to me this begs the question on how they got the figures they did with those 1bbl carbs on the 250, 240, and 300 six. I also don't know if the regulator is adjustable on the 1BBL CFI. I kind of wonder if the fuel injection issue we're discussing is at least one of the reasons they discontinued these engines. (In addition to the 4 cylinders catching up in power as well as the V6 being more successful)

I'll also say that 90% of success is just doing what you can to get it done. A 2-into-1 adapter will still run very well, and certainly no worse than a 2V carb swap. It just won't have quite as much peak hp potential or other compromises that an open-flow mount might give. Everything is a compromise. Try it any way you can get it done, see the reality of results, and decide for yourself. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Yeah. To quote another forum member, I'm not building a race car and I don't drive like a teenager. I'm just interested in fuel injection for the engine. Given the 3.8 V6 had 2 injector CFI, I think the 2-1 plus 2BBL CFI is probably the way to go.

Won't know if we don't try, i guess, but I'm still in the research phase in all of this.

 

[PSIG]

I suppose you might be able to up the pressure on the 65# injector (110-112HP at default psi), though I don't know if you could run it that far out of spec to get the full 155HP gross without suffering at idle speeds.

I have not tested that specific injector, but most can take up to 60% over-pressure and still operate. For that one, static flow would increase to roughly 82 lb·hr. However, we avoid raising pressure much if avoidable, as the latency (open/close time) increases dramatically (slower) with increased pressure.

Not only would you need to test all of this to ensure the ECM corrections for latency were accurate, but more importantly the increased latency will reduce the available time for injection per-cycle. IOW, you gain static flow, but run out of time to use it in multi-injection setups like yours. Catch 22, and you would need to test to be sure what you'll actually get. Could be good, but ...

Idle control is not an issue, if for example a manifold-referenced FPR is used, as that will reduce injector flow and improve control resolution at low loads. There are other workarounds. The stock FPR can increase pressure through crushing the housing, increasing regulator spring pressure. And while it works that hack is limited in range and to specific stuff, while blocking the FPR port to use a separate adjustable FPR is generally preferred. The remote adjustable FPR can also be manifold referenced.

I kind of wonder if the fuel injection issue we're discussing is at least one of the reasons they discontinued these engines.

They were just old late '50s technology into the market in the early '60s, and the biggest reason they went as long as they did was fleet use. Fleet certifications are difficult and expensive, so few changes are made to fleet engines in order to maintain fleet certification. Ford could have done much more with the 240 and 300, but their hands were tied in an odd way.

So, we didn't get cross-flow heads, but their use was stretched further with specific incremental changes, as each change was a big deal. Same odd story for the little Ford 2.3L, e.g., getting dual spark plugs to stretch it just a little further with required emissions, until they just couldn't do any more without big certification changes, so a new engine appeared instead.