NASCAR and Stockcar Racing

November 30, 2009

fuel injection

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 6:57 pm

One of the things a portion of the motorsports community has criticized
NASCAR for over the years is the "archaic" engine rules. I love it just
like it is, but, to my limited knowledge, there hasn’t been a carbureted
production car in about 15 years. Does anyone see fuel injection in the
future?

7 Comments »

  1. I saw a segment on NASCAR Garage about F.I. They said the cost would be alot
    to each team and since they are experts with a carb, no increase in
    horsepower could be made with fuel injection.

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  2. I heard that the teams were saying that fuel injection wouldn’t make much of
    a difference with engine performance.  Carbs are easier to work on and
    replace and more cost effective.  I don’t see why they would want to change
    it.  Maybe someone will in the years ahead, but I don’t think it will catch
    on.

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  3. Bill wrote:

    > One of the things a portion of the motorsports community has criticized
    > NASCAR for over the years is the "archaic" engine rules. I love it just
    > like it is, but, to my limited knowledge, there hasn’t been a carbureted
    > production car in about 15 years. Does anyone see fuel injection in the
    > future?

            OK, let me reset the premise of this question. In a race application,
    there is no power advantage from a carb to injection, in a gasoline
    engine. Certainly not in a stock car application. I’m just asking about
    what’s in the France boy heads.

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  4. Bill <maxx…@bellsouth.net> wrote:
    >    OK, let me reset the premise of this question. In a race application,
    >there is no power advantage from a carb to injection, in a gasoline
    >engine. Certainly not in a stock car application. I’m just asking about
    >what’s in the France boy heads.

    I’d say it’s unlikely, unless the manufacturers suddenly all decided they
    wanted to showcase FI for marketing reasons (if GM & Ford showed
    up in the NASCAR offices and said they needed to be running FI, then
    you can be sure NASCAR would do something).  I don’t see this as
    likely, the manufacturers seem to be getting plenty of advantage from
    the current situation (which has little obvious connection to production
    car tech, altho there’s lots of hidden things) so there’s no reason for them
    to press for a change.

    Incidently, the question of cost is a little more complex than it seems.
    There’s definately a high up front cost to go from the familiar carb to
    FI, but on the long term it’s a lot easier to adjust FI than it is to rejet a
    carb everytime you change cams (or the weather changes), which
    would cut your running costs…

    John

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  5. I think this may depend upon the success of the ASA series next year.  But
    even if things work out in ASA, I wouldn’t expect to see even a glimmer of
    change in Nascar for atleast 3-5 years afterward.

    Mike

    - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

    Bill wrote:
    > One of the things a portion of the motorsports community has criticized
    > NASCAR for over the years is the "archaic" engine rules. I love it just
    > like it is, but, to my limited knowledge, there hasn’t been a carbureted
    > production car in about 15 years. Does anyone see fuel injection in the
    > future?

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  6. On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 01:55:33 GMT, igop…@ix.netcom.com (John McCoy)
    wrote:

    >Incidently, the question of cost is a little more complex than it seems.
    >There’s definately a high up front cost to go from the familiar carb to
    >FI, but on the long term it’s a lot easier to adjust FI than it is to rejet a
    >carb everytime you change cams (or the weather changes), which
    >would cut your running costs…

    At least for a while, I’d expect to see teams swapping injectors
    almost as much as they swap shocks.  I’m hardly an expert here, so
    perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I’d guess that
    optimum-to-the-last-single-horsepower-possible injector spray patterns
    might be partially dependent upon temperature and humidity.  And/or
    perhaps there’s tradeoffs in orfice size vs duration.  

    Matt Thul
    [to reply via email, please delete 'dont.spam.' from my address]

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

  7. Matt Thul <dont.spam.t…@newsguy.com> wrote:
    >At least for a while, I’d expect to see teams swapping injectors
    >almost as much as they swap shocks.  I’m hardly an expert here, so
    >perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I’d guess that
    >optimum-to-the-last-single-horsepower-possible injector spray patterns
    >might be partially dependent upon temperature and humidity.  And/or
    >perhaps there’s tradeoffs in orfice size vs duration.  

    Probably not.  The characteristic of primary importance is getting good
    atomization, in other words as fine a spray as possible.  The duration
    isn’t particularly important, so you’re free to vary that as needed to
    get the fuel mix (lean/rich) where it needs to be.  Duration would be
    varied by changing the programming of the electronics, of course,
    not the injectors (I’m assuming they won’t be using the old Hilborn
    system…).

    That applies to gasoline, at least.  Alcohol motors may well be a different
    story, since they have to flow so much more fuel, and atomization isn’t
    as important.  Fortunately WC isn’t likely to go that way, regardless of
    what the presidential candidates are promising in Iowa.

    John

    Comment by admin — November 30, 2009 @ 6:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress