[PSIG]

I don't have a problem with him trying as thousands have, following Ogle's patent and various versions of it over the years. While I don't expect more economy than the energy content of the fuel allows, it will be interesting to see what comes of it, and when the next vapor-addict comes here we can point them to this thread and whatever results were obtained - great or otherwise. Plus, it's yet another creative application of Speeduino for the books.

My point was that there have been some very sophisticated vapor systems for many, many years, lots of them patented and in some of our cars today. But the improvements were in-line within calculated maximum results possible under scientific principles. Do your thing, but apply science to it, both in concepts and testing. Best of luck to him!

[JHolland]

I'm in agreement with PSIG, I don't expect it to break the laws of physics but I'm interested to see what the results are. I expect that is some potential for small gains.
For a while I worked on diesel EFI systems for 6.5 and 13 litre engines, on those we would inject six times during a cycle (plus a post burn 'emissions' pulse) to get a more homogenous fuel mixture. On my Swift (petrol) at idle I get a single injector pulse of around 0.8ms which means its only injecting for 4 degrees, then you are reliant on turbulence within the cylinder to mix the fuel and air - that can't be optimal.

[PSIG]

... On my Swift (petrol) at idle I get a single injector pulse of around 0.8ms which means its only injecting for 4 degrees ...

What angle does the injection occur? During what valve event or stroke? This is another vaporization technique used by many/most OEMs under certain conditions - to inject on the valve after valve close so fuel can flash-off of the hot valve into vapor. Is your Swift doing anything similar?

The tuning for injection angle is typically to best MAP, but can also be coordinated with best MAP at lowest Lambda. This is one advantage to TBI upstream injection, as it has lots of time to vaporize and blend with the air on the way to the cylinder. This vapor system can also benefit from that time and travel, along with tweaks to vaporization. I think that's the primary mechanism at-play in this version. This version is completely different from the Ogle vapor concepts.

[JHolland]

What angle does the injection occur? During what valve event or stroke? This is another vaporization technique used by many/most OEMs under certain conditions - to inject on the valve after valve close so fuel can flash-off of the hot valve into vapor. Is your Swift doing anything similar?

The tuning for injection angle is typically to best MAP, but can also be coordinated with best MAP at lowest Lambda. This is one advantage to TBI upstream injection, as it has lots of time to vaporize and blend with the air on the way to the cylinder. This vapor system can also benefit from that time and travel, along with tweaks to vaporization. I think that's the primary mechanism at-play in this version. This version is completely different from the Ogle vapor concepts.

Its an 8-bit ECU, it injectors on the so-called Ignition fail Safe signal, at idle that is around 12 degrees BTDC, its TBI also but fairly short runners. From 96 on they started using the 16-bit ECUs with a 24-bit timing processor, those do have properly timed pulses but I don't recall when they inject. I do know that the 16V MPFI engines of the period injected on a closed valve under light use and then under load injected a second pulse a few ms later.

[digmorepaka]

Its an 8-bit ECU, it injectors on the so-called Ignition fail Safe signal, at idle that is around 12 degrees BTDC, its TBI also but fairly short runners. From 96 on they started using the 16-bit ECUs with a 24-bit timing processor, those do have properly timed pulses but I don't recall when they inject. I do know that the 16V MPFI engines of the period injected on a closed valve under light use and then under load injected a second pulse a few ms later.

Is this a 2v G10/G13? Those had some pretty funky vacuum passages in the intake and head and swirl nozzles next to the intake valve. Very restrictive head and manifold though made for velocity rather than flow. Also has coolant passages as is usual for carb/TBI manifolds to prevent condensation. Interestingly enough some late heads had injector bung castings that they never ended up using in production.

[JHolland]

Is this a 2v G10/G13? Those had some pretty funky vacuum passages in the intake and head and swirl nozzles next to the intake valve. Very restrictive head and manifold though made for velocity rather than flow. Also has coolant passages as is usual for carb/TBI manifolds to prevent condensation. Interestingly enough some late heads had injector bung castings that they never ended up using in production.

I have a 2002 1.0 swift, and a 1997 1.3 Justy (Swift AWD) among other vehicles. The 2002 is getting a 95 Geo Metro ECU because its easier to tune, eventually it'll either get a new ECU of my own design or I'll get an emulator working with the stock ECU. The Justy is getting a 1.6 16V Baleno engine, I have an ECU designed for that.

[Casey C]

My point was that there have been some very sophisticated vapor systems for many, many years, lots of them patented and in some of our cars today. But the improvements were in-line within calculated maximum results possible under scientific principles.

Calculated results? That's the problem, everyone used existing droplet mixtures as a base. Even the 14.7 air/fuel mixture is a droplet based figure. I've seen chemists try to arrive at that number on paper, and they can't.
(Isn't it conspicuous that 14.7 is also the air pressure at sea level?)
By math, Tom had an AF mixture of about 73!
Also it ran cool and smooth. Pre ignition and overheating is related to characteristics of droplet laden mixtures, and not necessarily pure vapor 'mixtures'.
Tom Ogle increased mileage by a factor of 5.
It's true many followed his path, but were doomed, because it would take a small swimming pool to have enough surface area to provide enough vapor at full throttle.
However you can note, using Tom Ogle's experience, that the potential energy of gasoline vapor is very high.
Testing gasoline in vapor form is very difficult because producing large volumes of vapor is difficult and dangerous, unless it is consumed immediately, but in my configuration it is, fortunately.
Maybe it would be worth it to you to reconsider the expansion factor of liquid gasoline, into vapor, which I layed out in the beginning.
It's the research about droplet molecule density vs. vapor that I did, to wrap my head around the results that Tom Ogle achieved, and how that is possible.

On the topic of the potential of gasoline, here's another example, if you haven't seen it.
https://youtu.be/qt7VDBWAJmc?si=cqEu67JTIiGRQ9GW

[jonbill]

[Casey C]

Could you explain what that was for?
It's certainly not the reaction I was expecting from within an ECU electronics group.

[jonbill]

This bit made me laugh out loud, hence the lol emoji.

Even the 14.7 air/fuel mixture is a droplet based figure. I've seen chemists try to arrive at that number on paper, and they can't.