[BearWolf]

I am going to transition my D-jet and use an EV14 injector if possible as I have found one model (Bosch 0-280-158-038, after long research) that will fit my initial goals around 170-180HP and then even with E85. Submitted is a draft of placement that I have in mind. The port is an approximation and the injector is incorrect but follows the crucial part of the form factor.

My curiosity is now in regards of injector placement. How far out or in would the injector need to be? Would this do?

[dazq]

You will be very surprised how much freedom you have with injector position.
Yes it does have an effect on performance but not that dramatic until you are reaching the absolute limits of tuning. With the sort of mapping a diy-er achieves it's not going to be super super critical .
Take a look at OEM manifolds and the positions they use as a guide and you won't go wrong.

[PSIG]

+1. Vaporization. It can't burn if it's not vaporized. This directly affects available fuel to burn in the chamber, with effects on efficiencies such as BSFC. Got it. But, if efficiencies are poor only means adding more fuel to achieve same power. What are your priorities? I see some thought in your diagram, but it also tells me the timing of the injection will have to be during a no-flow period in the cycle to result in that pattern and desired effects. No problem. That's a tuning and settings solution to specific placement, angle, spray pattern, etc.

There are multiple methods (theory and practice) to inject fuel for efficient vaporization, and selecting one that is similar to your port configuration is a place to start. Agreed, more than 90% of the battle is just getting the fuel in there any way you can. Combustion efficiencies, vaporization, flow latency or wall-wetting are all considerations; but I agree with @dazq that most will result in relatively good real-world function if not striving for bleeding-edge efficiency, e.g., economy competitions, splitting-hairs at extreme power, etc. Better is better, but gains without extensive testing are small and expensive.

Certain configurations (Siamese port, wet-flow manifolds, etc) should include some extra attention to solve common issues such as fuel distribution or charge-stealing; but otherwise just get the stuff in there as best you can. Most great ideas are shot-down by physical imitations anyway. Some common methods include timed narrow-pattern spray to back-of-valve allowing fuel to dwell for hot-valve vaporization and entry turbulence, or timed fog spray patterns to suspend fuel during high-flow periods (tricky!), or down-throat TBI to expose the fuel to maximum turbulence and time to vaporize, etc. The placement and angle, as well as the spray pattern of the injectors would be very different in each of those cases, coupled with limitations in packaging and fitment.

Take a shot at it that works for you, and move on! You can't really know until you run it. Even if you discover an unexpected substantial issue later, tuning settings will have a large impact on any effects you find. IMO, get to that point before stressing too much about it.

[BearWolf]

Well, it seems like I am over thinking it, but I rather put thought behind something than doing things all over again when a mistake could been avoided by asking questions.

I have 48mm DCO TBs laying around and I went on Jenvey's website and looked at what they offered since they have similar TBs to get a bit of an insight. Evidently it is not that crucial at all (see picture). It seems like the injector can be shrouded quite a bit.

In my case I am not altering the cylinder head. I am just looking at where an appropriate injector depth placement would be. It will squirt right at the valve as it was designed. I think what I have will work then as it barely sticks in the port, or I can move it back a mm or so.

About atomization, I am moving from a pentil design to a 4 hole design - it will be a huge improvement.

Thanks for the replies, fellows.

[PSIG]

It will squirt right at the valve as it was designed.
. . .
About atomization, I am moving from a pentil design to a 4 hole design - it will be a huge improvement.

Atomization is not vaporization. Huge difference. 4-hole or pintle is not a spray pattern, and either can have several different, and even angular, or oval patterns. If the 4-hole has a fog or wide pattern, instead of hitting the back of the hot valve for vaporization, it may spray on the walls, slowing vaporization.

It will likely run fine with a wide spray or fog pattern, but may be a bit less efficient and perhaps more fueling delay than a tighter or "pencil" pattern that can reach the valve in all that chaos. This is a common misconception and example of trying to out-think fluid dynamics. It's not critical. Just use whatever you bought and keep going!

[BearWolf]

So I ended up with used Saab 9-3T injectors that seem to be okay. I did a non scientific test and measured them up and the cycle they all went through put them within -1 to +2% from mean average.
To backtrack a little. I had an idea of repurpose the distributor. The original EFI to the car uses flip-flop contacts in the dizzy so my idea was to design something in its place of those contacts. I came up with a drum with magnets and a circuit board with hall sensors. It worked! At least when spinning the dizzy shaft with a drill. However, reality would prove life a little more difficult. There was a lot of noise when testing it in the car. I still use points so the EMF was very punishable. I wrapped the wiring in alu foil and grounded it to my board. Clean signal so far as the gauges didn't jump all over the place.
This brings me to today. The car fired up and I recorded some of the logs but I am so far not educated enough to know what to look for or exactly what it is supposed to look like.
https://youtu.be/P__Mi01Lrqs

[jonbill]

Can you share a zip of the log and tune - it is more informative than a video.

[BearWolf]

The thing is I don't know what the tooth logger is supposed to look like. My concern is my trigger setup and that it will hold up. The hall sensors are for automotive but I am no engineer by any means but have enough ideas to get into a heap of trouble. I am not confident enough that I can let Speeduino run the spark until I am sure the sync is 100% and this is one of the reasons I am running with points for now. Another reason is I need to get a driver for the coil.

As it is it is running fairly well but rich so my solution in lack of tuning equipment is to increase the injector flow in the software and it did lean up a bit this way but still more to go. I have it set up as ALpha-N, I hope, as my idea down the line is to run ITB and I might as well figure out things this way. Fuel pump gave up all of sudden so no more playing for now.

I hope this is what you asked for.

I am learning as I go.

[BearWolf]

Did I read the log properly where it says no sync losses? Can I presume my trigger setup works as should then and can move to running a coil driver and let speeduino take over spark duty?

[PSIG]

Yes. But first I would make basic changes needed, and test, before moving forward. Of course your VE and Ignition Advance tables need re-binning for over 25% throttle using interpolation. Your AFR/Lambda table also, if you might ever use it. I would also connect the MAP sensor, as another valuable tuning tool to find best torque and efficiency while tuning. MegaLogViewer can then take those values and look for peaks to bring the tables closer using scatter plots and histograms. Make it easier - use your tools.