Kinsler type fuel injection?

[wickedmotorhead]

After seeing MSD's new velocity stack type mechanical fuel injection I have decided that I would like to do something similar with my Chevelles Rat. I saw kinsler had a nice EFI setup for the BBC. Does anyone know the pro's and con's of this system and how well it would work with my current setup? (see webpage for current engine specs). I am currently running a 1050 Dominator. I noticed also that hilborn had a cross ram mechanical type. I will be building a cold air forced induction system for whatever I choose and I thought the hilborn side intake runners would package best and would allow for a sweet custom cold air intake setup. I have no idea of what throttle size to run or what kind of horsepower these can accomodate. Basically any information anyone could give would be much appreciated. THANKS.

[Fuelie Fan]

All I can tell you is the hilborn efi uses a "Carabine" ecu, which is not good for much more than a door stop. Throttle size should be pretty easy to determine for a given horsepower, their basic tech support should tell you. If not, you could always calc an estimate, you're an ME.

[wickedmotorhead]

Damn! you caught me in my laziness.

Good to know on the Hilborn types, I guess I'll stick with the Kinsler which can use the FAST setup. Basically I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with these and how they would rate them. I thought it would be a different approach on something a little different. Thanks.

[camcojb]

I ran the Hilborn on a small block with a FAST ecu. Worked awesome. You can get the setup from them without their Carabine ecu which is almost worthless.


Jody

[andrewb70]

THe new MSD setup will only fit small blocks.

Andrew

[KendallF]

Damn! you caught me in my laziness.

Good to know on the Hilborn types, I guess I'll stick with the Kinsler which can use the FAST setup. Basically I was wondering if anyone has had any experience with these and how they would rate them. I thought it would be a different approach on something a little different. Thanks.

If you want to do it relatively inexpensively, look for an old mech. FI intake and convert it. Then you can buy the FAST system or whatever; the GM sensors are dirt cheap. A friend of mine's going to do this for his 500+ ci Hemi in a 65 Belvedere. He bought an older stack style intake cheaply and I have it right now to machine and weld injector bungs and fuel rails. With 8 individual throttle butterflies that are something like 2.25" diameter each, it should make some big HP.

[camcojb]

If you want to do it relatively inexpensively, look for an old mech. FI intake and convert it. Then you can buy the FAST system or whatever; the GM sensors are dirt cheap. A friend of mine's going to do this for his 500+ ci Hemi in a 65 Belvedere. He bought an older stack style intake cheaply and I have it right now to machine and weld injector bungs and fuel rails. With 8 individual throttle butterflies that are something like 2.25" diameter each, it should make some big HP.

Just realize one thing on these individual runner setups; they do not have a common plenum to "borrow" air from. You get what that individual butterfly will flow and that's it. On my 406 it had 2 3/16" butterflies. Total airflow about 2300 cfm or so. But only about 280-285 cfm per port, and my heads flowed 312 cfm. So although it made 480 rwhp with a 10:1 406 and some good heads, it was still airflow restricted.

Make sure you have a butterfly that will flow enough to keep up with your heads or you will cost yourself some power. A 2.25" blade on a 500 cid Hemi may not make as much power as it should.

Jody

[Fuelie Fan]

You can't just blindly compare cfm numbers like that. THey are rated TOTALLY differently. Your heads, for example, were probably measured at 28" drop, where as carbs and throttle bodies are measured either at 1.5 or 3". Port flows are great for comparison between heads, but those numbers mean crapolla as far as how much air will move through your engine


Example: your 406.
Each cylinder = 406/8 = 50.75 in^3
Assume 6500 RPM peak hp
Assume 100% VE
airflow_per_cyl = (50.75 in^3/intake) * (1.0) * (6500 rev/min) * (1 intake/2 rev) * (1ft/12in)^3 = 95 cfm.

Unless you want to claim your engine has 300% VE???????

[camcojb]

You can't just blindly compare cfm numbers like that. THey are rated TOTALLY differently. Your heads, for example, were probably measured at 28" drop, where as carbs and throttle bodies are measured either at 1.5 or 3". Port flows are great for comparison between heads, but those numbers mean crapolla as far as how much air will move through your engine


Example: your 406.
Each cylinder = 406/8 = 50.75 in^3
Assume 6500 RPM peak hp
Assume 100% VE
airflow_per_cyl = (50.75 in^3/intake) * (1.0) * (6500 rev/min) * (1 intake/2 rev) * (1ft/12in)^3 = 95 cfm.

Unless you want to claim your engine has 300% VE???????

How about comparing it like this? I had the heads ported and flowed by a local head porter. I then had the manifold and air doors flowed on the same flow bench by the same guy at the same pressure; they flowed almost 30 cfm less on the intake ports of my heads. Not huge, but just trying to make a point. You look at these setups and the total airflow and think they'll support unreal HP and that's not necessarily true. I would try to get a butterfly size that's not more restrictive than my heads, that's all I was pointing out.

Jody

[Fuelie Fan]

I will, agree, however, that the lack of plenum does change throttle sizing. The intake is only open roughly a third of the time, hence the throttle body must be oversized so that it can provide higher peak flows, even though the average flow rate is much lower. THIS is why a seemingly huge amount of flow poetential on the induction may still be limiting things on an IR setup. Head design influences your VE in the calc above, it does NOT solely dictate the flow rate. Obviously changing engine displacement, cam timing, etc all affect the VE as well.

I am fully aware of the coincidence of the 300% ve and the 1/3 time for intake open, but it is only that, and they are rough numbers. You could use them perhaps as starting points, but you certainly cannot use them to make decisions on whether a 20-30 cfm difference is limiting your engine. If those heads were on a 383, and if the cam had 10 degrees fewer timing, everything would be totally different.

On a common plenum vehicle, it easy to determine if your throttles are limiting you: measure manifold pressure. On IR, it is much more difficult. You will see drastic fluctuations in pressure even on a properly set-up engine. For the enthusiast without the luxury of 4-6 bore sizes to experiment with, you have a couple options: link the ports with vacuum line and create a mini "plenum" and measure pressure there, or consult someone with a lot of experience like Jody or Kinsler or Hilborn.

Jody, I still have no doubt about the fact that you know how to build power, your record speaks for itself. As with all my posts, none of this is meant as a personal attack, I am just a stickler for techinicalities.

[Fuelie Fan]

"techinicalities"

but obviously not spelling

[camcojb]

No problem! This same engine made 20 rwhp MORE with a Super Victor efi manifold and 1000 cfm throttle body; it also made 30 rwtq LESS. That was with no changes, so it seems the IR was restricting it some, not a bunch. I'd gladly give up the 20 rwhp for the gain of 30 rwtq and the looks factor!

The guy I bought this setup from swapped from the 2 3/16" butterflies to 2 7/16"; he picked up almost 50 rwhp, but it was a pretty serious motor. No other changes (at that time). I also was involved with a 500 cid aluminum Shelby motor in a Cobra that made barely 400 rwhp with a large solid roller and fully ported heads. He was using the Imagine (I believe) individual throttle body setup. Looks were over the top, but he was not satisfied with the power. Swapped that setup for a large single plane converted manifold and 1000 cfm throttle body and picked it up to the 450-460 rwhp range as I remember; big difference in top end power, but lost some bottom end.

I just saw the 500 cid Hemi post and thought I'd throw out the importance of butterfly size on these systems. I think a 2.25" will be too small for peak power on that, but again it would matter how serious the engine really is.

Jody

[Fuelie Fan]

Something I would add to that is what we are talking about and what you've seen is more than just "restriction". Changing the diameter and length of the throttle bodies and trumpets is directly changing the tuned peak of the system. It is possible that continuing to go bigger could also cost power. Luckily, on individual runner systems the natural frequency is pretty easy to determine.

I am continuing to verge off-topic, again tech support should be able to tell shane what would work for his setup.

[OHCbird]

TWM makes TBs for many apps; Although not on their website, I do believe they have started making BBC setups similar to this (the unit pictured is an SBC). I helped build a retrofitted Lambo Miura w/ TWM TBs; they make a great product. Anyway ya slice it- get ready to spend!

[camcojb]

Something I would add to that is what we are talking about and what you've seen is more than just "restriction". Changing the diameter and length of the throttle bodies and trumpets is directly changing the tuned peak of the system. It is possible that continuing to go bigger could also cost power. Luckily, on individual runner systems the natural frequency is pretty easy to determine.

I am continuing to verge off-topic, again tech support should be able to tell shane what would work for his setup.

I agree. There is too big also. Just a lot of people look at the total airflow rating of an IR setup and try to compare it with a single plane/carb or throttle body setup and it's a completely different thing.

Jody

[wickedmotorhead]

Wow that TWM system is pretty sweeeet! BUT expensive as hell. Thanks for the info.

[wickedmotorhead]

Wow that TWM system is sweet! I dig the Carbon Fiber air horns. They are expensive though. Comparing to the BBF system the BBC chevy would be around 5G's! That's without the ECU system. WOW! Makes my carburator look a lot better. I just can't imagine seeing that much of an improvement other than dialing stuff in and efficiency and of course the cool factor!

[Fuelie Fan]

Yeah, TWM's very pricy, yet Gary kind of has the attitude that you should be lucky he's even letting you buy it in the first place! He's a funny bloak to talk to though. I'm biased becuase I like to do everything on the cheap, but I certainly wouldn't pay that much.

[KendallF]

Camco and FuelieFan, I'm glad you guys commented..made me think. Also made me curious and I went and actually measured the bores on the intake destined for the Hemi. The motor is a crate Hemi (528"? I think so..I've only seen the motor once). The bores are actually 2.40" diameter; they should do well for a street motor that sees the track occasionally. The plan is to tie in the old mech nozzle bores to a small plenum located in between the stacks for a common vac signal for IAC. It will be running DFI Gen 7.

[camcojb]

Camco and FuelieFan, I'm glad you guys commented..made me think. Also made me curious and I went and actually measured the bores on the intake destined for the Hemi. The motor is a crate Hemi (528"? I think so..I've only seen the motor once). The bores are actually 2.40" diameter; they should do well for a street motor that sees the track occasionally. The plan is to tie in the old mech nozzle bores to a small plenum located in between the stacks for a common vac signal for IAC. It will be running DFI Gen 7.

Fine for a street deal; too small for max power in my opinion. What are you going to do for a map sensor line?

Jody