1983Fbody

Anyone else read this on the LS1 truck engine? EFI was down on HP/ TQ throughout the curve. (edit-the same intake was used, not a comparo between stock LS1 intake vs. carb) They suggested injector placement was the reason power was down, that contradicts what i've seen and read on here because the injectors looked to be exactly where they should be, close to the heads angled towards the valve slightly. Moving them upstream was suggested remedy, what would that allow for better mixture or just give the fuel more time to cool the intake charge? Magazine hype? dyno doesn't lie..

JAYDUBB

Which issue is this? November 2007? Damn, I need to renew my subscriptions!

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

probly all in the tune....

camshaft might have favored carb more than efi as in tighter LSA but shouldnt matter with a good tune for it

1983Fbody

December '07

They were using a (110) lsa cam and it did add more power (with the holley) down low compared to the same spec cam w/ more (115) lsa they used last month. I was kind of hoping they would put up BSFC along w/ dyno numbers between the two cams.

The tune wasn't optimal by their own admission, saying an aftermarket ecu like motec would allow them to change "injector initiation timing" and "injector sequencing". They are saying you can't change when the injectors start to spray fuel w/ stock Ls1 computer is that right?

If/when I convert my own carb intake to FI I know I'm not going to spend time experimenting with injector angle or placement like the mag suggests. I just hate it when everything I've read and established norms for injector placement/angle then the magazine comes out w/ something like this to question all that.. I know I don't have the time/dyno/tig to go experimenting, I'd just like to get the injectors close to ideal and forget about that aspect of it.