Hey guys, Can someone explain this picture to me? Are we seeing the injectors just above the ports? Does everything remain open this way or is it closed off? Air filters? For example, in this Renault F1 engine video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-9Io41bt8 ), the gas is injected directly over the throttle body. Why isn't it injected closer towards the intake ports like on most cars? Cheers! Image Unavailable, Please Login
I too have wondered about the location of the fuel injectors, seems "old school" to me. Maybe there are some rules or regulations that mandate this? I would like to know too....
I remember hearing somewhere that F1 engines have to deal with gausses speed approaching sonic levels - may be this is the reason.
That Renault video was pretty cool. The tough thing about F1 these days is, with all the money spent on technology, you don't get to see it on the track. It only shows up on YouTube videos and chatroom posts.
Should we email Matchet and ask him to explain this to us...supposedly if you email with a good question, they will cover it during one of the race weekend broadcasts. Mark
You got a more efficient air/fuel mixture and more cooling effect when you mount the injectors further away from the combustionchamber. And that will result in more hp. Negative aspects more fuel consumption.
If that's the case why are more manufacturer's going towards direct injection, Ferrari included? There has to be a solid reason why they're there.
Shoot the guy an e-mail I think it's a really good question and I want to know more about it after seeing that Renault video. The picture of the Ferrari injectors is just plain sexy.
Yes you are correct. the cooler the intake charge the better combustion and less pre detonation. This has really been used for quite some time. a lot of the high pitch wale of a an F-1 car is intake.. the trumpets are designed to flow air so that the charge is cooler and you get better combustion, trade off is less fule effeciency, but much more power with proper combustion.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2158273019926133763 There are several benefits of direct cylinder injection with spark-ignited, gasoline engines, but it's illegal in F1. First, it improves mass flow of the intake charge, since the fuel mass fraction does not have to pass through the ports and by the intake valves. This small (<10%), but useful, increase in air mass flow helps with power. Second, the reduction in charge temperature, due to the latent heat effect of the evaporating fuel, is more pronounced when the fuel is injected later in the compression cycle. Third, a measure of charge stratification can be achieved with a carefully directed fuel spray. This will allow a leaner A/F ratio to be used without detonation, and thus a lower fuel consumption. 2008 FIA F1 engine reg's: "5.7 Fuel systems 5.7.1 The pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors may not exceed 100 bar. Sensors must be fitted which directly measure the pressure of the fuel supplied to the injectors, these signals must be supplied to the FIA data logger. 5.7.2 Only one fuel injector per cylinder is permitted which must inject directly into the side or the top of the inlet port." f1board.
So in other words it's just a rule that must be followed without any of the pre-mentioned benefits of injecting closer to the cylinder?
If it was a V8 we'd never see a detailed picture like that released to the public since they're still relatively new engines.
They could mount the injectors nearer to the inlet valves because that would be "in the side of the inlet port". Manufacturers where going to direct injection because of fuel economy, emissions but they go away from that f.e. Audi because the gains wasn't as high as they thought. They are able to run leaner mixtures on partial throttle but on wot on the autobahn they need to enrich the fuel more then usual to keep the engine alive because of the lost cooling effect. Because of that overall fuel consumtion gains aren't as high as quoted befor they indroduced the first FSI engines. 2007 2.0l FSI VW/Audi Engine has 150hp in 1986-1988 a Opel/VW/Audi 2.0l Engine had 150hp too. What they do in 20 years they reduced noises, they reduced emissions and they more or better less reduced the fuel consumbtion. Also the engines get weaker they use aloy blocks and need to revert back to cast iron on the higher powered turbo modells because it wasn't durable. So on the engine sector the newest technology is not always best to get performance. For that you normaly get the best parts out of the early 90's because after that the targets of the european companys changed from performance to emissions and fuel consumption. thats why strange things happen in the tuning sector the customers upgrade their 2005 engines with 1988 parts wich are compatible to the new engines. But at least the Ecus are way better in newer cars.
I think they could mount the injectors nearer to the inlet valves because that would be "in the side of the inlet port". Manufacturers where going to direct injection because of fuel economy, emissions but they go away from that f.e. Audi because the gains wasn't as high as they thought. They are able to run leaner mixtures on partial throttle but on wot on the autobahn they need to enrich the fuel more then usual to keep the engine alive because of the lost cooling effect. Because of that overall fuel consumtion gains aren't as high as quoted befor they indroduced the first FSI engines. 2007 2.0l FSI VW/Audi Engine has 150hp in 1986-1988 a Opel/VW/Audi 2.0l Engine had 150hp too. What they do in 20 years they reduced noises, they reduced emissions and they more or better less reduced the fuel consumbtion. Also the engines get weaker they use aloy blocks and need to revert back to cast iron on the higher powered turbo modells because it wasn't durable. So on the engine sector the newest technology is not always best to get performance. For that you normaly get the best parts out of the early 90's because after that the targets of the european companys changed from performance to emissions and fuel consumption. thats why strange things happen in the tuning sector the customers upgrade their 2005 engines with 1988 parts wich are compatible to the new engines. But at least the Ecus are way better in newer cars.
Sorry but your information is wrong. The Audi 2.0 FSI in 2002 gave 150 BHP, in 2006 it gave 200, and in the newest update, 211 bhp and 260 ft lbs. All the engines that went to FSI gained horsepower and got better mileage. There's a reason Ferrari's next car will have FSI, just as that of every other manufacturer, and emissions is only half the equation.
That is the Turbo engine I compared the N/A engines. The Turbo engines from 1990 had 204hp with better fuel comsumption because of no restrictive emission regulations.
The Audi 2.0 is a turbo engine and Audi did not offer a 2.0 N/A with either the B6 or the B7, and I'm certain before that, either.
There are N/A FSI engines like the 150hp 2.0l fsi N/A engine wich is still in production. The Turbo FSI normally calles TFSI or T-FSI. In 2002 it was still the 1.8l Turbo engine with 150hp wich is another engine row then the FSI engines. The smalles TFSI engine i know is the 1.8 TFSI 160hp. But i maybe wrong with that that there is also a smaller TFSI available i'm working in the opel/vauxhall sector not the VAG sector mainly. The 2.0 fsi N/A is available in the audi A3 (8P, 8PA) f.e. or in several VW, Skoda, Seat VAG Group Companys.
Samy, again, I think your statistics may work for Europe or Germany, but they are different here. The 1.8L was turbo, as is the 2.0. The only N/A we have are the 6 and 8 cylinders. Our version of the A3 has the 2.0T, as well.
Yes i dont know wich engines they sell in other countrys. In europe they have more engine versions the A3 is also available with different turbo fsi, turbo diesel engines i think they got more then 10 engine versions in the actual A3. I compared the newest 2.0l fsi 150hp N/A with a old 2.0l 150hp N/A.
It is closed off to become an airbox. If you notice the two pin holder holes on either side, this is where the top of the airbox is attached. The whole design of the box actually helped aid the proper flow of air and air/fuel mixture. The air is directed by carbon fiber intake tubes.....We had one of these engines on an engine stand at the Ferrari display at the 2002 Dallas Auto show. The top of the airbox was off to allow viewing of the system.........
Great Engines... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Volkswagen_engines#170-272_hp_2.0_TFSI_I4 Direct injection isn't that new apparently... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_Direct_injection
