Homepage Garage Wiki Register Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
#Camaro6
Go Back   CAMARO6 > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction Discussions


Phastek Performance


Post Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-12-2022, 11:35 AM   #15
JANNETTYRACING

 
JANNETTYRACING's Avatar
 
Drives: BLUE CAMARO ZL1 1LE M6
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ON THE DYNO WATERBURY CT.
Posts: 15,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trochoidal View Post
That’s the plan for sure. This build will see some passes at the track but it will primarily remain a street car. I want to run full E with plenty of headroom. Minus the install of the pump, this should be a straight install. (We all know expectations never meet reality with regards to projects like this)

Between what Mike Jr., cjperformance, and airtroop accomplished the only real decision will be whether I stick with the Procharger or move to 2650. I’m hearing lead time for 2650 is 14 weeks. There’s enough time between now and spring before this project starts. If I do decide to go 2650, I’ll need to order that soon.
I have 2 2650s in stock. one Magnuson and one Edelbrock.

The Edelbrock has the port injection bungs already.

You can add mikes system without the plates.

Ted.
__________________
www.jannettyracing.com
Celebrating 35 years Performance parts, Installation, Fabrication, Dyno tuning, Remote custom tuning, and alignments. 203-753-7223 Waterbury CT. 06705
email tedj@jannettyracing.com
JANNETTYRACING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2022, 02:30 PM   #16
Trochoidal

 
Drives: 2017 Camaro 2SS A8
Join Date: May 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjperformance View Post
Just making some conversation and speculation...

I have zero experience with secondary port injection, but as a general rule simpler is better. I went with LT4 injectors & HPFP... + DSX low side... In hindsight, with similar goals maybe the only thing I would have done differently is go with even larger injectors and HPFP to run full E. Not sure if I would need a cam w/ larger fuel lobe at that point. So I think the deciding factor for me between larger capacity DI vs supplementary port would be whether I would need to add a cam to support DI only.

I like the idea of playing with secondary port injection, but for a primarily street driven setup... I might worry about the complexity of having two systems.

Just some thoughts, again pure speculation... With DI + Port... I would think risks are similar as with DI + Meth from a fueling perspective... Meaning a failure in the supplemental port inj might still allow the engine to run lean, where with ONLY DI if there's a pump failure, it would be more likely to get zero fuel, or not enough to keep runnning, where with supplemental... there might be enough fueling happening to run lean for longer?

Personally I would prefer to exhaust my DI fueling options (heh heh) before going with supplemental port. If you were doing it for fun, that's different! I would love to do it just for the tuning experience.
The supplemental port does promote a secondary system failure. To what extent there are failsafes built into the MAF Fusion, I donít know. Last night I started reading about this setup from the manufacture. Iíll read it thoroughly to learn what happens in the event of a failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFHOBBIES View Post
Any Idea which way you will tune? Are you going to tune off a second map or IPW base operation off of TPS?
Iíd prefer 2nd MAP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1LEornothing View Post
Considering vehicles like the C7 ZR1 and newer mustang gts come from the factory with both direct injection AND port fuel injection, I'd say the risk is rather low when the set up is implemented correctly. A meth pump is highly more susceptible to failure than a complementary port injection system in my opinion.
I agree the risk anticipated shouldnít be any greater than other after market electronics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EDFHOBBIES View Post
No not that easy the pcm and port module talk to each other. Harder to do e85 on that car to.
Two family members both running E85 on their Mustangs. I wouldnít say itís harder, just less convenient because of loading times from handheld. I donít recall the limitations on adding the flex sensor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING View Post
I have 2 2650s in stock. one Magnuson and one Edelbrock.

The Edelbrock has the port injection bungs already.

You can add mikes system without the plates.

Ted.
Thanks Ted. Iíve been watching you update the inventory of your current stock. What you started with sure isnít collecting dust.
__________________
Roto-Fab w/sound tube delete, Katech ported TB, Pray IM, Velossa, DD side markers, DSX FF, UPR Catch can, Halo brace, My custom vent gauge pod
Trochoidal is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Post Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.