Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

injectors or nozzles?

8K views 51 replies 7 participants last post by  85_305 
#1 ·
Been looking around for injectors or nozzles, which is better? I was going to keep a mild set up on my pick up but that changed. I don't really wanna spend a lot more but I'm sure if I add injectors or nozzles, I will need a better HPOP, a turbo to go along with it and a clutch looking at a 450 hp south bend. As well as getting my chip redone. That is all I wanna spend tho. I was looking at nozzles that add 25 - 50 hp. They don't say anywhere the cc. With my mods now I imagine I'm pushing around 345ish? Another member said about the same. Adding the things I want would I need anything else to make it reliable?:dunno: It's my daily driver. All input is appreciated.
 
#2 ·
If your looking somewhere at injectors that only say hp gains but not the size of the injectors and nozzles, you aren't looking in the right places.

The clutch sounds fine. But you might be maxing that 450hp out w/ injectors.

Stage 1 injectors and GOOD custom tuning will make 400whp on a SD... thats closer to 450crank hp. This will be around 800ft-lbs. That 450hp clutch will be destroyed most likely. You wont need an hpop or turbo w/ stage 1's.

With the crappy chip you have right now, I'd say you are closer to 300-320whp and 650ish ft-lbs to the wheels.
 
#9 ·
Didn't say that at all, but there are better options in my opinion.

He probably missed the fact that it was a PHP chip... But then again he is a beans lover :tongue:
I admit, I'm a huge ****** :laugh:

It doesn't matter one bit who does the tuning for a truck for stock injectors. You will see a MAXIMUM of 300-320 rear wheel horsepower no matter what else is done (and I'm not talking fudged or corrected DYNO numbers; take it to the track). It takes fuel to make power and there is only so much horsepower stock injectors will make.
I've seen dyno's that prove otherwise.... not to get into a pissing match. It's not only fuel, its how you use the fuel.

My pickup has 177k on it. Only had it for about 500 miles now. I appreciate all the feedback but no one has really answered my main question lol. Which are better for a budget and a good 25-50 hp gain? Nozzles or injectors. I know injectors are better but will nozzles do a decent job? What part of the factory fuel filter setup is prone to leaks?
I thought I already answered this...

Nozzles on stock injectors wont do ****. These babydick injectors are maxed out very quickly. Get bigger injectors.

Look at rosewood injectors probably the best option for budget build
Like I said. Cant beat rosewoods.
 
#4 · (Edited)
He probably missed the fact that it was a PHP chip... But then again he is a beans lover :tongue:
 
#5 ·
how many miles ar on the truck? some new injectors may be in order anyway. otherwise there isnt much you can do to make it more reliable you have the basics covered. possibly get rid of the factory fuel filter set up, they are prone to leaks.
 
#6 ·
It doesn't matter one bit who does the tuning for a truck for stock injectors. You will see a MAXIMUM of 300-320 rear wheel horsepower no matter what else is done (and I'm not talking fudged or corrected DYNO numbers; take it to the track). It takes fuel to make power and there is only so much horsepower stock injectors will make.
 
#14 ·
This ^^^^

My pickup has 177k on it. Only had it for about 500 miles now. I appreciate all the feedback but no one has really answered my main question lol. Which are better for a budget and a good 25-50 hp gain? Nozzles or injectors. I know injectors are better but will nozzles do a decent job? What part of the factory fuel filter setup is prone to leaks?
Nozzles are great, if you have more fuel than you have time to push fuel out of the injector.

But, since a 7.3 injector is an all in one deal with no injection pump behind it trying to push out more fuel than you have time for...

Then there's no sense in upgrading a nozzle when the fuel load of factory available fuel can be pushed out well within the window of crank rotation were burning fuel makes power.

In short, if you only want a little more power, do a 160/stock injector, otherwise known as a stage one.

And as long as you keep the filter bowl leak free, and the in-tank pickup in good shape, the stock SD fuel system will support a 238cc injector.

Didn't say that at all, but there are better options in my opinion.

I've seen dyno's that prove otherwise.... not to get into a pissing match. It's not only fuel, its how you use the fuel.
I've driven both PHP and Beans tunes on my trucks. I like PHP and Beans alot. The only reason I run Jonathan at Beans tunes over PHP, is Beans is about an hour from me, which makes reburns, tweaks, etc... Very nice and easy.

They are both excellent tuners, with very similar styles. The biggest thing that sets them apart, is smoke levels. PHP tunes tend to run a little cleaner, at near equal power levels.

And dyno's lie... Period. Physics don't lie... Period.

So when you see a truck dyno higher than normal numbers, take it to a quarter mile strip, and see how fast it's going at the traps. Speed of a known object with a known weight in a known distance never lies.

And I'm not talking about ET, I'm talking Trap Speed. ET is wildly more variable than Trap.

I've seen countless dynos of Beans running 40whp/100ft-lbs+ on similar tuning as other guys. That in my book = the best.
I love Beans, so don't get me wrong here...

But no factory injectored truck is gonna do over 330.

The energy per part of fuel just isn't there.

Plain ol, not there...

Unless one can back up that claim using multiple dynamometers, it's all just a number-chucking pissing match.

In my case, I made 385 RWHP on one dyno at 930 ft. above sea level on a 90 degree day vs. 402 RWHP on a different dyno (same tune and no hardware changes) a few weeks later at 4000 ft. above sea level on an 85 degree day (sans any corrections). My track time and speed at 900-ish ft. above sea level backs up the 402 number though.......Weird. There's a 17 HP difference right there....but shouldn't I have "dyno'd" LESS horsepower at 4 times the elevation?

I'm not making accusations or pointing fingers, but dyno numbers are NOT the end-all, be-all. A dynamometer is a tuning tool. It is used to measure gains or losses of power in a semi-controlled environment over the course of tuning/parts changes. A baseline is made and every change can be graphed out to see what changes did what. Running a truck on a dyno in Anywhereville, NM and getting a baseline there is fine. Just make sure to use the same dyno (preferably the same day or time of day within a few days) after modifications have been made. To get a baseline number on one dynamometer in March and then change tuning three months later just to subsequently "dyno" 2000 miles away on a completely different dynamometer will never give an accurate representation of what has been done or what "concrete" power number has been made. Track times don't lie....they just rely on very accurate data.

I bet that extra 100 ft. lbs. you're talking about comes along pretty early in the rpm window......
This ^^^^
 
#7 ·
My pickup has 177k on it. Only had it for about 500 miles now. I appreciate all the feedback but no one has really answered my main question lol. Which are better for a budget and a good 25-50 hp gain? Nozzles or injectors. I know injectors are better but will nozzles do a decent job? What part of the factory fuel filter setup is prone to leaks?
 
#11 ·
Hmm. I wrote "I'm a huge Bean-er" but apparently you cannot say ****** in one sentence.

I've seen countless dynos of Beans running 40whp/100ft-lbs+ on similar tuning as other guys. That in my book = the best.
 
#12 ·
Unless one can back up that claim using multiple dynamometers, it's all just a number-chucking pissing match.

In my case, I made 385 RWHP on one dyno at 930 ft. above sea level on a 90 degree day vs. 402 RWHP on a different dyno (same tune and no hardware changes) a few weeks later at 4000 ft. above sea level on an 85 degree day (sans any corrections). My track time and speed at 900-ish ft. above sea level backs up the 402 number though.......Weird. There's a 17 HP difference right there....but shouldn't I have "dyno'd" LESS horsepower at 4 times the elevation?

I'm not making accusations or pointing fingers, but dyno numbers are NOT the end-all, be-all. A dynamometer is a tuning tool. It is used to measure gains or losses of power in a semi-controlled environment over the course of tuning/parts changes. A baseline is made and every change can be graphed out to see what changes did what. Running a truck on a dyno in Anywhereville, NM and getting a baseline there is fine. Just make sure to use the same dyno (preferably the same day or time of day within a few days) after modifications have been made. To get a baseline number on one dynamometer in March and then change tuning three months later just to subsequently "dyno" 2000 miles away on a completely different dynamometer will never give an accurate representation of what has been done or what "concrete" power number has been made. Track times don't lie....they just rely on very accurate data.

I bet that extra 100 ft. lbs. you're talking about comes along pretty early in the rpm window......
 
#13 ·
I bet that extra 100 ft. lbs. you're talking about comes along pretty early in the rpm window......
That's the one reason I don't look at torque numbers. I don't like low rpm power, even more so now with 250s on pmrs
 
#18 ·
I agree w/ comparing ET's and dyno #'s... both of those being provided are the best way of determining the trucks performance.

I would much rather have that additional 170ft-lbs and lose 500rpms worth of peak hp, unless that HP is held longer throughout the RPM range. IE, lowering that torque gains you a flatter power curve throughout.
 
#21 ·
I would much rather have that additional 170ft-lbs and lose 500rpms worth of peak hp,
I don't think you followed what I was saying.

The PEAK horsepower was the same and occurred at nearly the same RPM. The rate at which the power comes on with the limited fuel is much smoother. As per your previous example of Beans being able to make 100 more ft. lbs. than anybody else that's ever touched tuning software, I wanted to show how it can be done. Sure, I can run 860 ft. lbs. at 2100 RPM with 160/100% nozzles, but I like less smoke and controlled acceleration (since it helps with trap speeds). As an aside, I am no expert drag-racer. I have made five trips down the track with my truck. It's easy to feel the difference just off the line running twice - one with each type of tune. The first is a messy, wheel-spinning good time. Being as though the truck is only 2wd, it's important to have no wheel spin.

85 305 said:
unless that HP is held longer throughout the RPM range. IE, lowering that torque gains you a flatter power curve throughout.
The problem here is that we're fighting two separate battles. Nope, peak power is not held longer, nor does it come up to peak power sooner. The first problem is fuel quantity available per injection event. 160cc is only going to last so long when 3.5 mS at 3000 PSI equals an empty injector. More capacity and a larger nozzle will extend that out farther. However, the QUALITY of the injection event is much better (less heat, less smoke, etc.) and the engine may actually live longer due to less stress.

Debating this is much the same as debating "which tuner is better". I have VERY specific tastes. The way I feel a truck should run and drive is WORLDS different than what most others would consider "acceptable". It's why I NEVER toot my own horn as far as tuning is concerned. I feel people should try a lot of different roads as far as tuning goes......and then stay with what they like the best. Heck, I don't even run Bill's tuning. It's not that it's bad or that there's anything wrong with it....it's just not MY style. He knows this. Although there are thousands of people running his programming and loving every minute of it, there are other people performing tuning that do things differently (be it just a little or completely different) and maybe another tuning company would be better suited to those people who need something that's just a bit more this-or-that. I have run A LOT of different tuning. I never found one that did everything just right, but I found a lot that did SOMETHING better than another. Combining them wasn't an option, so I started doing it myself.


CowboyCody said:
Ok all this talk about tuning is driving me crazy, I need some tunes for my truck! when will the new FU chip be coming out!? i am very impatiently waiting (Sigh) pretty soon i guess i will have to make 85_305 happy and order some Beans tunes!
That's up to Bill. I just do tuning. :D
 
#19 ·
Ok all this talk about tuning is driving me crazy, I need some tunes for my truck! when will the new FU chip be coming out!?:taze: i am very impatiently waiting :D (Sigh) pretty soon i guess i will have to make 85_305 happy and order some Beans tunes! :wink[3]:
 
#20 ·
hehe see, you'll get it :D
 
#22 ·
I appreciate the input and the break-down of what you meant.

But if the tables were turned, and that 170 ft-lbs was able to be controlled via 4wd, then why would you not want that torque on earlier? 2100rpms is really not considered "low rpm" in a diesel... 1500-1700rpm's I would consider low.
 
#25 ·
You realize the low rpm torque is what kills 7.3s right? If you look at the higher hp 7.3s that are getting held together their torque numbers are fairly low in comparison. My torque numbers are probably EXTREMELY low to hold a pmr block together at 500+hp. I would rather just do without that 170ft-lbs and have my motor hold together. The lower on the torque numbers come the more likely to destroy the motor.
 
#23 ·
my humble opinion on the subject is that i would rather have the power come on a little slower so it dosent seem "jumpy" partly because i have a manual, and partly because i like the powerstroke for its smooth power band as compared to the cummins, and i want it to stay that way. with that being said 500rpms difference isnt that much, and it all comes down to style and preferance. we should all just be happy there is so much to choose from that is good so that we can have more of what we want.
 
#26 · (Edited)
my humble opinion on the subject is that i would rather have the power come on a little slower so it dosent seem "jumpy"
Don't get me wrong here. I'm not talking about a truck being "jumpy" at all. I'm not talking about a sensitive accelerator pedal or an on/off feel to it. Right now, I'm strictly talking about going from 0% Accelerator pedal position to 100% APP in as little amount of time as possible. The "jumpy" characteristic is adjusted in a VERY DISSIMILAR WAY than what the discussion has been about.
:D
 
#37 ·
Well... if the TQ number is one with low values at peak, then it's not gonna hurt anything.

But, we're not talking about low numbers so... It's gonna tear it up.

High TQ under 2000 will tear things up, if it's used regularly. Push that TQ peak up a bit, and you're safer, and I think you'll find that the truck runs just as well, if not better.

It's not as if the tuner is pulling all power all together out at low RPM's.
 
#39 ·
I agree with this post.
 
#41 ·
:hail:

That thing is disgusting. I love how the 7.3 screams when its pushing 1k hp. Congrats man.

But what were the before/after hp/tq? I couldnt' make anything out.
 
#43 ·
So what are before/after tq readings??

I'm not sure that ET's will appreciate dropping 700ft-lbs but gaining 20hp... nor would towing.
 
#46 ·
As I stated before, when this (or any other truck in a competition tune) shifts, the drop in RPM's is landing at an *equal to / increase in* power, so the loss of low RPM torque does exactly nothing, not a thing, no noticeable effect, on acceleration... Period.

Your truck doesn't care what torque is, when it's in the powerband.

I promise.

And we're back to the whole dyno-queen/drag-queen dick swinging contest :lol: :rofl:
Mike drives that truck all the time. Still has a stereo and AC. And passes colorado emissions test on a 600 hp fuel only tune.
 
#44 ·
It doesn't matter in this case because I'm absolutely positive that this guy isn't going to be towing anything with this tune. However, the engine will be happy making the same amount of power (on the dyno, which is just a bragging-rights game) without having the same amount of torque trying to push the crankshaft out of the bottom of the block.

If you want to know specifics, ask that guy. He uses PHP's tuning software, but I don't know him personally. All I know is that he's putting down an incredible amount of power with a 7.3L and keeping it together at the same time.
 
#45 ·
And we're back to the whole dyno-queen/drag-queen dick swinging contest :lol: :rofl:
 
#50 ·
In that case I believe I'm in agreeance and understand what you are saying. Yes, I believe pulling that torque out did indeed shorten his powerband of the truck.
 
#52 ·
Stil lreading that thread, but the gist of it is "hp vs tq", which I'm aware of their functions. Will reply when totally finished.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top