Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
haha php arnt good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
He probably missed the fact that it was a PHP chip... But then again he is a beans lover :tongue:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
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.
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
280 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Discussion Starter #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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
250 Posts
Look at rosewood injectors probably the best option for budget build
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
haha php arnt good?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
Didn't say that at all, but there are better options in my opinion.



I admit, I'm a huge ****** :laugh:



you are definatly entitled to your opinion, and i am not saying your wrong. I have not personally run any of them so i dont know, but i dont think you have either:taze: :D but i think it is hard to go wrong with any of the custom tuners. it gets to the point where there is only slight differences, and it comes down to a matter of preferance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
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.
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
280 Posts
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......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
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
 

·
Coal Rolling = Posing
Joined
·
9,871 Posts
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.
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 ^^^^
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
280 Posts
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

The reason I mentioned this is that I can increase pulse width to the point that I can cause a torque peak that is MUCH HIGHER (like 100 ft. lbs) about 300-400 RPM earlier in the run because injection pressure is low and the burn takes FOREVER....causing a higher average "push" on the crown of the piston.

But, as you put it, it's not the best idea. I can run the same HP level while decreasing the torque output by at least 100 ft. lbs. earlier in the run.

chvyrkr said:
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.
Actually, even AB/AD injectors can benefit from having larger nozzles installed. As long as the injection pulse width is shortened to accommodate the nozzle change, the injectors will perform better than stock. The reason for this has to do with injection duration. A split-shot injector "wastes" some of the pulse width (not actually injecting any fuel) and from what we've seen, anything over about 3.5 mS of injection duration causes a drop in ICP - REGARDLESS of injector "shot type" or nozzle size. By going with a 80% or 100% nozzle on an AB/AD, we can keep the pulse width low and the injection pressure high. It works, but doing anything to a split is really a waste of time and money since the ultimate power potential of an AB or AD is still going to max out in the low 300's.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
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.
You prefer time slips over dyno sheets? I'm a huge fan of having both resources available... but time slips leave a lot of variables to overcome. Reaction time, traction, how good of a driver are we talking about, auto vs straight drive, size of tires, temperature, how good is track prep, etc. I see 400hp mustangs and camaro's at the tracks pulling garbage times because they cant drive and go sideways half way down the track. But we know its a 400hp car. So are you saying that you trust a 14-15second timeslip over their 400hp dyno sheet?

The reason I mentioned this is that I can increase pulse width to the point that I can cause a torque peak that is MUCH HIGHER (like 100 ft. lbs) about 300-400 RPM earlier in the run because injection pressure is low and the burn takes FOREVER....causing a higher average "push" on the crown of the piston.

But, as you put it, it's not the best idea. I can run the same HP level while decreasing the torque output by at least 100 ft. lbs. earlier in the run.



Actually, even AB/AD injectors can benefit from having larger nozzles installed. As long as the injection pulse width is shortened to accommodate the nozzle change, the injectors will perform better than stock. The reason for this has to do with injection duration. A split-shot injector "wastes" some of the pulse width (not actually injecting any fuel) and from what we've seen, anything over about 3.5 mS of injection duration causes a drop in ICP - REGARDLESS of injector "shot type" or nozzle size. By going with a 80% or 100% nozzle on an AB/AD, we can keep the pulse width low and the injection pressure high. It works, but doing anything to a split is really a waste of time and money since the ultimate power potential of an AB or AD is still going to max out in the low 300's.
And the reason you pull torque out down low I assume is to prevent the rods from taking a 1-way trip? Is this only a worry on PMR's?
 

·
Supporting Vendor
Joined
·
280 Posts
You prefer time slips over dyno sheets? I'm a huge fan of having both resources available... but time slips leave a lot of variables to overcome. Reaction time, traction, how good of a driver are we talking about, auto vs straight drive, size of tires, temperature, how good is track prep, etc. I see 400hp mustangs and camaro's at the tracks pulling garbage times because they cant drive and go sideways half way down the track. But we know its a 400hp car. So are you saying that you trust a 14-15second timeslip over their 400hp dyno sheet?
That's a very good point. I guess the way I see it (since I'm overly practical) is that it's hard to drive a fun, high-horsepower truck down the street while it's strapped down to a big roller. Similarly, it's also hard to find a stretch of highway (or city street) that doubles as a sanctioned track. Think legality here........

Sure, if you KNOW you have power (and about how much), it's fun to toss the numbers around while sitting at a campfire telling ghost stories with your friends. On the other hand, it's even MORE fun to get a couple of your buddies in the truck and watch their eyes roll back in their heads when standing on the loud pedal.

I guess what I'm saying is that a dyno number or a trap speed is only an indication of a horsepower value that has little meaning short of bragging rights. How the truck runs and how much fun it is to drive are far more important in my book than to just go around saying that someone has "XXX" (or even "XXXX") horsepower these days. It's a cool feat to say you're above 600 RWHP, but how practical is it in day-to-day driving and how often are you really going to USE that power while tooling through the school zone?

In this instance, a guy is looking for a small increase in power and he's wondering about how to get there. My suggestion in a case like this is ALWAYS going to be a 160/0% injector. I do agree with your earlier comment (85 305) concerning looking for a different injector vendor if the only specs given on the injectors is a horsepower number.

85 305 said:
And the reason you pull torque out down low I assume is to prevent the rods from taking a 1-way trip? Is this only a worry on PMR's?
It's a worry for all engines regardless of connecting rod material/manufacturing processes. I can throw a few numbers around for you though just for comparison. Data taken from my 253K-mile 2000 regular cab 2wd with EVERYTHING stock except for some 160/100% injectors and a muffler off of a 1995-1997 truck.

We'll go from a very low torque peak of 2100 RPM (due to the low injection pressure from excessive pulse width). It made 860 ft. lbs. torque with the peak at 2100 RPM. That torque number at that RPM equals 340 RWHP. By ONLY taking away some pulse width (allowing higher injection pressure and limiting fuel until higher in the RPM range) I was able to move the 340 RWHP number up nearly 500 RPM. Guess what that did to the torque...... 690 ft. lbs. at the same HP level. The connecting rods SHOULD be much happier.

Both peak HP numbers (~400 give or take) still occurred at about the same RPM (2800-2900 RPM due to limited fuel quantity), but the difference in the power application to the rear wheels (not to mention the torque difference of 170 ft. lbs.) makes for a smoother balls-out acceleration event too. While the torque with these trucks (when adding more fuel) will always be somewhat "peaky", slowing the torque rise makes for a flatter curve for horsepower and actually results in a more controlled (wheels NOT spinning) acceleration event. :icon_ford:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
693 Posts
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]:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,630 Posts
hehe see, you'll get it :D
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top