Fuel injection expensive? What the...?

I was calling into a local talk show in Philadelphia tonight that was talking about NASCAR, and they had Larry McReynolds on as a guest. I asked if the time had come for NASCAR to update their technology such as replacing the carbs with fuel injection? Larry Mac said that the reason why NASCAR sticks with carbs is that the development of fuel injection would be very expensive almost to the point of being cost prohibitive.

Huh?

I don't buy this for a minute. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, tell me why. I can't believe that NASCAR can't mandate a fuel injection system that would get everyone on the same page, much like what happens with restrictor plates, and use strict controls as to what the teams can do with it. This doesn't seem to be an issue with Indy Cars, ALMS, Grand AM, or others (lets leave out F1), and those teams have lower annual budgets than most NASCAR teams. NASCAR already worked with it in the old Goody's Dash Series, which shocased 4 cylinder powered cars, if memory serves. NASCAR needs to join the state of the art, and that might make it an even more useful test bed for new technological innovations that Detroit might come up with in the years to come. If anyone knows about this, I'd like to hear it.

Now you know exactly how I feel.

I believe Goody's Dash used V6 engines.

I think a fuel injection system would be cheaper in the long run.

A sole mandated carberator being cheaper in the short run.

and sensible tyres too

My guess is that it would expensive for NASCAR to police fuel injection ...
I have seen it printed that traction control can be concealed in the fuel injection computer & is undetectable ...
NASCAR is set against the use of traction control, I don't know why because it would make the cars safer ...
it appears that NASCAR wants to avoid high technology at any cost ...
as always in NASCAR, take things the way they are or go away, that is NASCAR's policy. :s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Now you know exactly how I feel.

I believe Goody's Dash used V6 engines.

I think a fuel injection system would be cheaper in the long run.

A sole mandated carberator being cheaper in the short run.

---

Just fro clarification, the series started out as a 4-cylinder racing series, but changed the rules in 1998 after v-6's were phased out of the Busch series. The rules allowed either a 168 in. 13:1 4 clinder 2650 lbs, or a 268 in. v-6. 2750 lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaceFanStan

My guess is that it would expensive for NASCAR to police fuel injection ...
I have seen it printed that traction control can be concealed in the fuel injection computer & is undetectable ...
NASCAR is set against the use of traction control, I don't know why because it would make the cars safer ...
it appears that NASCAR wants to avoid high technology at any cost ...
as always in NASCAR, take things the way they are or go away, that is NASCAR's policy. :s

---

Yeah, it's entirely feasable to use fuel injection as a means of concealing traction control.

The easiest way to prevent this is to just have one common PCM. These would be controlled by the sanctioning body and could not be purchased from third party suppliers. NASCAR would only have to issue them in the same manner that they would issue wings or restrictor plates and require that each team change PCMs between practice(s), qualifying, and the race.

Grand AM does this and they're NASCAR's puppet. F1 did this and it eliminated traction control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Yeah, it's entirely feasable to use fuel injection as a means of concealing traction control.

The easiest way to prevent this is to just have one common PCM. These would be controlled by the sanctioning body and could not be purchased from third party suppliers. NASCAR would only have to issue them in the same manner that they would issue wings or restrictor plates and require that each team change PCMs between practice(s), qualifying, and the race.

Grand AM does this and they're NASCAR's puppet. F1 did this and it eliminated traction control.

---

This sounds feasable to me. This could work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

F1 did this and it eliminated traction control

---

Maybe ;)

Carburettors - how quaint! What year is this??

It would also reduce non-sanctioned testing because unlike wings and tires, custom made PCMs are hard to duplicate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

Yeah, it's entirely feasable to use fuel injection as a means of concealing traction control.

The easiest way to prevent this is to just have one common PCM. These would be controlled by the sanctioning body and could not be purchased from third party suppliers. NASCAR would only have to issue them in the same manner that they would issue wings or restrictor plates and require that each team change PCMs between practice(s), qualifying, and the race.

Grand AM does this and they're NASCAR's puppet. F1 did this and it eliminated traction control.

---

I don't know about the expense and the common, sealed computer would certainly eliminate the traction control concern.

Maybe NASCAR just figures it wouldn't add to the show or the appeal of the sport... I don't know. But I think with what's happening in automotive, NASCAR's hand is going to be forced. Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise), it's going to be harder and harder to get the OEM's to justify the expenditures, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaparral66

Larry Mac said that the reason why NASCAR sticks with carbs is that the development of fuel injection would be very expensive almost to the point of being cost prohibitive.

Huh?
I don't buy this for a minute. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, tell me why.

---

"the development of fuel injection would be very expensive"? Ha! and Ha!

No wonder you don't buy this. This statement ranks very highly on the bullometer.

The last new car sold in North American using a carburettor was the 1991 Ford Crown Victoria, and the last new car in the world was the 1996 Lada Niva. Heck even the Tata Nano which is aiming for a new car price of US$2013 uses Bosch multi-point injection - you'd be lucky to buy a set of race tyres for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise)

---

And carburettors do? We're talking ancient technology here. My Remington typewriter might be fun to use, but I'd find it very difficult to do a refresh on a webpage with it.

The racing in NASCAR is very good with the current technology ...
NASCAR is popular & has a large fanbase, in other words NASCAR is a success ...
I don't care that fuel injection isn't used. http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...ongue-anim.gif

(1 point has not been made, a carburetor has better throttle response !
this is done with the use of a fuel bowl & fuel squirters to give a fuel reserve ...
when the butterflies are quickly opened wide, a massive amount of fuel is introduced into the engine ...
extra fuel is squirted into the intake to mix with the increased air flow ...
it is old technology but it is very effective & BETTER than fuel injection IMO !) http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...ongue-anim.gif

No one argues with NASCAR's success, that's not the issue. The issue is about keeping up with current trends in technology that can benefit the consumer. For instance, my impression is that the Audi R10's incredible success at Le Mans, Sebring, etc. has had a big impact on the impression people have of diesels, which prior to that wasn't very good. They, along with Peugeot have probably wiped that away forever. This is a clear case where a manufacturer's success in racing has helped its consumer cars.

Thanks for the explanation on throttle response with carbs, Jag, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone else gets on and advocates for FI. But FI for the most part, is more efficient in a variety of situations in the "real world", such as high altitudes, up and down grades, cold starting, etc. I'd like to see NASCAR work with this and give Detroit an opportunity to use their techincal know to work with NASCAR in developing even more efficient FI designs. That way, Detroit can get more out of it's NASCAR involvement (and The Big Three needs all it can get right now outside of gov't bailouts).
I'm inclined to agree that carbs give better throttle response, but I don't think FI would retard performance even on a small scale on the big NASCAR V8 engine, and this certainly doesn't seem to be an issue with the other series we mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaparral66

No one argues with NASCAR's success, that's not the issue. The issue is about keeping up with current trends in technology that can benefit the consumer. For instance, my impression is that the Audi R10's incredible success at Le Mans, Sebring, etc. has had a big impact on the impression people have of diesels, which prior to that wasn't very good. They, along with Peugeot have probably wiped that away forever---(IF one is a moron. That engine and fuel are as closely related to street diesels as AA/F Hemis are to street engines)--- THis is a clear case where a manufacturer's success in racing has helped its consumer cars.

Thanks for the explanation on throttle response with carbs, Jag, though I wouldn't be surprised if someone else gets on and advocates for FI. But FI for the most part, is more efficient in a variety of situations in the "real world", such as high altitudes, up and down grades, cold starting, etc. I'd like to see NASCAR work with this and give Detroit an opportunity to use their techincal know to work with NASCAR in developing even more efficient FI designs. That way, Detroit can get more out of it's NASCAR involvement (and The Big Three needs all it can get right now outside of gov't bailouts).
I'm inclined to agree that carbs give better throttle response, but I don't think FI would retard performance even on a small scale on the big NASCAR V8 engine, and this certainly doesn't seem to be an issue with the other series we mentioned.

---

THere would be ZERO benefits to consumers as a spec. FI unit has less connection to the consumer market than a Holley carburettor.
One can buy a similar carb, no could buy or want the FI unit.

You boys are in the fairy land where if one one says fuel injection you all weak kneed an starry eyed.
The original timed, mechanical, injection system used by Bosch was developed by Bendix for AMC, in the fifties. That is half a century ago.
Bendix sold it to Bosch because AMC could not see it being worth the money to perfect it, so Bosch spend decades develping it.
But its electronic.
So what, the computer goes dead, you walk.

For a vehicle that has a limited prime power band, and carburetor is every bit as good as FI, and is still safe from the world of hackers.
If you think someone could not hack the unit, they YOU ARE naive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...s/viewpost.gif
Without something more that applies to the consumer market (engineering wise)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

And carburettors do? We're talking ancient technology here. My Remington typewriter might be fun to use, but I'd find it very difficult to do a refresh on a webpage with it.

---

That's not what I meant. NASCAR is currently more of a marketing exercise. It currently has very little to do with developing or testing road car technology(s). The whole point of the CoT and the (fairly recent) specness of the series is to prevent one manufacturer from gaining a competitive advantage over all others. That, in theory, makes NASCAR more about the drivers and less about the car (or brand). So what I meant was, in order to justify these heavy budgets, the manufacturers might have to have more consumer oriented engineering feedback from their NASCAR participation.

Everything I see in automotive says that the worst is yet to come in North American automotive... and the economy on whole. So we'll just have to wait and see how NASCAR deals with what is to come. I think it will certainly survive and be OK. But I think the NASCAR of 2010 or 2011 will be quite different from the NASCAR of 2008.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

THere would be ZERO benefits to consumers as a spec. FI unit has less connection to the consumer market than a Holley carburettor.
One can buy a similar carb, no could buy or want the FI unit.

You boys are in the fairy land where if one one says fuel injection you all weak kneed an starry eyed.
The original timed, mechanical, injection system used by Bosch was developed by Bendix for AMC, in the fifties. That is half a century ago.
Bendix sold it to Bosch because AMC could not see it being worth the money to perfect it, so Bosch spend decades develping it.
But its electronic.
So what, the computer goes dead, you walk.

For a vehicle that has a limited prime power band, and carburetor is every bit as good as FI, and is still safe from the world of hackers.
If you think someone could not hack the unit, they YOU ARE naive.

---

There are plenty of things can go wrong in an engine if the compter dies, so I'm not sure what that point is about.

My question is, how many times have you heard of anyone hacking into an engine computer? I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't hear about it on enough of a scale to be concerned about. True, you can't hack into a carb, but I'm certainly not aware of EFI hacking to be a major issue.

And Bob, NO ONE said anything about putting an F1 EFI unit in a regular consumer car. The point is that things learned in F1 racing (and sports car racing) often find themselves going into passenger cars, albeit scaled down to suit a regular passenger car's needs. A good example of this is paddle shifters, which you now see in passenger cars from a Ferrari to a Pontiac. Other things, like balance shafts, aerodynamics, sequential tranmissions, traction control, etc. were used to great extent in F1 (and other racing) and found form in passenger cars at a later date. It's not as if we're saying put a current Bridgestone F1 tire on a Honda Civic. But you can take what you learn from tire wear characteristics and use it on developing a tire for the Civic.

You're overlooking the costs that go into carburetor developement. These aren't off the shelf carbs we're talking about. Teams spend a lot of money improving on them. I mentioned the possibility of a spec carb, but since that wouldn't curb testing it makes a better short-term solution than long term solution.

And computers don't just die on their own, they only break as a response to something else breaking (like a fuel injector shorting out).

Carby's are just old technology, not saying they are no good, just that they are old.

Fuel injection with computers brings a heap of new variables into the fold. There are more areas to cheat and more dollars that can be spent to improve performance.

I love the idea of fuel injection and computers but will be against it on the side of parity and keeping costs down. If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybak

Carby's are just old technology, not saying they are no good, just that they are old.

Fuel injection with computers brings a heap of new variables into the fold. There are more areas to cheat and more dollars that can be spent to improve performance.

I love the idea of fuel injection and computers but will be against it on the side of parity and keeping costs down. If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

Ray

---

That's already happening; in just about every racing series, and certainly in NASCAR. Again, looking at other series such as the IRL, ALMS, and Grand Am just to name a few, I don't see outrageous spending going on just with EFI. If the sanctioning body specifies a certain type with a feasable set of restrictions, like they have in those series, I find it hard to believe it couldn't work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raybak

If we introduce FI and computers then the team with the most dollars wins.

---

So... you're saying that nothing will change? :D

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

When Larry says FI would be expensive, what he really is saying is the money spent on trying to find gray areas in the rules would be expensive. No one can do much with the carb...and the racing is pretty damned close isn't it? THAT is the real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

When Larry says FI would be expensive, what he really is saying is the money spent on trying to find gray areas in the rules would be expensive. No one can do much with the carb...and the racing is pretty damned close isn't it? THAT is the real reason.

---

Well, nobody said it would be easy...

I am absolutely in agreement with Larry Mac, 100% against fuel injection, computers, and modern engines in NASCAR.



:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

You guys don't get it do ya? The reason NASCAR has Carbs is because everyone in the sport understands them, there are no real ways to improve them and keep the carb a carb, and NASCAR has all the interest in putting on a great show, not to give anyone a platform to showcase their technology.

Fuel injection computers can be hacked and cannot be controlled. Carbs....well most of the ways to cheat with them have been well documented.

---

There are lots of ways to improve a carb. Do you think they just install them without modifications?

Computers can be kept out of the hands of teams when not in the cars. That's how you keep them from being hacked.

I'd also like to point out that an IndyCar team operates on one fourth the budget of a Sprint Cup team with fuel injection and modern technology. Even if you double the IndyCar budget to compensate for less races in a season, it's still cheaper.

Andrew, the engines of your IndyCars are sealed and controlled by Honda. Otherwise that budget would sky rocket. As for NASCAR, they police everything and the carb is basically a part that is not open to intrpretation by the rules. You can tweak the heads. You can use different cam settings and valve angles. You can massage the manifold passages and polish them. But you cannot touch anything but the jetting on the carb. Whatever R and D you could do with a Carb you might not get enough to make it worth your time..

I wouldn't object to a sealed and controlled engine as long as each manufactuer makes their own.

You would never polish the intake manifold passages with a carbureted engine, but you would still want to modify them. With fuel injection, you would just polish it and not think twice. With fuel injection, you can't improve on a polish job.

I'm talking about a sealed PCM that gets changed after every session on the track. How exactly is someone going to hack that? Formula One teams haven't figured out how to hack that yet. And you know they're trying. If they had succeeded, this wouldn't of happened last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekx5bTSXjos

I don't see a problem with carbs and old engines. On a smaller scale the series we race in uses GM engines from 1988 and carbs introduced in IIRC 1964 but it doesn't stop it being a close series...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by call_me_andrew

I wouldn't object to a sealed and controlled engine as long as each manufactuer makes their own.

You would never polish the intake manifold passages with a carbureted engine, but you would still want to modify them. With fuel injection, you would just polish it and not think twice. With fuel injection, you can't improve on a polish job.

I'm talking about a sealed PCM that gets changed after every session on the track. How exactly is someone going to hack that? Formula One teams haven't figured out how to hack that yet. And you know they're trying. If they had succeeded, this wouldn't of happened last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekx5bTSXjos

---

Andrew, you keep missing the point. If it AINT Broke...don't fix it!!! Why does NASCAR need to go to Fuel Injection. First off, you polish an intake manifold whether there is a Carb or FI. Smooth airflow in and out of the motor is always required no matter what sits on top of the motor.

Secondly, all the manufacturers and teams have been trying for years to gain any advantage and the racing is still close. Putting Fuel injection in just adds another variable not there now for the rich teams to find ways to pull ahead with; which the last time I looked is what NASCAR is trying to avoid. They WANT close racing and they get that now for the most part. Putting Fuel Injection on the motors would not help this and likely hurt it....

You don't want to polish a carubreted manifold because if the walls are too smooth, the fuel separates from the air and is no longer atomized. This isn't an issue with fuel injected engines because the fuel doesn't meet the air until just before the air passes through the valve.

I've always held the philosophy that if it ain't broke, you're not trying hard enough. I know the racing should be close, but it also has to be done on the cheap. I believe that in the long run, a sealed fuel injection system would be chaper than an open carburetor.

Andrew, they don't spend any money on R and D on Carbs now...so I don't know where you get the idea that the Carbs are expensive. As for the belief you cant polish intake manifolds, they are smoothed up a lot more than stock trust me.

A sealed fuel injection system may very well not be more than what they are spending but why ask engine tuners to learn new tricks and do more research on tuning? THAT costs the money. The guys building the engines know the Carb like they know their own hand and they cant do much more than change jets with it. They are forced to concentrate on cams, timing adjustments and port and polish work to get the power. Adding another learning curve with FI will just increase the need for more dyno time to gain??????? NOTHING they really don't get already.

An intake manifold for a carb isn't polished to a super-smooth finish inside the runners.
The intake is ported to open it up & the ports matched to the heads.
A course grit grinding stone is used to avoid "puddling" of the fuel-air mixture.

As to carb modifications, nascar limits venturi size but the team can change the jets, rods, accelerator pumps, etc.
Many little tweaks can be made to the carb to adjust the carb to a projected power band.
Track size, degree of banking, etc. will be used to determine the power band.
NOTE : Holley sells the nascar teams a carb specific for nascar & it is legal out of the box. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaceFanStan

An intake manifold for a carb isn't polished to a super-smooth finish inside the runners.
The intake is ported to open it up & the ports matched to the heads.
A course grit grinding stone is used to avoid "puddling" of the fuel-air mixture.

As to carb modifications, nascar limits venturi size but the team can change the jets, rods, accelerator pumps, etc.
Many little tweaks can be made to the carb to adjust the carb to a projected power band.
Track size, degree of banking, etc. will be used to determine the power band.
NOTE : Holley sells the nascar teams a carb specific for nascar & it is legal out of the box. :D

---

Stan, would you then agree with me though that for the most part, most of the R and D on Carbs with NASCAR teams likely has been done and it is more of a black art to set jets to accomodate humidity and air pressure on the day of the race? I don't see money spent on Carb development but I do know that the amount of dyno time that a fuel injected motor would cause in the first year would cost a lot of dough?

Yes, I agree there is no R&D for carbs.
All the teams will have notes with what jets & etc they ran @ which track.
If weather conditions (humidy, temperature, etc) are different than usual @ the track ...
then the engine man may make a decision to run different jets and/or etc.
With information sharing so prevelent, even the new teams will have access to manufacturer's notes on the carbs.

Which is why then McReynolds is right on the money that Fuel Injection would increase costs, because the R and D needed to make hp and learn what they need to do would HAVE to be done and that would cost money for the first couple of years....