Temporary Archives >> 6.0L Power Stroke Engine and Drivetrain

Pages: 1
Chipn
Member
Member # 40662
Reged: 03/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Colorado
Pilot Injection
#1856003 - 06/17/04 11:35 PM

Could somebody please explaine to me what Pilot Injection does. Could sombody also tell me why it was taken off the trucks? Thank you
Matt

Guzzler
Member
Member # 43586
Reged: 05/20/04
Posts: 206
Loc: Upstate South Carolina
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856068 - 06/18/04 12:19 AM

Pilot injection is what made my truck quiet so I could order at the McDonalds drive thru without the order taker saying "Can you repeat that?". Now I have to shut it down sometime

They disabled mine upon flashing it. The reason for discontinuing was something to do with an rpm fluctuation problem that the Ford wizards could not solve. So they stopped installing it!

Chipn
Member
Member # 40662
Reged: 03/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Colorado
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856075 - 06/18/04 12:22 AM

Thank you but mechanically what did it do the the injectors to make it so quiet.

Guzzler
Member
Member # 43586
Reged: 05/20/04
Posts: 206
Loc: Upstate South Carolina
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856094 - 06/18/04 12:31 AM

I am not sure but I recall reading a thread somewhere that I think said it injected a small amout of diesel just prior to the piston reaching TDC causing a small ignition just prior to the main fuel injection into the cylinder. Sort of causing a burn rather the normal detonation/explosion noise you hear.

Chipn
Member
Member # 40662
Reged: 03/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Colorado
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856100 - 06/18/04 12:36 AM

Ok thankyou Guzzler If anybody find out any more I would like to know. Thanks

Edited by Chipn (06/18/04 12:37 AM)

dgreen1069
Member
Member # 28701
Reged: 01/19/03
Posts: 133
Loc: Northern Virginia
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856156 - 06/18/04 01:20 AM

Guzzler hit it right on the nose. From what I have read, Ford found out that their PCM's didn't have enough computing power to effectively run the pilot injection program. It was removed from the current reflashes to improve idle stability.

Chipn
Member
Member # 40662
Reged: 03/21/04
Posts: 51
Loc: Colorado
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856179 - 06/18/04 01:42 AM

Thanks guys for the info.

Matt

grounder
Member
Member # 12214
Reged: 03/21/01
Posts: 1598
Loc: Butler Pa.
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856277 - 06/18/04 07:58 AM

It was also originally designed to Cut NOX emissions for a more complete Burn of the Fuel shot.The Splitshot Injector in the 7.3 doesnt really have a great track record either,But the 6.0 injector is essentially a single-shot design injector and the Prime and main fuel shots are controlled by the electronics and are not Built into the Injector plunger and body like the 7.3 Type splitshot Injector.

PoppaSmurf
Member
Member # 30342
Reged: 03/11/03
Posts: 1403
Loc: Austin, TX
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856364 - 06/18/04 09:12 AM

Pilot injection, as I understand it, is as follows.

Just before the main injection event, the injector will send a small amount of fuel into the cylinder to get the burning process started. At a short amount of time after that, the inject will deliver the remainder of the fuel needed for that piston's firing event. By starting the burn process early, the main injection event is quieter.

The reason Ford did away with the pilot injection in the 03 built engines was because of high pressure oil fall off. The oil rails couldn't handle the volume of HP oil to support the additional firing events. So PI was disabled in the 03's.

For the 04 (after 09/29/03) engines, a newly redesigned oil rail (wavey rails) was implemented. This greatly reduced the pressure fall off of the multiple injection events and PI was reinstated. The next limitation was the injectors themselves. These injectors apparently can't reliably handle the multiple injection events and Ford was still having problems with the rough idle and poor running engines.

PI was put to rest for good and another method was devised to try to quiet the engine at idle speeds. Ford must have had problems with this as well, because that method is no longer being used either.

Right now, the 6.0L diesel is on par with the 7.3L for noise levels.
Side by side, my 2004 6.0L diesel is as loud as my father's 7.3L. Only the tone is different. (I know for some, this is big hitter, but in my case, I'm just delighted to have a great running engine. )

I don't believe the PCM was ever the problem which lead to the disabling of PI.

Happy Truckin,
Brian.

StuartV
Member
Member # 26586
Reged: 11/18/02
Posts: 437
Loc: Tallahassee, FL
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856462 - 06/18/04 10:19 AM

Quote:

The next limitation was the injectors themselves. These injectors apparently can't reliably handle the multiple injection events




I've seen this explanation before and I have to say, I don't see how it can be correct.

Pilot injection is only used at idle, so we're talking about injection events at something like 700 RPMs. Using pilot injection means two injection events per compression stroke (my understanding, anyway), which is no more often than having one injection event per compression stroke at 1400 RPMs.

The 6.0 runs just fine at full throttle at, say, 3000 RPMs. In that scenario, it's firing an injection event a LOT more often than it would for pilot injection at idle. AND each injection is squirting a LOT more fuel in there at a time, than it would be at idle.

So, I don't buy the statement that the injectors themselves can't "handle" doing pilot injection. Ford may not be able to figure out how to program it, but that's a different story. If I'm wrong on this, somebody please explain why.

koolkat812
Member
Member # 35492
Reged: 10/12/03
Posts: 1251
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856463 - 06/18/04 10:19 AM

So if my truck has the quiet idle, then I have pilot injection?? Or is it something having to do with the EGR??

Thanks

teamroper60
Member
Member # 29828
Reged: 02/22/03
Posts: 2320
Loc: Troy, MO
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856483 - 06/18/04 10:29 AM

Granted, I don't fully understand how our injectors work, but I do know they use high pressure oil to function. I also know that an engine at idle has lower oil pressure than one at speed. Isn't the HPOP engine driven as well?? Perhaps the HPOP doesn't make as much pressure at idle and therefore, the injectors aren't able to function as well with the lower oil pressure??

Just a guess.

Zaphod
Member
Member # 41139
Reged: 03/30/04
Posts: 186
Loc: Oshawa, Canada
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856654 - 06/18/04 12:12 PM

I won't claim to know anything (like quite a few posters ... what would be the fun if we "knew" something for sure?) ... but it's my feeling from reading the board that pilot injection was problematic for a number of reasons.

One that make sense is the issues with the fuel rail and/or injectors. But we also know that PI problems are very sensitive to changes in the oil used. We've also had some rumors that the engine computer couldn't "handle" PI.

My feeling is that it may not have been that the engine computer couldn't handle the number of injection events for PI, but that the sensitivity of the engine to oil changes couldn't be compensated by the computer's actions. It may be that additional sensors would be required. It may be that the problem of compensating for some random density of oil is too difficult for the processor ... or not yet well enough understood.

In another board, I proposed making our own engine computer. It may entirely be that with some restricted list of oils that PI works fine on these engines. There may be other variables we can twiddle with. With our own (open source) PCM and FICM, we'd be able to experiment where we cannot effectively experiment now.

fordOwner
Member
Member # 40185
Reged: 03/08/04
Posts: 569
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856687 - 06/18/04 12:28 PM

Quote:

Quote:

The next limitation was the injectors themselves. These injectors apparently can't reliably handle the multiple injection events




I've seen this explanation before and I have to say, I don't see how it can be correct.

Pilot injection is only used at idle, so we're talking about injection events at something like 700 RPMs. Using pilot injection means two injection events per compression stroke (my understanding, anyway), which is no more often than having one injection event per compression stroke at 1400 RPMs.

The 6.0 runs just fine at full throttle at, say, 3000 RPMs. In that scenario, it's firing an injection event a LOT more often than it would for pilot injection at idle. AND each injection is squirting a LOT more fuel in there at a time, than it would be at idle.

So, I don't buy the statement that the injectors themselves can't "handle" doing pilot injection. Ford may not be able to figure out how to program it, but that's a different story. If I'm wrong on this, somebody please explain why.




Good catch, both your math and logic are correct. The injectors can and do handle it. Case in point, my 04/04 PI runs flawless as does my idle and my tow/haul, (we'll skip the rest of the POS), which is the main reason this truck will not see a dealer unless it gets dragged into one. The issue I believe is oil viscosity. Muthaford just can't figure out how to make 15w/40 respond as fast as 10w/30.

fordOwner

FamilyRide
Member
Member # 33940
Reged: 08/08/03
Posts: 2988
Loc: Flower Mound, Texas
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856727 - 06/18/04 01:02 PM

I agree that the problem was primarily with the oil pressure and the straight rails form what I've heard and read. The new '04 changes that included the "wavey" rail was to address a harmonic pulsing that could start at low RPM's caused by injector pulsesand would disrupt the HP oil flow. The wavey rail was supposed to mitigate the impact of those pulses keeping the pressure more constant. Obviously oil viscosity would also be a factor.

As I understand, those newer 2004 6.0's with quiet idle is done so with the EGR and oil pressure. Open EGR at idle and lower pressure, which could explain the slight romps that can be stopped by tapping the go peddle enough to make it loud (close the EGR and/or increase poressure)

Something like that. All I know is that for the first time ever 2 days ago, I had a girl at the Starbucks drive-thru ask me to turn my engine off or drive around because she couldn'e hear me!

Rob_S
Member
Member # 44317
Reged: 06/06/04
Posts: 270
Loc: Chesapeake Bay, MD
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856885 - 06/18/04 02:42 PM

Please forgive a new guy question... Why do some 03's run just fine w/ the Pilot Ignition? and why have so many others had so many problems? Luck of the draw? Assembly plant? Different emmisions programs? Thanks. Rob

rstaichi
Member
Member # 35126
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 574
Loc: kirkland, WA
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1856915 - 06/18/04 03:02 PM

Quote:

Please forgive a new guy question... Why do some 03's run just fine w/ the Pilot Ignition? and why have so many others had so many problems? Luck of the draw? Assembly plant? Different emmisions programs? Thanks. Rob





Thats what I always wondered. If some work and some don't (all with the same stuff) sounds like a quality control issue to me.

Diesel JayModerator
Administrator
Member # 107
Reged: 04/01/99
Posts: 1365
Loc: Pretty Much NoWhere, Missouri
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857013 - 06/18/04 04:17 PM

Quote:

From what I have read, Ford found out that their PCM's didn't have enough computing power to effectively run the pilot injection program



While that was an interesting rumor, it was entirely false. Injector calculations are not handled by the PCM, but rather by the IDM. Outside of mounting differences, the IDM used by Ford and Navistar on the VT365 are virtually identical.

Quote:

The reason Ford did away with the pilot injection in the 03 built engines was because of high pressure oil fall off. The oil rails couldn't handle the volume of HP oil to support the additional firing events.



The wavy rails are a red herring. They might help things, but even Nav never had conclusive data that they did so.

Quote:

The next limitation was the injectors themselves.



Bingo. As for StuartV's questions, the comparison between normal operation at 3000RPM and PI operation at idle is an apples and oranges comparison. PI pretty much works as described here. The mechanics of it involve the solenoids in the injector firing to open the spool valve, and then firing again to stop the movement. The devil, though, is in the details. The problem is that the spool valve carries with it some inertia, and the inertia factor is not constant. That means the PI routines have to "guess" at the position of the valve, and the length & timing of the solenoid pulse that controls it. It has to do all this within a very small degree of crank rotation, and then do it once again for the main injection event. The second injection event may actually be further “off,” since the exact position and timing of the spool valve may be skewed from the initial event. Moreover, there are also some non-linear delays associated with the HP oil hydraulics that also alter the precise moments when the injector will actually fire.

Really, the difference is in the degrees of crank angle that the PI and Main injection event have to worry about. At 3000RPM, each cylinder fires once every two revolutions. That works out to 1500 injection events per minute, or one every 0.04 seconds. Now, let’s keep that that rate constant, and apply it to a 700RPM idle speed. 700RPM, translates into 11.67 revolutions per second, which is 4201 crank degrees per second. If we maintain that constant 0.04 seconds between injection events, that means we’d have 168 crank degrees between events. That’s absolutely huge! In reality, the gap between PI and the Main event is very small – probably less than 20 degrees. To make that happen, we’d need to decrease the interval between injection events by a factor of 10, to about 0.0048 seconds.

On top of that, injecting small amounts of fuel, as in the initial PI injection event, is much harder than injecting large amounts of fuel. For PI to work, a small amount of fuel, at exactly the right degree of crank angle, has to be injected, followed by a larger injection event about 0.002-0.005 seconds after that. At that sort of rate, it becomes very hard to reliably control the mechanical and hydraulic forces that have to work to actually inject the fuel.

Hence, the lack of reliable PI meant that the engine would exhibit all sorts of weird idle characteristics, which then require compensation loops that may or may not make things worse depending on how the compensation affects the original delays or skews. In the end, it was much easier to "turn off" PI rather than fight all the unknowns and moving targets. Basically, it was an engineering idea that worked in theory, and under certain test conditions, but ended up being nearly impossible to control under all operating conditions.

Chawlston
Member
Member # 31878
Reged: 05/12/03
Posts: 98
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857015 - 06/18/04 04:18 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Please forgive a new guy question... Why do some 03's run just fine w/ the Pilot Ignition? and why have so many others had so many problems? Luck of the draw? Assembly plant? Different emmisions programs? Thanks. Rob





Thats what I always wondered. If some work and some don't (all with the same stuff) sounds like a quality control issue to me.




I think some incorrect trouble-shooting assumptions were made as well as corrective actions taken based on those assumptions and once they started flashing to fix problems, they continued until they have flashed some of the selling points out of the engine.

For a flash to correct an issue it would seem to have to be a programming problem or adjusting the program to ignore the data it gets from different sensors (if they were sending incorrect information).

Just for a minute imagine that most of the computers that were flashed were operating properly and that the sensors were bad. So the gobbilty-gook about the pilot injection overloading the system should manifest itself in each and every computer (all the same size and capability), unless it was saturated with incorrect or errant sensor signals. Makes one think.

Mine has the original flash, gets super mileage and has a lot of power. My build date (03/03) was in the center of the period that was supposed to be the worst ones built for reliability but the strongest engines noted by the chip/tuner/ manufacturers. I am extremely happy with mine.

James

Rob_S
Member
Member # 44317
Reged: 06/06/04
Posts: 270
Loc: Chesapeake Bay, MD
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857056 - 06/18/04 04:46 PM

As with Chawston immediately above, I also still have Pilot Ignition in my 04/03. It also appears to be running fine. I spoke to the dealship service writer about the issues. His recommendation was to keep it away from the dealership if I wanted to keep it. I am going to be POed if is loose it as it is one of significant factors leading to my purchase decision.

2 posts above; Diesel Jay gives the best description that I have heard to date. As a follow-up question: If Pilot Ignition is so hard to achieve in reality... Why did Ford go down this path? Why did they promote it so? Rob.

fordOwner
Member
Member # 40185
Reged: 03/08/04
Posts: 569
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857087 - 06/18/04 05:21 PM

Quote:

Quote:

From what I have read, Ford found out that their PCM's didn't have enough computing power to effectively run the pilot injection program



While that was an interesting rumor, it was entirely false. Injector calculations are not handled by the PCM, but rather by the IDM. Outside of mounting differences, the IDM used by Ford and Navistar on the VT365 are virtually identical.

Quote:

The reason Ford did away with the pilot injection in the 03 built engines was because of high pressure oil fall off. The oil rails couldn't handle the volume of HP oil to support the additional firing events.



The wavy rails are a red herring. They might help things, but even Nav never had conclusive data that they did so.

Quote:

The next limitation was the injectors themselves.



Bingo. As for StuartV's questions, the comparison between normal operation at 3000RPM and PI operation at idle is an apples and oranges comparison. PI pretty much works as described here. The mechanics of it involve the solenoids in the injector firing to open the spool valve, and then firing again to stop the movement. The devil, though, is in the details. The problem is that the spool valve carries with it some inertia, and the inertia factor is not constant. That means the PI routines have to "guess" at the position of the valve, and the length & timing of the solenoid pulse that controls it. It has to do all this within a very small degree of crank rotation, and then do it once again for the main injection event. The second injection event may actually be further “off,” since the exact position and timing of the spool valve may be skewed from the initial event. Moreover, there are also some non-linear delays associated with the HP oil hydraulics that also alter the precise moments when the injector will actually fire.

Really, the difference is in the degrees of crank angle that the PI and Main injection event have to worry about. At 3000RPM, each cylinder fires once every two revolutions. That works out to 1500 injection events per minute, or one every 0.04 seconds. Now, let’s keep that that rate constant, and apply it to a 700RPM idle speed. 700RPM, translates into 11.67 revolutions per second, which is 4201 crank degrees per second. If we maintain that constant 0.04 seconds between injection events, that means we’d have 168 crank degrees between events. That’s absolutely huge! In reality, the gap between PI and the Main event is very small – probably less than 20 degrees. To make that happen, we’d need to decrease the interval between injection events by a factor of 10, to about 0.0048 seconds.

On top of that, injecting small amounts of fuel, as in the initial PI injection event, is much harder than injecting large amounts of fuel. For PI to work, a small amount of fuel, at exactly the right degree of crank angle, has to be injected, followed by a larger injection event about 0.002-0.005 seconds after that. At that sort of rate, it becomes very hard to reliably control the mechanical and hydraulic forces that have to work to actually inject the fuel.

Hence, the lack of reliable PI meant that the engine would exhibit all sorts of weird idle characteristics, which then require compensation loops that may or may not make things worse depending on how the compensation affects the original delays or skews. In the end, it was much easier to "turn off" PI rather than fight all the unknowns and moving targets. Basically, it was an engineering idea that worked in theory, and under certain test conditions, but ended up being nearly impossible to control under all operating conditions.




Sorry Jay, I do this for a living and I can do a lot of calculations in 4.8 milliseconds with a simple PIC chip, never mind with a 16 bit micro that Ford is using, with or with out the inertia of the spool theory, that has been beaten to death before.
Case in point still stands, my 04/04 build date 11/03/03 has the original PI and like I said it runs flawlessly. To murder the kings english, it ain't the injectors and it ain't the speed of the micros, it's something else.

fordOwner

PS, funny how you'd come to the aid of the infirm...??? hmm??? R U daddy??

Diesel JayModerator
Administrator
Member # 107
Reged: 04/01/99
Posts: 1365
Loc: Pretty Much NoWhere, Missouri
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857454 - 06/18/04 09:36 PM

Quote:

Sorry Jay, I do this for a living and I can do a lot of calculations in 4.8 milliseconds with a simple PIC chip, never mind with a 16 bit micro that Ford is using, with or with out the inertia of the spool theory, that has been beaten to death before.
Case in point still stands, my 04/04 build date 11/03/03 has the original PI and like I said it runs flawlessly. To murder the kings english, it ain't the injectors and it ain't the speed of the micros, it's something else.




Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are correct in that the "processing" is not the problem. Physically moving the parts in the injector, and firing the injector twice in 4 milliseconds? Well, that's another story. I urge you to research the issue. Sturman sold Navistar on an idea that was largely untested. Navistar bought into it, lock, stock & barrel. Note that the chief technology engineer who signed onto the G2 injector design is no longer at Navistar. If you're looking for something other than the injectors, you'll be searching for quite some time.

Quote:

PS, funny how you'd come to the aid of the infirm...??? hmm??? R U daddy??



I apologize, but I can't decipher this. If you can clarify, I'd be happy to respond.

Regards,
Jay

George C
Member
Member # 2032
Reged: 10/23/00
Posts: 5346
Loc: near Buffalo, NY
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857513 - 06/18/04 10:21 PM

Quote:

Please forgive a new guy question... Why do some 03's run just fine w/ the Pilot Ignition? and why have so many others had so many problems? Luck of the draw? Assembly plant? Different emmisions programs? Thanks. Rob





My truck has been absolutely flawless.
It's an early 03' that has never been reflashed.
The only problem I have had was with cold start romping, and 5W-40 syn oil has cured that completely.
My pilot injection has worked perfectly, so why does my truck not suffer from any of these problems?

Swamp Donkey
Sponsor
Member # 3667
Reged: 11/06/99
Posts: 2928
Loc: Franklin (Nashville) TN
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857531 - 06/18/04 10:33 PM

The 7.3, from 94 to 2002, used ~10mm^3 of fuel per injection event at idle; GM 6.5's use ~9mm^3. I can't comment on the 6.0 because my scanner won't do them.
For pilot injection to produce a smooth, consistent idle, I'd guess it would be necessary to keep the fuel rate within ~10-15% on each injection event, or no more than 1.5mm^3 variation. This is a drop of fuel about .030" (thirty one-thousandths) of an inch in diameter.
To meter fuel this accurately in one injection event is difficult; to do it twice is even more difficult.

FMTRVT
Member
Member # 13543
Reged: 05/09/01
Posts: 2918
Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857532 - 06/18/04 10:34 PM

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Sincerely.

Based on this and other comments, are you of the firm belief that all pilot injection software should be updated to the non pilot revision, and that the pilot enabled software may have any cause for a lack of engine reliability?

Rob_S
Member
Member # 44317
Reged: 06/06/04
Posts: 270
Loc: Chesapeake Bay, MD
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857861 - 06/19/04 07:21 AM

To follow-up on Jack's question above: If Pilot Ignition is the problem; Why do so many engines continue to have ignition/idle prolems after the re-flash & no Pilot Ignition? Thanks. Rob

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857905 - 06/19/04 08:37 AM

The common rail will run pilot injection up to 2500 rpm. After that I believe the engine runs effeciently enough or burns clean enough for it to not be necessary. Its at idle that there is too much air, which its the egrs job to fix. Next we are going to see post injections. If not already in place. To clean even more NOX and particulate matter. There are injectors that are capable of 7 injections.
For it to work properly bosch uses piezo injectors. Pilot works. Intl just chose the wrong type of injector. Problem with piezo is price. I also notice that the 6.0 uses a lower voltage than the 7.3 to actuate the selenoid. Perhaps it power related. I think of it like a sub woofer. Any amp can throw a sub but does it have the power to pull it back?

It also seems to me that piezo has 4 times the failures that a simple pop off injector would. But popoffs dont work none to good on hpcr.

The guy I hang out with that has the 6.0 still has his pilot. Pilot decreases the sharp rise in cylinder pressure(the clack).

So if ford kills the pilot on the 04s. Are they still emissions compliant or are they paying a fine?

Quote:

PS, funny how you'd come to the aid of the infirm...??? hmm??? R U daddy??


Wow. Reminds me of a david lynch show.

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857912 - 06/19/04 08:43 AM

A couple of snipets.
Quote:

Pilot injection involves injecting a small amount of fuel into the cylinder prior to the main injection event. A complex process in the electronic controls selects the optimal time, duration and quantity of pilot injection, coupled with the main injection charges.


The result — combustion starts on a smaller scale and builds subtly, but rapidly, for reduced noise/knock, less vibration and quieter and smoother warm-ups.




Quote:

Again the piezoelectric technology exhibits a more stable pilot injection



A study on pilot injection
Quote:

EGR, especially in uncooled configuration, in conjunction with high engine loads and aged lube oils may also cause premature engine wear.




Nasty, nasty.
Quote:

The time between the pilot pulse and the main injection pulse needs to be extremely short. Some injection systems are now capable of reducing this interval between pulses to as little as .0007-seconds



Its too bad that intl didnt choose the piezo technology. It seems to be the best we have right now.

roofeditor
Member
Member # 28949
Reged: 01/26/03
Posts: 7346
Loc: Florida
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857924 - 06/19/04 09:05 AM

Quote:

The common rail will run pilot injection up to 2500 rpm. After that I believe the engine runs efficiently enough or burns clean enough for it to not be necessary. Its at idle that there is too much air, which its the EGR's job to fix. Next we are going to see post injections. If not already in place. To clean even more NOX and particulate matter. There are injectors that are capable of 7 injections.
For it to work properly Bosch uses piezo injectors. Pilot works. Intl just chose the wrong type of injector. Problem with piezo is price. I also notice that the 6.0 uses a lower voltage than the 7.3 to actuate the solenoid. Perhaps it power related. I think of it like a sub woofer. Any amp can throw a sub but does it have the power to pull it back?

It also seems to me that piezo has 4 times the failures that a simple pop off injector would. But pop-offs don't work none to good on hpcr.

The guy I hang out with that has the 6.0 still has his pilot. Pilot decreases the sharp rise in cylinder pressure(the clack).

So if ford kills the pilot on the 04's. Are they still emissions compliant or are they paying a fine?

Quote:

PS, funny how you'd come to the aid of the infirm...??? hmm??? R U daddy??


Wow. Reminds me of a david lynch show.




When they eliminated the pilot injection they increased the EGR considerably. This is not conjecture, I have been in the truck with the WDS before and after the flash. There is way more EGR after. The re-flash had to be EPA/CARB compliant.

FMTRVT
Member
Member # 13543
Reged: 05/09/01
Posts: 2918
Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1857974 - 06/19/04 10:18 AM

Agreed. I had a Ford engineer show me how that was working as well back at last years Norhteast Rally.

CHEVMN56
Member
Member # 11709
Reged: 03/02/01
Posts: 283
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1858143 - 06/19/04 01:05 PM

I think everybody is correct in there assumpyions.....but I have one question for everyone....why is it that Chevy and Dodge can can both make the pilot injection work and Ford can not?????

Pat

Rob_S
Member
Member # 44317
Reged: 06/06/04
Posts: 270
Loc: Chesapeake Bay, MD
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1858206 - 06/19/04 02:36 PM

If I may tack on a follow-up question to Chevmn56's question... How many 03's & 04's were produced with Pilot Ignition? What % or number have experienced problems? & How many are still running problem free? I don't understand the disparity in problem/non-problme vehicles.

wrenchforfun
Member
Member # 31345
Reged: 04/18/03
Posts: 289
Loc: western New York- for now
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1858940 - 06/20/04 08:40 AM

Quote:

I think everybody is correct in there assumpyions.....but I have one question for everyone....why is it that Chevy and Dodge can can both make the pilot injection work and Ford can not?????

Pat



Duramax and Cummins use HPCR as opposed to the HEUI on the Internationals.
The HPCR injectors operate similar to the injectors in a gasser except at much higher fuel pressures. They do not have the inconsistencies to deal with like lube oil temp, viscosity, oil rail harmonics, pressure drop, etc that a HEUI has do deal with. I predict that the 2007 Fords will have a HPCR system. They will have to if they want to compete with GM and DC.

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1859197 - 06/20/04 12:06 PM

I dont think its the oil. I just think the selenoid they chose wasnt up to the task. Diesel Jays statements support that. The heui injector is capable of making the same injection pressures as the hpcr uses.

PowerTug
Member
Member # 31576
Reged: 04/29/03
Posts: 296
Loc: San Jose, California
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1859441 - 06/20/04 04:06 PM

Quote:


Quote:
Sorry Jay, I do this for a living and I can do a lot of calculations in 4.8 milliseconds with a simple PIC chip, never mind with a 16 bit micro that Ford is using, with or with out the inertia of the spool theory, that has been beaten to death before.
Case in point still stands, my 04/04 build date 11/03/03 has the original PI and like I said it runs flawlessly. To murder the kings english, it ain't the injectors and it ain't the speed of the micros, it's something else.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are correct in that the "processing" is not the problem. Physically moving the parts in the injector, and firing the injector twice in 4 milliseconds? Well, that's another story. I urge you to research the issue. Sturman sold Navistar on an idea that was largely untested. Navistar bought into it, lock, stock & barrel. Note that the chief technology engineer who signed onto the G2 injector design is no longer at Navistar. If you're looking for something other than the injectors, you'll be searching for quite some time.





Your both mostly correct

Processer has plenty of time and the injector design does not allow reliable closely spaced pulses of fuel. Why? We can speculate on this but here is what is mechanicaly built into the c4 and c5 injectors:
1)The spool valve is a 2 state control - Drive plunger down using HPO and release plunger and return to up position using a spring (not HPO).
2) There is a small fuel feed hole located at about 30% plunger down (this means that the plunger will not generate pressure until it passes the 30% down stroke position and fuel will not begin to refill the plunger bore until the plunger is 67% retracted).
3)There is a large fuel feed ring at the full plunger up position (this is the main fuel feed to the plunger bore).
4)In the valving and flow control plates (at the bottom of the bore) the fuel is feed through metering orifice and slot (any bubbles here will reak havock).
5) Also in the plates is a small ball check that allows small amounts of fuel to be bleed into the bore upon retraction and pressure drop below 50 PSI (fuel rail pressure). I think this was added to allow PI and reduce cavitation upon plunger retraction (Personally I feel the inertial latency of the ball check allows cavitation bubbles to causes uncertain effective plunger position that messes up the PI).

It kind of looks like the 2 state spool valve was a mistake and they tried to fix it up with a ball check and pressure bleeds to make PI work. Their 'fixes' are so dependant on the plunger position that each injector would have to have a calibriation to come reliably close to precision PI injection cycles.

If only FMC/Seimens could have had the forsight to design in a 3 state spool valve with the third state being stop plunger that they could have had a good chance of PI under all operating speeds (would have been great for smog and MPG).

Just my 2 cents worth (probably worthless)
Jim

Iluvsteelies
member
Member # 19053
Reged: 01/15/02
Posts: 2150
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1859556 - 06/20/04 06:25 PM

Diesel Jay is 100% correct.

It is a known fact that pilot injection cannot be achieved with this system without runability problems because the response for each injector is different.

In a nutshell what happens during the very short pre-shot pulse is that no fuel is injected. This is called pilot injection fall-off and it's what causes/caused the romps.

Since the injectors are so sensitve during short pulses like that, things like oil viscosity did make a difference in the runability of the truck but the oil was not the root cause of the problem. Also things like unstable ICP or ICP that is slightly out of spec due to bad IPR's (remember the update?) would also lead to more severe romping.

Yes, to keep it simple pilot injection will not work because the response time for each injector is different.

Oh and to answer the posters original question, diesels knock because a certain amount of fuel accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites. The fuel reaches the ignition point all at once and thats what causes diesel knock.

The amount of fuel that accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites is going to depend on the temp of the engine and the rate at which the fuel is injected (thats why older diesels get quieter as they warm up. Less fuel can accumulate before ignition takes place.

Now, if you inject a certain metered quanity of fuel in before the main bulk of fuel, you can control the amount that accumulates. By leaving the amount small, you get much less noise and start the combustion process before the bulk of fuel is injected.

You can "shape" the rate of cylinder pressure rise. An optimum "split-shot" injection process would be one constant shot that starts out slow and gets faster, thats not really possible because it would be really expensive so they just do one little shot before the main shot instead.

And I was told the "wavy" rails are merely there to keep pressure from falling off during injection. It reduces harmonics that inhibit and destabilize flow and larger volume simply allows more oil to flow. The problem was pressure fall off during injection which decreased atomization.

Swamp Donkey
Sponsor
Member # 3667
Reged: 11/06/99
Posts: 2928
Loc: Franklin (Nashville) TN
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1859748 - 06/20/04 09:20 PM

Quote:

2) There is a small fuel feed hole located at about 30% plunger down (this means that the plunger will not generate pressure until it passes the 30% down stroke position and fuel will not begin to refill the plunger bore until the plunger is 67% retracted).




Not correct. The upper hole you're referring to connects to a groove aroung the inside diameter of the barrel. The plunger NEVER uncovers or goes above this hole. Any fuel that leaks past the tip of the plunger will be directed out of the injector back into the fuel supply through this hole. If it were not for this, any fuel that leaked up past the plunger would enter the area below the piston and effectively hydro-lock it, and, if that didn't happen, it would end up in the oil supply. (Sound familiar?)

Quote:


3)There is a large fuel feed ring at the full plunger up position (this is the main fuel feed to the plunger bore).




This is really a secondary feed; while the plunger is retracting, its being filled from below through the check ball in the fuel metering plate. IF it were to retract fully without being completely filled--drawing against a vacuum, then it would fill through this hole.
Rather, that hole is an air purge hole; if air bubbles are present inside the barrel, when injection begins they will be ejected out of the injector.
When the plunger is in its fully-up position, this hole is just barely uncovered. It takes barely .040" of movement for the plunger to cover this hole, and then injection actually begins.

PowerTug
Member
Member # 31576
Reged: 04/29/03
Posts: 296
Loc: San Jose, California
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1860107 - 06/21/04 01:10 AM

Interesting that the purge would work this way. I took a look again at the C94 (It's been awhile) and I stand corrected as the the annular ring is covered at all times and the hole part way down is the only large flow feed to the bore. Can you explain how air would be purged as the only paths seem to be either the fuel feed or out the nosel. It does look like the large ring will collect any high pressure fuel that leaks past the plunger during a injection stroke but there is still the constant 50 PSI pressure trying to force fuel up the plunger and out the oil weep hole above it. The tolerances must be tight enough that the diesel won't seep through. It does seem that there would be some diesel migration as the plunger moves up and down but maybe it is small as compared to blow by in the cylinders.
Was the needle supposed to prevent any fuel from being injected until a preset pressure (high pressure in the thousands of PSI maybe)? I think this was what prevented any of the 50 PSI fuel from leaking into the cylinder and a needle failure is what caused hydro lock with fuel. It may also be possible for fuel to leak past the metal to metal nosel to lower injector housing seal and cause hydro lock (fuel leaking at 50 PSI).
Any ideas on how the ball check was supposed to play in PI if any? It looks like the ball check feed is a metered flow. Is it possible that the plunger cavity never cavitates and the retraction rate is set by the flow of fuel through the ball check?
In any case we seem to agree that the system design in not consistant enough to allow PI and that is what matters. If you don't have access to a C94 it is possible to make one of the 2 I have available. I was thinking of cutting one in half lenghtwise (the case) as a cutaway so it it possible to get more accurate measurments ( I didn't want to sacrifice the endmills cutting the hardened case).
Jim

Edited by PowerTug (06/21/04 02:28 AM)

Chawlston
Member
Member # 31878
Reged: 05/12/03
Posts: 98
Loc: South Carolina
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1860265 - 06/21/04 07:35 AM

Quote:

Diesel Jay is 100% correct.

It is a known fact that pilot injection cannot be achieved with this system without runability problems because the response for each injector is different.

In a nutshell what happens during the very short pre-shot pulse is that no fuel is injected. This is called pilot injection fall-off and it's what causes/caused the romps.

Since the injectors are so sensitve during short pulses like that, things like oil viscosity did make a difference in the runability of the truck but the oil was not the root cause of the problem. Also things like unstable ICP or ICP that is slightly out of spec due to bad IPR's (remember the update?) would also lead to more severe romping.

Yes, to keep it simple pilot injection will not work because the response time for each injector is different.

Oh and to answer the posters original question, diesels knock because a certain amount of fuel accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites. The fuel reaches the ignition point all at once and thats what causes diesel knock.

The amount of fuel that accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites is going to depend on the temp of the engine and the rate at which the fuel is injected (thats why older diesels get quieter as they warm up. Less fuel can accumulate before ignition takes place.

Now, if you inject a certain metered quanity of fuel in before the main bulk of fuel, you can control the amount that accumulates. By leaving the amount small, you get much less noise and start the combustion process before the bulk of fuel is injected.

You can "shape" the rate of cylinder pressure rise. An optimum "split-shot" injection process would be one constant shot that starts out slow and gets faster, thats not really possible because it would be really expensive so they just do one little shot before the main shot instead.

And I was told the "wavy" rails are merely there to keep pressure from falling off during injection. It reduces harmonics that inhibit and destabilize flow and larger volume simply allows more oil to flow. The problem was pressure fall off during injection which decreased atomization.




Why not have a seperate pilot injector and a primary injector? This way you dont run into the issue of single injector capabilities in multiple shots per stroke.

James

Edited by Chawlston (06/21/04 07:37 AM)

FMTRVT
Member
Member # 13543
Reged: 05/09/01
Posts: 2918
Loc: Tinton Falls, NJ
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1860338 - 06/21/04 08:58 AM

Quote:


......And I was told the "wavy" rails are merely there to keep pressure from falling off during injection. It reduces harmonics that inhibit and destabilize flow ......




That's the information that I got as well through channels.

But what has not been made clear in these comments is why a motor that romps will on warm start will clear and be fine if you lightly goose the throttle. There has not been any serious change in oil viscosity or injector hardware temps to alter clearances.

fordOwner
Member
Member # 40185
Reged: 03/08/04
Posts: 569
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1860426 - 06/21/04 09:54 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Sorry Jay, I do this for a living and I can do a lot of calculations in 4.8 milliseconds with a simple PIC chip, never mind with a 16 bit micro that Ford is using, with or with out the inertia of the spool theory, that has been beaten to death before.
Case in point still stands, my 04/04 build date 11/03/03 has the original PI and like I said it runs flawlessly. To murder the kings english, it ain't the injectors and it ain't the speed of the micros, it's something else.




Everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are correct in that the "processing" is not the problem. Physically moving the parts in the injector, and firing the injector twice in 4 milliseconds? Well, that's another story. I urge you to research the issue. Sturman sold Navistar on an idea that was largely untested. Navistar bought into it, lock, stock & barrel. Note that the chief technology engineer who signed onto the G2 injector design is no longer at Navistar. If you're looking for something other than the injectors, you'll be searching for quite some time.

Quote:

PS, funny how you'd come to the aid of the infirm...??? hmm??? R U daddy??



I apologize, but I can't decipher this. If you can clarify, I'd be happy to respond.

Regards,
Jay




Jay, sorry I didn't get back sooner, just got back from the weekend. Jay, the problem is the oil viscosity. If I run 15w40 I will get all the symptoms that forced muthaford to remove PI, however, I run 10w30 and have never had the issues. Also as you can see from one of the above posters running 5w40 syn, they also do not have the problems. This is not rocket science,,, it is the oil viscosity.

Regards,
fordOwner

PoneyXpres
Member
Member # 31235
Reged: 04/14/03
Posts: 128
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1860984 - 06/21/04 03:57 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Diesel Jay is 100% correct.

It is a known fact that pilot injection cannot be achieved with this system without runability problems because the response for each injector is different.

In a nutshell what happens during the very short pre-shot pulse is that no fuel is injected. This is called pilot injection fall-off and it's what causes/caused the romps.

Since the injectors are so sensitve during short pulses like that, things like oil viscosity did make a difference in the runability of the truck but the oil was not the root cause of the problem. Also things like unstable ICP or ICP that is slightly out of spec due to bad IPR's (remember the update?) would also lead to more severe romping.

Yes, to keep it simple pilot injection will not work because the response time for each injector is different.

Oh and to answer the posters original question, diesels knock because a certain amount of fuel accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites. The fuel reaches the ignition point all at once and thats what causes diesel knock.

The amount of fuel that accumulates in the cylinder before it ignites is going to depend on the temp of the engine and the rate at which the fuel is injected (thats why older diesels get quieter as they warm up. Less fuel can accumulate before ignition takes place.

Now, if you inject a certain metered quanity of fuel in before the main bulk of fuel, you can control the amount that accumulates. By leaving the amount small, you get much less noise and start the combustion process before the bulk of fuel is injected.

You can "shape" the rate of cylinder pressure rise. An optimum "split-shot" injection process would be one constant shot that starts out slow and gets faster, thats not really possible because it would be really expensive so they just do one little shot before the main shot instead.

And I was told the "wavy" rails are merely there to keep pressure from falling off during injection. It reduces harmonics that inhibit and destabilize flow and larger volume simply allows more oil to flow. The problem was pressure fall off during injection which decreased atomization.




Why not have a seperate pilot injector and a primary injector? This way you dont run into the issue of single injector capabilities in multiple shots per stroke.

James





I asked this same question at the begining of all the problems with the C94 injectors. I was told there simply isn't enough physical room in the head for two injectors.

Ristin
Member
Member # 1349
Reged: 05/16/99
Posts: 237
Loc: Petaluma CA
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861035 - 06/21/04 04:27 PM

What date reflash eliminated PI? My 04/03 has a sticker under the hood that states my truck was reflashed per FMC in October 2003.

PowerTug
Member
Member # 31576
Reged: 04/29/03
Posts: 296
Loc: San Jose, California
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861158 - 06/21/04 06:07 PM

I'm not very good with injection timing. With that said would it be possible to do the equivalent of PI by mixing some small amount of fuel in the intake air that will ignite like in a 2 stroke with indirect injection ? If so what about propane?
Jim

CHEVMN56
Member
Member # 11709
Reged: 03/02/01
Posts: 283
Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861164 - 06/21/04 06:08 PM

Hello all Again,

What everybody is saying about the soleniod is totally possible....but that brings up a question in my mind regaurding the camless technology that MIGHT be coming out, to my recolection are they not going to use the same soleniods on the valve train??? and if so if these soleniods are this inconsistant how are they going to make them work on a 4V system, that almost triples the problems IMHO.

Maybe Ford needs to abondone(sp?)the HEUI and keep pace with the other big auto makers....if i remember right the new Dodge HO has more HP and TQ than all the others.....on a side note has any one looked at the Volkswagen site and looked at the specs on the V10 Diesel TDI????? silent like Chevy and Dodge (almost) and I believe it has 325 hp 585ftb of torque thats outstanding sitting in a Tourag.

Pat

Iluvsteelies
member
Member # 19053
Reged: 01/15/02
Posts: 2150
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861485 - 06/21/04 09:30 PM

A seperate injector for PI?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Does that answer your question?

This system carried navistar through the 90's making more power and lower emissions than all the rest. Unfortunately, it can't be made to work right in this application while still keeping it cost-feasible.

(I use big words so that I sound like I know what Im talking about)

They wanted to stand on their own while GM and CUMMINS went to the germans for their fuel injection system. Its works fine with single shot in my opinion.

FMTRVT, I couldn't theorize...Your only going to get part answers anyway. They still have to cover their butts while letting you know whats wrong. Know what I mean.

I imagine giving it a little goose would raise ICP and maybe get a lazy injector firing again??

Edited by Diesel Jay (06/22/04 11:22 AM)

MarvinM
Member
Member # 32035
Reged: 05/18/03
Posts: 91
Loc: Fairfield, California
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861590 - 06/21/04 10:32 PM

Quote:

What date reflash eliminated PI? My 04/03 has a sticker under the hood that states my truck was reflashed per FMC in October 2003.




Ristin,
The PI was eliminated on my 04/03 in the 03E03 recall back in January of this year. That was the recall for California models.
My truck is still running fine with no problems whatsoever. The slight bit of increased noise at idle doesn't bother me one bit as that's not the reason I chose this truck, as some others say was their primary reason.
Marvin

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1861932 - 06/22/04 06:47 AM

" I will zap you with my proton modulator "

I use to have a pipe with marvin the martian on it. I called it the proton modulator.

67p912
Member
Member # 42727
Reged: 05/02/04
Posts: 158
Loc: Vancouver, WA USA
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1868920 - 06/26/04 03:52 AM

How can I tell if I have it? Is it possible? I have an 04/04.

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1868935 - 06/26/04 05:47 AM

The proton modulator or the pilot injection.

Just foolin with yah. If it sounds like a diesel you do not have pilot injection. Pilot injection makes the engine very quiet. If it sounds more like the 7.3 did then it is definitely missing the pilot injection. It seems to work fine on the majority of trucks. Pilot injection gets rid of the loud clack associated with a direct injection diesel. The pressure within the cylinders of a direct injection diesel rises so rapidly it sounds like someone hitting a metal block with a mallet. Hundreds or thousands of times a minute.

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1868936 - 06/26/04 05:48 AM

Quote:

A seperate injector for PI?




They are using multiple injectors on DI two stroke snow machines. They dont have injector technology that can fire 8000 rpms. So they use two and split the difference.

hd1976
Member
Member # 33285
Reged: 07/10/03
Posts: 10
Loc: Anniston,Alabama.
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1868943 - 06/26/04 06:22 AM

This is interesting reading. So how does oil shear figure into all of this? My take on the threads on the oil breakdown issues is that this high pressure injection system causes the oil molecules to break down{sorry,I don't mean to change subjects}. I first thought the pi system might be at the heart of the oil problem,but it persists after pi is shut down. Phil.

Swamp Donkey
Sponsor
Member # 3667
Reged: 11/06/99
Posts: 2928
Loc: Franklin (Nashville) TN
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1869810 - 06/26/04 09:58 PM

Tug,
Yeah, it takes carbide to cut these open. I made a complete cutaway 7.3 injector--took me 2 days and 4-5 carbide end mills and several inserts.

By the term "air bleed" in the plunger and barrel I mean that when the plunger retracts after firing it comes to rest just above this hole. If there is any air present in the barrel cavity, when the next injection event begins it will be ejected out this hole back into the fuel rail. I would expect that only when the fuel was heavily entraied with air would air be released from it during the plunger's return stroke.
Now, if the 6.0 had a return fuel system, this would be ok, but there is only one place this air can go....

The nozzle is held shut by the spring pressure on the needle. On the 7.3 injectors it takes 2200-2500 psi of fuel pressure to lift the needle off its seat; the injectors in the IH DT466 and I530E engines use a 3700 psi vop. The nozzles seal very well and can hold any pressure below the VOP (valve opening pressure) with virtually zero leakage.
Only a damaged nozzle leakes enough to measure, and usually its caused be debris in the fuel system preventing the needle from seating fully. Rare, but it does happen. I'd say that less than 1/2% of the nozzles we see have a sealing problem.
The two round plates below the plunger and barrel with the ball and tiny plate between them, serve as a flow control/check valve. The fuel enters though the hole with the check ball in it and flows up into the barrel cavity as the plunger retracts. When the injection begins, the fuel pressure holds the check ball against its seat preventing it from flowing back out into the fuel rail. Then, the pressure builds until the nozzle vop is reached and injection begins.
When injection ends, and the needle begins to reseat, there is a reverse flow of fuel from the nozzle back towards the plunger and barrel. When this happens, the check plate is lifted up and closes the hole above it, to maintain a cushion of fluid to slow the needle's descent and cushion it as it seats.
Fuel leakage past the injector into the cylinder is prevented by the copper washer on the nozzle and (in my opinion) is very rare unless either the injector isn't clamped down tight or the O-rings are failing. The most common sign of this is constant white smoke even with the engine warm and a miss or stumble in one or more cylinders.

BigDaddyT
Member
Member # 30170
Reged: 03/05/03
Posts: 2431
Loc: Eagle River,Alaska
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1870046 - 06/27/04 02:29 AM

I dint think you can have a pop off injector for multilple injections. Except for the highly successful split shot. What is the 48volt selonoid for? It is electrically operated and timed. Am I mistaken? I also thought the 7.3 had a 110volt solenoid.

The piezo are electrically fired but at a constant rail pressure rather than a plunger to acheive injection pressures.

After a little research im wondering if the solenoid is not the part that controls the oil pressure. So the question I would have is how do they split the injection with a popoff injector? As I stated before the bosch system is no longer a popoff but electronically controlled to split the injection.

PowerTug
Member
Member # 31576
Reged: 04/29/03
Posts: 296
Loc: San Jose, California
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1870564 - 06/27/04 03:53 PM

Swamp,

Thanks for the detailed description. The part on the check plate was definite new one for me.
Jim

Swamp Donkey
Sponsor
Member # 3667
Reged: 11/06/99
Posts: 2928
Loc: Franklin (Nashville) TN
Re: Pilot Injection new
#1871021 - 06/27/04 10:34 PM

Jim,
If you go to the R&D section on my web site I've got a pretty detailed write up on the 7.3 injector which will cover the 6.0 pretty well, too.

Pages: 1



Contact Us TheDieselStop.Com

*
UBB.threads™ 6.3


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies.
All else is Copyright © 1997-2001 TheDieselStop.Com.

TheDieselStop.Com Privacy Statement
Advertising on TheDieselStop.Com

This site is in no way affiliated with Ford Motor Company or Navistar International Corporation.