batch vs. sequental
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,558
Likes: 45
From: Concord, NC
It really depends on the application. Low rpm use (such as street vehicles) I believe are better suited for sequential. All out race cars that run at high rpms could run batch fire with no drawbacks because the fuel doesn't have time to sit around in the intake manifold between intake cycles.
Thread Starter
|
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,703
Likes: 4
From: Harrisburg, NE
so about where would you put the line between street and race, perhaps all race, or all street? i understand what your saying about time, not much time when the engine is spinning at 6000rpm
Lead Driver
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,558
Likes: 45
From: Concord, NC
I guess I'd have to say 3000 rpm would be a decent cutoff, possibly depending on the number of cylinders the engine has. If most operating time is spent under 3000, sequential could be arguably better, above that, and it wouldn't really matter if it were sequential or batch. Our race car at school batch fired the ignition coils (coil on plug) for a while because we didn't have enough outputs from the computer to control them individually. So flexibility of computer outputs, and keeping that simple (and keeping costs down) would be another factor in deciding sequential or batch.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
