Been sat in the bath thinking on this topic for the last hour lol, would continue the train of thought if i may.
We've established mechanical supply solutions, but mapping has been somewhat ignored. Bigger tips and readily available rail flow and pressure will provide opportunities we can exploit all the more with a little tweaking. If I understand correctly, half the issue with revs is that injecting the fuel quickly enough becomes an issue, especially with the pre-injection reducing our window. With greater capacity for flow this issue is lessened, but it would seem wrong to ignore it altogether/consider it dealt with.
Two things occurred to me in quick succession... The first thought was a slightly increased limit - 5500-6000rpm maybe - would be more beneficial on bigger nozzles than it would on standard, while being easier to stay within safe limits on injection timing and duration. Secondly, i understand pre-injection could be removed from the mapping, which would give us more scope for the main injection duration at the expense of a little comfort. However, i don't see why we can't have the best of both worlds.... Is there any reason we couldn't leave the pre-injection map in place for low-end drivability and comfort, but map in a cut-off at say 3500rpm? I would assume the corresponding increase in main injection duration would need to be ramped to avoid causing a boost- and hence torque-spike, but it should allow a lot more fuel to be injected at higher revs i think...?
Another random thought; would it be possible to map in a very late post-injection at ~2000rpm to act as anti-lag...?
Think it would be pretty fun to drive too, turbo boost from ~2k, then increased power again from 3.5k. Going to get flamed for saying it, but almost like a turbo'd v-tec...
Seems a bit of a wild theory, but after thinking for a bit i really can't see why either option wouldn't be possible, anyone care to blow holes in it?
We've established mechanical supply solutions, but mapping has been somewhat ignored. Bigger tips and readily available rail flow and pressure will provide opportunities we can exploit all the more with a little tweaking. If I understand correctly, half the issue with revs is that injecting the fuel quickly enough becomes an issue, especially with the pre-injection reducing our window. With greater capacity for flow this issue is lessened, but it would seem wrong to ignore it altogether/consider it dealt with.
Two things occurred to me in quick succession... The first thought was a slightly increased limit - 5500-6000rpm maybe - would be more beneficial on bigger nozzles than it would on standard, while being easier to stay within safe limits on injection timing and duration. Secondly, i understand pre-injection could be removed from the mapping, which would give us more scope for the main injection duration at the expense of a little comfort. However, i don't see why we can't have the best of both worlds.... Is there any reason we couldn't leave the pre-injection map in place for low-end drivability and comfort, but map in a cut-off at say 3500rpm? I would assume the corresponding increase in main injection duration would need to be ramped to avoid causing a boost- and hence torque-spike, but it should allow a lot more fuel to be injected at higher revs i think...?
Another random thought; would it be possible to map in a very late post-injection at ~2000rpm to act as anti-lag...?
Think it would be pretty fun to drive too, turbo boost from ~2k, then increased power again from 3.5k. Going to get flamed for saying it, but almost like a turbo'd v-tec...
Seems a bit of a wild theory, but after thinking for a bit i really can't see why either option wouldn't be possible, anyone care to blow holes in it?