Injector Low Slope Lower Flow than High Slope?

This is the place for questions about things electrical and mechnanical...or any other automotive-related hardware issue.

Moderators: cgrey8, EDS50, Jon 94GT, 2Shaker

Post Reply
91TurboFox
Gear Head
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:38 am

Injector Low Slope Lower Flow than High Slope?

Post by 91TurboFox » Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:17 pm

I've read that an injector low slope value is typically higher than the high slope value. It has been explained that for low pulsewidths, it acts like a bigger injector. That seems to make sense, but the injectors I actually have from Deatschworks (Part Number: 18u0100608) have the following values:

Low Slope: 0.014931 lb/s = 53.75 lb/hr
High Slope: 0.017817 lb/s = 64.14 lb/hr
Breakpoint: 2.09733E-5 lb
Min Pulsewidth: 0.725 ms
Static Flow: 62.9lb/hr

The high slope value is higher than the low slope. Does this make sense and is anyone else running injectors like this? (and using these values in their tune?)

User avatar
skunk
Tuning Addict
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:30 pm
Location: Newmarket, ON

Re: Injector Low Slope Lower Flow than High Slope?

Post by skunk » Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:37 am

Not sure where you got those numbers......I had a look at their spread sheet for 86-04 Mustangs and there are 3 separate sets of data. One 2011+ for returnless systems which follows the arrangement you posted and the other two pretty much the same 39 psi and return system.
18u-60 (1).xls
(139.5 KiB) Downloaded 25 times
John
1987 Turbocoupe.
A3M1/A9L, BE/EA, Tweecer RT.
306,Single Turbo, Ported E7's, Ported Stock Intake, 42lb Matched Green Tops, PMAS 3" Blow-Thru Protube (42# supercharger calibrated),T5z, 3.73 gears
..... Nothin Fancy.......Just something to keep me from the honey-do list.........

91TurboFox
Gear Head
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2018 8:38 am

Re: Injector Low Slope Lower Flow than High Slope?

Post by 91TurboFox » Sat Apr 28, 2018 9:07 am

Thanks John, I was using the datasheet posted to Summit's website (https://static.summitracing.com/global/ ... 20ford.pdf). I'm not sure why it's different (even compared to the 2011+ values it's different), as the same part numbers are listed. I'm just happy I have some numbers that make more sense to me.

Thanks again!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests