Engine swap problems

But thats the thing, it isnt getting 4x the fuel, each
cylinder gets one squirt of fuel, they just all go at once,
each cylinder gets the fuel at different compression cycle
times.

It might be good to explain how sequential works...


The way it has been explained to me:

To meet emissions standards at or near idle sequential was used to meter the fuel to each cylinder. Each injector would fire while the intake valve opened to ensure maximum atomization (thus cleaner burn).

When the engine cranks up, the injector needs to be on longer to deliver more fuel. The pulse width exceeds the intake valve opening time, so you're injecting into a closed port, just like our batch fire systems.

So, in batch fire, at idle, lets say you need a 5ms pulse to deliver enough fuel. A single driver hits 3 injectors for 5ms.

In sequential, 3 drivers hit each individual injector for 5 ms. Now, if we wired all the injectors and drivers together, each driver would hit all the injectors for 5ms, totalling 15ms. This could be a bit wrong, because I have assumed there would be no overlap in the injector timing, which there may be. So, the actual pulse could be anywhere from 5-15ms. That kind of idea. I suspect many ecms switch to an electronic batch fire above a certain rpm/load (airflow). They just drive the injectors together instead of sequentially.

It's hard for me to believe it would run at all with that much fuel dumping in though....I wonder if your ecm has been changed out to a batch fire model.


Chay

YES yes yes! exactly, you've got it Dawg, that is what i
was saying all along. The owner who built the engine was
going to use it for auto cross i think so batch injection
would have aloud more durability maybe? Because if TDC
could not be determined by the ecm for some reason (bad
sensor during race) then it would still run fine, plus
there are a ton less wires and obviously a race car would
not care about emissions. theres my take