Jump to content
SAU Community

Do I Have A Petrol System That Utilizes Electronic Sequential Injection ?


Recommended Posts

Does a 1996 skyline gts 4 door sedan ( non turbo) use a petrol system that utilizes electronic sequential injection ?

I beliebe this is a requirement if I want to run liquid injection LPG.

Any comments on LPG appreciated, except from the flat earth society.

Ahh... Yeah man... Rb engines (for the most part) are all injected...

There's only one version that's carburetted, an rb24s, in some random jap small car.

Any engine that doesn't have a carburetor, uses fuel injectors and an ECU, to inject fuel. Pretty much every petrol engine from the mid80s, is injected.

LPG isn't really the best option tho IMO, you hardly save much money anyway... Limits the amount of power you make, saps some power from you, adds weight to your car, and they use more fuel anyway, so you spend more at the bowser...

Ahh... Yeah man... Rb engines (for the most part) are all injected...

There's only one version that's carburetted, an rb24s, in some random jap small car.

Any engine that doesn't have a carburetor, uses fuel injectors and an ECU, to inject fuel. Pretty much every petrol engine from the mid80s, is injected.

LPG isn't really the best option tho IMO, you hardly save much money anyway... Limits the amount of power you make, saps some power from you, adds weight to your car, and they use more fuel anyway, so you spend more at the bowser...

there are different sorts of injection though. there is single point injection (basically a fancy carby) and multipoint injection. but yes, skylines as with most cars made after about 1990 use multipoint (sequential) injection.

The evolution seems to have been;

- carburettor

- single point/throttle body injection

- mutli point batch injection

- multi point sequential injection

- direct multi point sequential injection

Ahh... Yeah man... Rb engines (for the most part) are all injected...

There's only one version that's carburetted, an rb24s, in some random jap small car.

Any engine that doesn't have a carburetor, uses fuel injectors and an ECU, to inject fuel. Pretty much every petrol engine from the mid80s, is injected.

LPG isn't really the best option tho IMO, you hardly save much money anyway... Limits the amount of power you make, saps some power from you, adds weight to your car, and they use more fuel anyway, so you spend more at the bowser...

There was also an RB30S im pretty sure, in old patrols?

i can just imagine the boot space in a r33 with LPG

but why would u want to run LPG in a "performance" car

since when is an n/a a performance car? :P

The evolution seems to have been;

- carburettor

- single point/throttle body injection

- mutli point batch injection

- multi point sequential injection

- direct multi point sequential injection

Just a nit pick, but multipoint, batch and sequential injection are all different,

Multipoint fires all the injectors at once, but at multiple points in the engine (hence multipoint)

Batch fires in the same way wasted spark ignition does, ie 2 cylinders at a time

and sequential fires individually in accordance to the firing order of the engine

Just a nit pick, but multipoint, batch and sequential injection are all different,

Multipoint fires all the injectors at once, but at multiple points in the engine (hence multipoint)

Batch fires in the same way wasted spark ignition does, ie 2 cylinders at a time

and sequential fires individually in accordance to the firing order of the engine

just to nit pick what you are saying, both batch and sequiential are both actually multipoint injection. multipoint just simply refers to whether there is a single injection point (like at the throttle body) or multiple injection points (an injector in each intake runner). nissan specs attribute the 370z with having sequential multi-point injection.

Yeah but that is just marketing spin

A bit like holdens SI-Di shit...Spark Ignition Direct Injection...Spark ignition WOW REALLY! What were you using before that Holden?

Andrew, sort of on topic, but I agree completely with that point! Almost everything that companies advertise on their cars is just a name they give to a STANDARD FEATURE OF ALL MODERN CARS just to make it seem unique and special. SIDI is a prime example.

Yeah but that is just marketing spin

A bit like holdens SI-Di shit...Spark Ignition Direct Injection...Spark ignition WOW REALLY! What were you using before that Holden?

my point was though that both sequiential and batch injection are multipoint injection as they inject fuel at mulitple points. the batch injection just refers to multiple injectors firing it at once. it can be two or all of them.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...