Joey - have you considered fabbing a common plenum among all eight cylinders, with the injectors on a common rail running right down the middle? Maybe two rails? If you're having trouble picturing what i'm trying to describe, google "formula one common rail". Several examples will pop up... not only would it potentially dress up the appearance of OEM throttle bodies, I bet it would be worth some power too. I've done some back to back testing on a different engine platform I used to race - plenum in place between throttle bodies vs throttle bodies standing as individual stacks - I always made more power with the plenum in place. Just throwing an idea. I love what you have going on already, as-is. Seemed you were open and still trying to choose your final direction. I think something F1'ish would be awfully hard to beat, especially if you mimicked occupying most of the area between the valve covers.
The reason you want the injectors up high is to maximize the time the fuel has to atomize and cool the incoming air/fuel mixture; a lot of carb guys point to this as the reason why they can (or think they can) make more power with a carburetor.
Bingo. To add a slightly altered viewpoint - I think it has less to do with how atomized the fuel may or may not be, and more for the latent heat of vaporization as the fuel transitions from liquid to vapor. So, in 100% agreement about cooling the incoming air/fuel charge, and giving as much allowable time for this as possible. *BUT* I've seen some very compelling data that shot "more atomization is better" straight in the face. Apparently, especially as it goes for torque production, you can over atomize the fuel charge. Give the same engine the exact same volume of fuel, but alter the droplet size as it approaches the intake valve, and prepare to throw several paradigms in the trash. Conventional wisdom is always good to a point, but seems there is usually more waiting to be found if you're nerdy enough to search for it. The general summary and conclusion is that the droplet size/torque relationship is tied to density (but kind of think "weight" too), temperature of the air fuel charge, surface area of fuel vs. available oxygen, and the fact that there is always a gradient for liquid to be moving to vapor, which comes into play all the way up to the point the spark plug lights off. If fuel is introduced as an already fine mist, you end up losing out on each of those in one way or another. Every engine will want something different, based on several variables - not the least of which, is the distance between fuel introduction to intake valve, and velocity between those two points. The more efficient the engine, the larger the droplet size it tends to want at entry. That's why a F1 fuel nozzle spray pattern looks worse than factory GM TBI stuff from the 90s. That's why a high compression high winding N/A small block will make less power with an annular booster than a simple "stepped" booster of identical physical dimensions. Crazy. If F1 wanted to, they'd have the fuel rolling out of there like a mosquito fogger if that's what worked best. Just sharing, because I found all of the above to be very interesting, and turned most of what I "thought I knew" on its head. **My F1 references are to the N/A engines of the past. Current, DI setups are an entirely different creature altogether**
Something Vizard said in one of his books, coupled with something similar a guy named Gordon Jennings said in one of his, tipped me off to the concept of fuel droplet size being specific to maximizing power production... eventually that turned into a miniature research project, and ultimately ended up in me building several of my own carburetors. (One was for my FE
) If you look hard enough, there are some very interesting reads. In a few cases, some relatively lofty names actually share hard data.
