P
PureDeathRacing
Guest
To be brutally honest, NASCAR engines are ancient. They're V-8s, they displace 358 cubic inches and carry a Holley four-barrel carburetor. You'll lose most of an afternoon looking for that combination at a local dealership.
But NASCAR loves its carburetors. They're relatively inexpensive, easy to police (ask Rusty Wallace) and almost bulletproof. So why all the sudden hoopla about switching from carburetors to electronic fuel injection?
"I think manufacturers want to see us using what they're building for showrooms," said Winston Cup owner and noted engine-builder Robert Yates. "It might come down to them saying, 'We want to support this sport, but we want it to use what we're building.' I don't think NASCAR would have a problem looking at fuel injection if the manufacturers said that."
There's talk that Detroit wants fuel-injected, 4.6-litre, (about 280 CID), dual overhead cam engines within several years. That blends nicely into when Toyota expects to be in the Busch Series, en route to Cup. But while Yates feels NASCAR should follow Detroit's lead, others aren't so sure.
"Why mess with what we have?" said Leonard Wood of the Wood Brothers team. "Carburetors are easy to work on, they get the job done and they're available. Why change the fuel-flow system unless you're burning pistons or blowing a lot of engines? I think what we have is fine."
Why? Because in theory, NASCAR could control RPMs, fuel-mileage and horsepower with the electronic control module that runs fuel injection. If it can control that, it can control speed, which might solve the problem of jammed-up packs at Daytona and Talladega.
To noted engine-builder Randy Dorton, that control issue poses a question: "What part of the module would they program and control? That ECM would give them a lot of power. But we could predict mileage and significantly improve durability with fuel injection. That's a big plus."
The ASA uses fuel injection on its "crate motors." Teams have an ECM for testing and engine tuning, but get an ASA-issued module for races.
"Generally speaking, people are pretty positive about fuel injection in our series," said ASA owner/driver Danny Edwards Jr. "There are always skeptics who think one ECM is better than another, but I think it's on the level. They randomly hand out ECMs at the qualifying draw.
"In Cup, though, big-budget teams with enough people and enough money might be able to circumvent the electronics. NASCAR needs to be sure its people are good enough to catch whatever the teams are doing."
That's something NASCAR tech wizard Gary Nelson thinks about constantly. He worries that the electronics in ECMs might disguise traction control.
"The ECM codes can be programmed to do things other than fuel flow," he said. "The hurdle is, if you have an ECM that can be programmed, how in the world do you inspect it? And how do you keep someone from programming that module to deliver an unfair advantage?
"I have friends in Formula-One who've wrestled with that for years. They don't have an answer, so we've been worrying about that. It's 100 times harder to make sure the ECM isn't doing something it shouldn't do than it is to check a carburetor."
As for NASCAR's obsessive fear of traction control, "All cars have traction control," Nelson said. "On a carburetor car, it's the driver's foot. On a fuel injection car, it's that processor."
But NASCAR loves its carburetors. They're relatively inexpensive, easy to police (ask Rusty Wallace) and almost bulletproof. So why all the sudden hoopla about switching from carburetors to electronic fuel injection?
"I think manufacturers want to see us using what they're building for showrooms," said Winston Cup owner and noted engine-builder Robert Yates. "It might come down to them saying, 'We want to support this sport, but we want it to use what we're building.' I don't think NASCAR would have a problem looking at fuel injection if the manufacturers said that."
There's talk that Detroit wants fuel-injected, 4.6-litre, (about 280 CID), dual overhead cam engines within several years. That blends nicely into when Toyota expects to be in the Busch Series, en route to Cup. But while Yates feels NASCAR should follow Detroit's lead, others aren't so sure.
"Why mess with what we have?" said Leonard Wood of the Wood Brothers team. "Carburetors are easy to work on, they get the job done and they're available. Why change the fuel-flow system unless you're burning pistons or blowing a lot of engines? I think what we have is fine."
Why? Because in theory, NASCAR could control RPMs, fuel-mileage and horsepower with the electronic control module that runs fuel injection. If it can control that, it can control speed, which might solve the problem of jammed-up packs at Daytona and Talladega.
To noted engine-builder Randy Dorton, that control issue poses a question: "What part of the module would they program and control? That ECM would give them a lot of power. But we could predict mileage and significantly improve durability with fuel injection. That's a big plus."
The ASA uses fuel injection on its "crate motors." Teams have an ECM for testing and engine tuning, but get an ASA-issued module for races.
"Generally speaking, people are pretty positive about fuel injection in our series," said ASA owner/driver Danny Edwards Jr. "There are always skeptics who think one ECM is better than another, but I think it's on the level. They randomly hand out ECMs at the qualifying draw.
"In Cup, though, big-budget teams with enough people and enough money might be able to circumvent the electronics. NASCAR needs to be sure its people are good enough to catch whatever the teams are doing."
That's something NASCAR tech wizard Gary Nelson thinks about constantly. He worries that the electronics in ECMs might disguise traction control.
"The ECM codes can be programmed to do things other than fuel flow," he said. "The hurdle is, if you have an ECM that can be programmed, how in the world do you inspect it? And how do you keep someone from programming that module to deliver an unfair advantage?
"I have friends in Formula-One who've wrestled with that for years. They don't have an answer, so we've been worrying about that. It's 100 times harder to make sure the ECM isn't doing something it shouldn't do than it is to check a carburetor."
As for NASCAR's obsessive fear of traction control, "All cars have traction control," Nelson said. "On a carburetor car, it's the driver's foot. On a fuel injection car, it's that processor."