Why 4 fuel injectors vs 6 on the '09's?
A lot of people are assuming that the 6 injector setup would have been inherently superior somehow, and they are wondering how much of a downgrade 4 injectors could be. I think the bigger question is--what the heck was the point of the 6 injectors in the first place, considering that setup had two primary injectors? That's the bigger question to me. The fuel flow from the 6 injector setup versus the new 4 injector setup is really close. 6 injectors just seems retarded.
Is it possible, therefore, returning to the original subject that the new injectors used in the 2009 achieve atomisation that is as good as with the 6 injector setup; but without the issues (complexity and reliability) of the 6 injector setup?
Nope. Same pump. Same pressures.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...09#post2817709
S2 pump has changed..
It seems to me that 80% of the engine changes are lubrication \reliability based.
In keeping with that, wouldn't the engine recieve better lubrication by 4 injectors shooting 2040 CC all the time, over 6 Injectors shooting 1600 most of the time and 2100 under certain circumstances?
In keeping with that, wouldn't the engine recieve better lubrication by 4 injectors shooting 2040 CC all the time, over 6 Injectors shooting 1600 most of the time and 2100 under certain circumstances?
Forgive me if this is an obviously bad idea; but since they are superior in atomization, would it be advantageous to retro-fit them on a 2004-2008?
/\ Not an expert here, but I think trying to convert a S1 fuel and intake to the latest S2 (09) would not be worth the trouble or cost involved...
I see issues with the S1 PCM (ECU) which also would need to be changed as it has different fuel maps.
Then you have other non related PCM compatibility issues with other tasks the PCM does, two EMOP's, new oil pressure sensors, etc, all calibrated for a totally different MOP set up.
Intake fuel runners would need changing, unless you can put in two blind block off bolts in the runner...I see at lot of headaches...
Paul, what do you think??
I see issues with the S1 PCM (ECU) which also would need to be changed as it has different fuel maps.
Then you have other non related PCM compatibility issues with other tasks the PCM does, two EMOP's, new oil pressure sensors, etc, all calibrated for a totally different MOP set up.
Intake fuel runners would need changing, unless you can put in two blind block off bolts in the runner...I see at lot of headaches...
Paul, what do you think??
It seems to me that 80% of the engine changes are lubrication \reliability based.
In keeping with that, wouldn't the engine recieve better lubrication by 4 injectors shooting 2040 CC all the time, over 6 Injectors shooting 1600 most of the time and 2100 under certain circumstances?
In keeping with that, wouldn't the engine recieve better lubrication by 4 injectors shooting 2040 CC all the time, over 6 Injectors shooting 1600 most of the time and 2100 under certain circumstances?
beers
Is it possible that the switch to 4 injectors was intended as a reliability improvement by ensuring that all the injectors see duty cycles on a regular basis, unlike the 6 injector setup where the auxiliary might not see use if someone was new to the rotary and neglected to bring the revs above 6500?

Ian.
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but this more than any other answer works for me. For those who don't exercise the engine above 6250rpm on a regular basis (or even at all!) then the injectors get clogged. Mazda have to think of the more casual car buyer that doesn't go all technical under the hood 
Ian.

Ian.
I've seen the effect that a sticky third port has on a car, and often this is the reason for going to a forum is to understand what that behaviour is all about. Only then do many join up with forums and learn about what those of us here know. Mazda still has to think of those people...
Anyway, that's my 'tuppence worth - thanks for reading.
Ian.
Primary (located in houseing) N3R113250
Secondary (located in LIM) N3R213250



