MSefi.com read only forum (Jan.15,2018)

Further to my other thread, fuel distribution problems arose as a possible problem with a DIY TBI. Can anyone quantify this? How much worse is the fuel distribution likely to be between these two systems:
1) Fuel injected behind the throttle using between 1 and 4 port injectors in a specially made block, at the entrance to the plenum.
2) Fuel port injected in bank fire mode.

The way I see it, air-flow is what is going to be critical (assuming the injectors atomise properly) to the ditribution - if the intake setup has uneven flow, the AFRs at each cyl will be just as wrong with TBI as if I use bank-fire port injection? Thoughts welcome!

As a side note:

Engine is a 4cyl and has had its intake replaced with a "generic" intake manifold (4 runners welded to a side-feed plenum which is just a cylinder).

My guess is that a good indication is to see which way the industry goes.
The 90´s style small car with a single point of injection is today gone, even
the budget cars today use port injection and the trend is to go for direct injection
into the cylinder.
No doubt this is to reduce consumption and emissions. And the driveability of a
SMART( and probably many others) with a tiny engine is awesome , hot and cold .

I would vote for port injection as the better option, even if of course precise and
competent engineering can work wonders even on a TBI.

Heribert

Realistically, with a MS, I have no way of tweaking th per-cyl mixture anyway and the extra mass of the fuel could cause distribution to be leaner to the cyl closest to the intake, I suppose. Port injection would be the best alternative (there are 1 or 2 mono point injection systems still available on budget european cars IIRC) so i'll attempt to go with that and see how i get on.

Cheers for the discussion points!