This is my first post here, little bit of background, I'm an automotive mechanic and partial network engineer

What I'm trying to do

I want to have a pulse trigger a sequential series of transistors

Then reset to the first after 6 pulses

Would need to have it trigger each transistor individually as well

I've looked into a 555 timer and multiplexer but for what I want to do the multiplexer won't work since I need to use only a single input which would be a pulse

Each pul selects from 0 1 2 3 4 5 then reset to 0

It would need to be able to run at 100hz at the absolute fastest

Any info is deeply appreciated

And lastly I'm avoiding Arduino if I can

 

A common "Counter" chip will easily do what You are asking for,
and will count to 10, or anything less than 10.
They can also be "daisy-chained" for much higher numbers.

You must be much more specific regarding the characterization of your "Pulse-Input",
and the required Voltage and Current for the Outputs,
and the available Power-Supply-Voltage,
and a detailed explanation of the purpose of this project, because there
might be a more appropriate solution to the overall project.
.
.
.

 

A common "Counter" chip will easily do what You are asking for,
and will count to 10, or anything less than 10.
They can also be "daisy-chained" for much higher numbers.

You must be much more specific regarding the characterization of your "Pulse-Input",
and the required Voltage and Current for the Outputs,
and the available Power-Supply-Voltage,
and a detailed explanation of the purpose of this project, because there
might be a more appropriate solution to the overall project.
.
.
.

The specific use case would be

Use the grounded terminal for an ignition coil to ground a mosfet to send a 12.5V signal to the counter

The counter then triggers a transistor that runs 12.8V at 2 amps

This transistor will fire a fuel injector

Since the ignition coil grounds to disrupt the field to fire the coil I thought it would make for a good pulse input for triggering a grounded mosfet or transistor

The highest voltage the system will see is 12.8 volts at 2.2 amp with a vrm and appropriate resistors

 

In an Automotive application, You must design for a maximum-Voltage of at least ~15-Volts.

An all Analog Fuel-Injection-System,
while it's "possible", ( but only if You are really into self-abuse ),
is not at all practical, and extremely complex in any case.

I toyed-around back in the '80's with designing an Analog-FI-Computer and
quickly through-out the idea when I realized that I could by
a "Mega-Squirt" Computer in Kit-form
for half as much as it would cost to build my own.

That Mega-Squirt-Computer ran my Daily-Driver for over ~10-years, and over ~200,000-miles,
with zero issues.
It also ran the Distributorless-Ignition-System when that was a relatively new thing.
I highly recommend them.
.
.
.

 

The first caution is that theignition coil pulse is a very noisy signal. In addition to everything else, the coil rings and produces a lot of noise. So very good limiting and filtering is going to be needed. Fuel injection triggering timing is a lot more complicated than just a delay, which needs to be based on engine speed. The injector on time needs to vary also with both speed and load.
I was part of the fuel delivery program at one automotive company and at a major fuel injection system company several years later, so I am aware that the injection timing is complex.
For a single cylinder motorcycle engine that does not need to pass any emissions tests you can probably make a port injection system work OK, but for a car it is a huge challenge to develop.
So "LoQ" has a good suggestion posted.

 

The first caution is that theignition coil pulse is a very noisy signal. In addition to everything else, the coil rings and produces a lot of noise. So very good limiting and filtering is going to be needed. Fuel injection triggering timing is a lot more complicated than just a delay, which needs to be based on engine speed. The injector on time needs to vary also with both speed and load.
I was part of the fuel delivery program at one automotive company and at a major fuel injection system company several years later, so I am aware that the injection timing is complex.
For a single cylinder motorcycle engine that does not need to pass any emissions tests you can probably make a port injection system work OK, but for a car it is a huge challenge to develop.
So "LoQ" has a good suggestion posted.

So it's really for a hobby I'm trying to do which is different builds

The motor is an old 83 f150 300 straight 6

I'm well versed with tuning and working around pimpX and other MS hardware

It's just the thing I want to do is a nice simple cruiser nothing powerful and better mileage too would be a plus

I'm only looking to run 24lb 12 hole injectors from 25lbs to 35lbs

And I already knew about the coil being noisy and had that already secured in my plan

The main thing was having a way to just have the injectors fired in sequence

Which after what lowQcab said I pretty much found everything I need

I already have the injectors and worst case I just slap in my spare pimpX

But I wanted to do something cool and different was all

 

Mileage can only be significantly increased by way of Engine-Combustion-Chamber/Piston modification,
everything else is just a bunch of blarney to sell "Swamp-Root-Snake-Oil".
.
.
.

 

Mileage can only be significantly increased by way of Engine-Combustion-Chamber/Piston modification,
everything else is just a bunch of blarney to sell "Swamp-Root-Snake-Oil".
.
.
.

With the 4 barrel it gets about 15.3mpg using a Holman moody intake

My 91 efi motor gets 19 both in 4th gear with 3.08 and 28.9s

The power is the same though since both trucks pretty much do the same 0 to 60 and I use a wideband amd vac gauge for the carb to get it as well tuned as possible and also 9.0 compression on the carb motor 8.7 for the efi motor

 

The biggest Mileage problem with Trucks is Wind resistance,
especially when "Lifted" by Tire or Suspension alterations.

My old Chevy-Malibu-Wagon, with a 4.3-V6,
( with the older "bad" heads, 2-Barrel-Truck-TBI-Injection, and Cast-Iron-Marine-Intake ),
would average ~22-MPG with mixed Stop-&-Go, and ~80-MPH-plus, Atlanta-Perimeter-Highway driving,
with the above mentioned Mega-Squirt, and ~600-pounds of Tools and Equipment in the back.
Needless to say, it took a lot of tweaking to get it to that point.
I couldn't afford any Engine-Modifications or down-time.

( The only way to achieve ~22-MPG at ~80-MPH was with "drafting",
which was virtually all the time, and which was very common on the Inside-Lane(s),
( ~4 to ~6 Lanes each way ), just like the NASCAR-Boys !!! )
.
.
.

 

The biggest Mileage problem with Trucks is Wind resistance,
especially when "Lifted" by Tire or Suspension alterations.

My old Chevy-Malibu-Wagon, with a 4.3-V6,
( with the older "bad" heads, 2-Barrel-Truck-TBI-Injection, and Cast-Iron-Marine-Intake ),
would average ~22-MPG with mixed Stop-&-Go, and ~80-MPH-plus, Atlanta-Perimeter-Highway driving,
with the above mentioned Mega-Squirt, and ~600-pounds of Tools and Equipment in the back.
Needless to say, it took a lot of tweaking to get it to that point.
I couldn't afford any Engine-Modifications or down-time.

( The only way to achieve ~22-MPG at ~80-MPH was with "drafting",
which was virtually all the time, and which was very common on the Inside-Lane(s),
( ~4 to ~6 Lanes each way ), just like the NASCAR-Boys !!! )
.
.
.

See my trucks both sit low to the ground and have a bumper piece to improve highway mileage

The big problem with the straight 6 is as perfectly as I could jet the 390 and tune it cyls 1 and 6 ran 14.8:1 while 3 and 4 saw 14:2 killing mileage due to long runners vs really short center runners

The efi the other truck has is bone stock

Port fuel injection

The cyls all hover around 14.5:1 to 14.6 which improved the mileage decently

This is why I want to port injection swap it but don't want to go with an ecm, keep it simple but good

 

Go with a "Micro-Squirt" in "Batch-Fire-Mode", that's as simple as it gets.
It will fit in your Pocket.
.
.
.

 

Go with a "Micro-Squirt" in "Batch-Fire-Mode", that's as simple as it gets.
It will fit in your Pocket.
.
.
.

I already bought a lot of the parts to do the project I'm not giving up on it lol

 

Good luck!!! I wish you success.

 

Mileage can only be significantly increased by way of Engine-Combustion-Chamber/Piston modification,
everything else is just a bunch of blarney to sell "Swamp-Root-Snake-Oil".
.
.
.

Plus modification for milage mostly comes down to reducing ring pressure which results in an engine that burns oil.

 

Piston-Ring technology has taken huge leaps and bounds in the last ~10-years,
as well as Cylinder-Wall-Honing-Finishes.

Total-Seal-Piston-Rings, along with a very exacting and precise Honing-Procedure,
can Reduce-Friction, and increase Engine-Efficiency, by over ~5%.
And another big bonus is that they will easily go ~400,000 miles with no performance degradation.
And, they're only ~2mm thick.

There are also Combustion-Chamber tricks that work very well.

All it takes is Cubic-Money.
.
.
.

 

I have improved efficiency, and thus mileage, simply by improving the ignition spark.

 

Maybe back in the "good-ole-days" when Cars had "Breaker-Point-Ignitions", and Distributors.

Now,
the only improvements to be found by way of Spark-Enhancement, only work on "Boosted" Engines,
and that's only during the short time periods when they are under crazy amounts of Boost-Pressure.
.
.
.

 

Maybe back in the "good-ole-days" when Cars had "Breaker-Point-Ignitions", and Distributors.

Now,
the only improvements to be found by way of Spark-Enhancement, only work on "Boosted" Engines,
and that's only during the short time periods when they are under crazy amounts of Boost-Pressure.
.
.
.

There are other enhancements that can be done for NA engines too such as using a hybrid injection system to spray a little mist of methanol to cool the air charge then under high pressure only needs a little bit of fuel to maintain a safe AFR

It's what I did with my 2002 ranger 2.3 dohc which is now turbo charged

But i shaved the head to raise compression from 9.7:1 to 11.2:1

I couldn't run 87 without pulling ignition timing (tuning with the quarter horse and the j3 port of the ecm)

But with the meth injection 75 meth 25 water I saw from my normal 24.8 mpg at 65 to 28.6 with water meth injection and the higher compression and 87 grade e10

The ignition curve with it was not changed at all

If I ran all methanol I did lose some economy from knocking due to the air charge not cooling as much verified by dual air Temps

Factory was 136F

75/25 ran 84F

100 meth ran 92F

All in the same day in the 110F az desert

 

Compression-Ratio is where it's at for Fuel-Mileage,
and to a lesser degree, Combustion-Chamber design.

Water-Injection, when done right i.e.:
fine atomization / reliable even distribution / accurate quantity control relative to Cylinder-Pressure,
eliminates any engine destroying Knock, even on plain-ole 87-Octane.

Ignition-Timing MUST create peak-Cylinder-Pressure at exactly 17-degrees ATDC,
under all conditions, for maximum efficiency and Power.
The required Ignition-Timing will change with Water-Injection to achieve Peak-Pressure at ~17-degrees.
There may be a small discrepancy caused by the lack of efficiency of the Combustion-Chamber-Design.

That's why an old-skool Big-Block-Chevy wants ~38/40-degrees,
a Small-Block-Chevy wants ~34/36-degrees,
and a modern LS wants ~30/32-degrees,
and the new LT Motors want ~28/30-degrees, each for maximum Torque production,
they each have radically different Combustion-Chamber-Designs and Compression-Ratios.
.
.
.

 

Maybe back in the "good-ole-days" when Cars had "Breaker-Point-Ignitions", and Distributors.

Now,
the only improvements to be found by way of Spark-Enhancement, only work on "Boosted" Engines,
and that's only during the short time periods when they are under crazy amounts of Boost-Pressure.
.
.
.

INDEED! I do wonder about what sort of ignition is used in "Funny Cars" and "Top Fuel" dragsters, Certainly they are not low emission nor high economy engines driving them. But adequate ignition of such a very rich mix requires a much more intense spark. Could that improve the economy of a street vehicle??
Or would it amount to running on pure spark??