There isn't a particularly meaningful answer to this, but I hope I can provide some insight.
Mostly it boils down to the observation that injection velocity is not particularly meaningful/constant-or-optimised between rocket designs.
Injection mass flux is the interesting engineering quantity
($v \times \rho \times A$), where $v$ is velocity, $\rho$ is density and $A$ is cross sectional area.
Hence $\frac{v_i}{v_e} = \frac{\rho_e A_e}{\rho_i A_i}$.
However unlike for the exhaust, where maximizing $v$ is critical, a pintle injector would work almost exactly as well if it had double the area and half the injection velocity or vice-versa.
$\rho$ is also a significant source of fluctuation.
The subtleties of the trade-offs are a bit complex. Enough so, that designs vary significantly.
For example:
A gas generator cycle feeds the fuel/oxidiser into the injectors pretty much as it comes out of the tanks.
As do pressure-fed, electric-pump-fed, and tap-off cycle engines.
In a staged combustion cycle some or all of the propellant will have already been through a combustion chamber, increasing its temperature and lowering its density.
In expander cycles the expansion (usually of the fuel) due to heating is directly the source of energy used to pump the propellants.
This change in density would effect injection velocity, for a given injector geometry.
Finally, unlike exhaust velocity which is fairly well defined, injection velocity is a little less clear.
Take a look at:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Pintle_3.png
There are a number of constrictions near the outlet. Where you choose to take injector to end, and combustion chamber to begin, will effect your answer you get. It should also be clear you care fairly free to alter the geometry to the same effect.