009's all done @110% Duty Cycle? (T+ tuning)

[Steve Wood]

Now, Bruce, I love you! I am sure your character speaks for itself.

I guestimated the 425 hp from your prior comment a few months ago in a thread, to Woody, I believe that you were a mid 11 runner. I guess that was a calculated number?

I try never to present myself as a guru of your calibre, or any other calibre. I generally just try to help people fix their cars and to get them to run closer to potential. On the other hand, having managed an R&D department for awhile, I tend to have a very good nose for BS. I found there was a big difference between talking and providing results that were of benefit to the user.

I certainly recognize your intelligence altho I suspect it is a bit blunted by your refusal to respect the thoughts of others. You tend to go off in tangental snits when you are asked for demonstrative evidence beyond your word.

I, and quite a few others, are always interested by theory, but will always be sold by proof.

I was very interested in your discussion with DJ recently. I noticed he could provide numbers to back up his observations whereas you expressed what you knew but did not show it. Perhaps, if you would take the time to demonstrate some of your knowledge, more of us would take it seriously?

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Eric Stage I

Maybe we need to define what 100% dc truly means. Is that the max amount of time the injector can be open including opening and closing time? How long does it take to open and close the injector? If 100% includes open/close, I could see where pushing it to say 105% might eliminate the open/close and get a tinsy bit more fuel. Just trying to brainstorm here...

Duty Cycle is a comparison of the on time compared to the total availabe on time.

Just to make the numbers easy.

At 6,000 rpm, you have 10 msec for a crankshaft revolution, since the GNs use SEFI you have two revolutions for firing the injector so you have a total possible time of 20msec for a pulse width at 6K RPM.

At 3,000 rpm a crank revolution takes 20msec, and again you have 2 revolutions to get the fuel squirted. So at 3K rpm you have 40msec.

OK, stay with me..
Since no one is going to take a crack at answering what going over 100% does, I guess I will, while doing this.

Now at 6K rpm, if you have a pulse width of 16 msec your at a 80% DC. and we'll also say, that's a 12.5 AFR.

Now at 3K the enigne is still the same size, so you'll want that same 16msec squirt of fuel to have a 12.5 AFR, but your doing that with a 40% DC.

So, we can see that Duty Cycles have different meanings at different RPM. To say I have a duty cycle means one thing, to say I have a duty cycle of 106% at 6K means something else.

If you hook a DC meter to an injector you'll see that DS pretty much follows what is going on. Using my lil $30 meter I see as much as a 6% error thou. And that's a share in case no one notices.
The why for it to occur, I haven't nailed down yet.
One other item is that a change of several percent of PE vs RPM or TPS doesn't look to match a given percent of AFR or PW. Again a share.

OK, so we see that at different RPMs, PW can do the same thing, AFR wise, but be entirely different DCs.

Soooo,
Once we get to where the injector is REALLY STATIC, what does increasing the DC do?.
It changes at what RPM the injector does go static.

Now, think about what I posted about the 160 number, and what is really going on. The so called big injector problems are from just telling the ecm part of what's going on.

GM uses many training aids, and easy explainations for some of the stuff going on. The MAF Tables and Scalers, are just a frequency to PW conversion. Once you understand that then you can get away from the Static Injector tuning, and actually get the calibration right.

So now you have two choices, try and get close by getting an injector to static, and fooling with FP. But, there is no way to really tune the point at which the injector goes static, and that is why some chips run well on some cars and not so well on others.
When you get to divorcing the various characteristics of the tune, then you can blend things as you want.

BTW, Eric, I do thank you for asking the guestions you did.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Steve Wood
Now, Bruce, I love you!

Oh please,
bring something tech to the tech area.

I notice you hit reply rather then answering any of my guestions.

Thanks for again contributing nothing.

 

[azgn]

Bruce, everything you are talking about can be accomplished with a DFI system (like FAST), however, since I am not a chip expert, and don't have a FAST system in my immediate budget,please explain how all this can be relevant to the average TR guy that buys a chip and is limited in his "tuning" to basically FP and boost?

Is there something someone who can not burn his own chips can do to improve their car's performance? If so, what? (not to include bigger, better parts....)

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by azgn
Bruce, everything you are talking about can be accomplished with a DFI system (like FAST), however, since I am not a chip expert, and don't have a FAST system in my immediate budget,please explain how all this can be relevant to the average TR guy that buys a chip and is limited in his "tuning" to basically FP and boost?
Is there something someone who can not burn his own chips can do to improve their car's performance? If so, what? (not to include bigger, better parts....)

Yes, and no, without understanding something as basic as injector sizing a DFI won't make up not having the right injectors to begin with.

You don't have to be a chip expert, to try and understand the finer points of what's going on. Once you understand the finer points you can go faster without wasting money. If I had a clue about things, I wouldn't have wasted alot of time and money fooling with Redtops. Granted I wound up learning alot, but it was a costly lession.

If you elect not to do your own chips, then you need to gather info to pass to your chip guy. Having a working knowledge of what your doing is going to get you and he on the same wave lenght quicker.

Your last guestion loses me. What can you do to go faster without spending money?
Speed does cost money, the trick is to not to waste it.

 

[azgn]

I agree with you on injector sizing...maybe you should take it upon yourself to put together an injector chart similar to the one Joe Lubrant has on gnntype.....I have always felt that chart pushed things waaay to hard.....I know guys have done 130 on 55's....but not me...something like that would be very valuable

 

[Steve Wood]

Originally posted by bruce



Yes, I have an eDIST, also was the first one to run it on a GN, and figured out how to do it. I also was the first to run a ROMless 148, and have an actual complete source code for a GN, did I need to so that?, no, but it's called experimenting. Blow thru MAF, yep, didn't need to do that either. Tried to expalin how the MAF Tables and Scalers work, didn't need to do that either. Posted a bunch a injector sizes vs commanded AFRs and related info., didn't need to do that either, ah and that was hours of work to do that one post. I have 55s on my car, so running the other numbers, got me exactly zip, but hopefully it woke some people up.

Can you name one new idea you've brough to the GN community?.

I again invite you to bring some tech content to the thread.
Still waiting for your to answer about what happens at over 100% DC.

Ah, I am sorry I gave your list of "I"s short shrift. Your sharing of personal accomplishments has contributed greatly to the
Buick community. Everywhere I look, I see your ideas in action.


Truth is, you are wonderful at patting yourself on the back but you have never posted any evidence that any of your ideas actually improved measurable performance other than by your own calculations. You ask me for data but you never post data to support your beliefs. You believe that your clever hints should be enough to be taken as fact.

I guess I am of the school that believes that BS stops when the green flag drops and the racing starts.

I am not qualified to argue theory with you but I am qualified to discuss results which is not your bag.

My contribution to this thread was to advise MJRWOOD that injector sizing was not his problem.

When you actually do something that can be demonstrated by real numbers, I will be among the first to offer my congratulations. Until then, you are just another interesting bench racer with as much credibility as the Kenne-Bell catalog.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Steve Wood
B]

Look at you own logic. When I do answer you guestions, all you do is ignore the answers and hit reply, with another tangent. OK, now if I claimed something, what would that do?. You would again dismiss them, see Steve I know how to play your games. Any claim or any attempt at claim is meaningless with you since, you just ignore them anyway, so why should I even bother to make a claim.

Again, feel free to contribute something meaningful to the thread other then interjecting your opinions.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by azgn
I agree with you on injector sizing...maybe you should take it upon yourself to put together an injector chart similar to the one Joe Lubrant has on gnntype.....I have always felt that chart pushed things waaay to hard.....I know guys have done 130 on 55's....but not me...something like that would be very valuable

Shhhhhhhhhh,
Keep posting like that and you'll incur the rath of Wood.

Why?.
Just look at where this thread's gone.
When you do try to explain things all you get is static about how since so and so did something, so everyone should be able to do it.
Maybe we all should just look in the archives, and forever just lay back and look to be spoon feed info..

 

[Steve Wood]

You only see what you wish to see. Somethings never change. You got huffy early in this thread because you were questioned on some of your assertions and you got even huffier when I actually pointed out that you had not claimed some of the things being attributed to you i.e. 550 hp.

You start off with a chip on your shoulder and you end with one. Whatever technical contributions you do have to offer, and I admit that I think many are significant, are buried under your attitude.

Again, I state that it would be easier to consider your ideas in a more serious frame if you ever were willing to discuss them in a logical manner without resorting to petty comments. The history of the mailing list, the DIY list, and here would suggest that that is probably a vain hope.

I admit that I am very intolerant of those that cannot express their ideas without getting mad so I am sure that you and I will not see eye to eye on too many issues altho I will be happy to give you credit on those issues where you do. Altho I do not think the originator of this thread has a problem with injector sizing, I agree with your thoughts on the benefits of larger injectors, whether or not I believe that is his basic problem.

In the meantime, I shall continue to post my views and continue to try to help those that I can. You are free to contradict me whenever you like and if you have something that is substantiated, I will happy to learn from you as well as anyone else. When you give me the old Peter Pan philosophy, I will still express my preference for actual data.

 

[Steve Wood]

Originally posted by bruce



Shhhhhhhhhh,
Keep posting like that and you'll incur the rath of Wood.

Why?.
Just look at where this thread's gone.
When you do try to explain things all you get is static about how since so and so did something, so everyone should be able to do it.
Maybe we all should just look in the archives, and forever just lay back and look to be spoon feed info..

Nope, you explained your injector sizing theory instead of resorting to your usual bs...Most of your stuff is more likely to invoke the Rath (sic) of Khan

Read the thread, you drove most of it....Perhaps you should just write the archives for us and then all we know would come from you?

 

[Dean]

Originally posted by bruce

Now at 6K rpm, if you have a pulse width of 16 msec your at a 80% DC. and we'll also say, that's a 12.5 AFR.

Now at 3K the enigne is still the same size, so you'll want that same 16msec squirt of fuel to have a 12.5 AFR, but your doing that with a 40% DC.

So, we can see that Duty Cycles have different meanings at different RPM. To say I have a duty cycle means one thing, to say I have a duty cycle of 106% at 6K means something else.

What if the target AFR is not being achieved and there are still more ms available, but not being called upon? Case in point: 11.6 AFR target, 340 gps, 5100 rpm, 20.65ms PW, 87.8% DC, .730 O2s. What does the ECM do, or suppose to do, about it?

GM uses many training aids, and easy explainations for some of the stuff going on.

Are these "easy explanations" readily available? I could sure use them... and thanks for the one above.


:-Dean

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Steve Wood

Nope, you explained your injector sizing theory instead of resorting to your usual bs...Most of your stuff is more likely to invoke the Rath (sic) of Khan
Read the thread, you drove most of it....Perhaps you should just write the archives for us and then all we know would come from you?

Again, thank you for your high technical content.

I have read the thread, have you?. Have you noticed I've been in repling, answering questions, and that I asked some of my own?.. Have you noticed that when someone disagrees with you, you resort to tangents?. This thread is/was about injectors, and your constantly wanting to talk about me, rather then injectors. First you say I contribute nothing, then something, then you don't like the way I write, then you say I'm mad. You've single handedly tried to turn this into a flamefest.
Oh well,

 

[Steve Wood]

From experience, I suspect you have attempted to explain your views only because I called your hand back when you were into your flame on mode. If nothing else, I have caused you to drop your usual petulant "take my marbles and go home mode" and actually try to explain the reasoning behind your usual quick draw, amaze the idiots, and go home mode.

Keep it up, you may actually make a point yet.

 

[TurboJim]

Originally posted by Steve Wood

Woody, I don't think Brucie was claiming 550 hp, only 24# boost with no detonation on 93. I would guess he might make 425 or so which ain't bad on 93. Contrary to what Jimmy T stated, however, he is not running 300 hp worth of mods to get it. I used to laugh every time I read his signature....but if you get past his attempts at humor, you find he has ported heads, coil over plug ignition, reworked intake, turbo, 55# injectors, etc so he does have 500 plus hp worth of mods. I bet he has a kitchen sink buried in there somewhere but it will be a high flowing one.

Actually Steve, only thing "bolted on" is 206 cam, ignition mods, TE60 and 55's. The rest is optimizing what you got. Yea he modified all you said, but that aint a bolt on, and since he did it himself, thats free HP. My comparison was with people who got a TE76, 220 cam, GN1's, M&A intake, 160# injectors, 9" ford rear, etc..etc..etc and have run a personal best of 12.60! My point is if people would pull a Tim Stockwell, before putting all that crap on their cars, there would be more faster cars with less in them. Like I said before, there are guys who will make what they got work, and there are guys who will bolt every HP piece on, not knowing how to make it work together and make power, and wonder why they only got a 12 sec slip to show for it. You know Rich Rezes...look at his wifes car. 11.48 @ 114 on Valve springs, 3 angle valve job, TA61, 3200 converter, 009's, 24psi and fresh plugs. Not much to that car but weeks of tuning and lots of burning chips in the pits.

 

[TurboJim]

Originally posted by Dean


What if the target AFR is not being achieved and there are still more ms available, but not being called upon? Case in point: 11.6 AFR target, 340 gps, 5100 rpm, 20.65ms PW, 87.8% DC, .730 O2s. What does the ECM do, or suppose to do, about it?

If the MAF isnt pegged. it will add fuel to achieve programmed and calced AF ratio. Its all about load/RPM/scalers/trims = final PW. If it (the MAF) IS pegged, which I'm sure it is, it comes down to how well your chip guy knows your cars fuel requirements.

 

[TurboJim]

Steve:

Maybe I'm shallow, but I am appauled at your replies here. You appear to be that person in the audience of the Presidential debate, asking about the candidates affair with his secretary, rather than talking about the subject at hand. I almost think this is an imposter using your name, because this isnt you.

Add tech, add arguements on the subect at hand. Comments about Ego and crap like that dont belong here.

What Bruce is talking about makes sense, although my only beef here is Bruce didnt see at what fuel pressure the injectors in question delivered their rated flow #'s. ie: IN talking with Joe Lubrant many moons ago while he was at PTE, he went on to say something to the effect, 009's only flow 42# at 45psi static, and thay only flow like 38 at 42psi. This stemmed from a discussion we had on the FP I recommend with my chips. I suspect Bruce's 55's and my 65, (my 65's flow 56.2# at 80% DC at 6000rpm at 45psi, thats how PTE tests em) and your 72's or whatever you're running now are similar. So, if Bruce's 55's require XYZ psi to achieve his desired AF ratio, then the next question is what theyre flowing and at what pressure. He may only be flowing 45# of fuel, which would yes, put his 55's at 90% or whatever for his commanded AF (verified via a WBO2). But if the pressure was right, for the injectors to flow 55# at static, then he turned them down to flow 45 by way of lowering PW, then we'd have even more accurate data.

In other words: Say 55's flow 55# at 45psi. If you graphed them at different pressures and found a delivery "curve". Lets say for ease of figgering, Bruce likes 42psi. Lets say his MAF tables, his AF, his PE is all based on this 42psi. Now lets say, on a flow bench, these 55's only flow 48# at 42psi. Now Bruce is programming and watching his WB etc.etc.. he gets his car to 12.5:1 AF, with a commanded PW of 80%. Next he turns the boost up, redoes the chip and is now at 99%. He's at 99% of a 48# injector now because at that pressure it will only flow 48#. Now, had he set the chip up for 55# injectors at 45psi (or whatever pressure they flow 55# at) he might be at 78-85% or so on. So, more has to be taken into account, than injector size only. You need to know under what conditions the injector will flow their rated flow, THEN set up for THAT ,and tune from there. This of couse is if you want to, if you need ALL the fuel an injector can deliver. If not, you can lower the pressure or trim the chip whatever. But dont say you're out of injector, unless you have the injector delivering as its designed to do.

BTW: There are plenty of TR "guru's" with a lot more ego than him. I even have one here in NJ who backs his stuff with TOTAL BS...but thats for another thread.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Steve Wood
From experience, I suspect you have attempted to explain your views only because I called your hand back when you were into your flame on mode. If nothing else, I have caused you to drop your usual petulant "take my marbles and go home mode" and actually try to explain the reasoning behind your usual quick draw, amaze the idiots, and go home mode.

Keep it up, you may actually make a point yet.

Your just dissy with your own importance.
I usually just ignore you, since you tend to repeat yourself.
Like you noted they are my marbles, and I reserve the right to use them as I see fit.

I saw what I say. It's called the 1st amendment, you don't like it?, tough. It's sad to hear you refer to some turbobuick owners as idiots.

Maybe someone will post something tech related,

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by TurboJim


If the MAF isnt pegged. it will add fuel to achieve programmed and calced AF ratio. Its all about load/RPM/scalers/trims = final PW. If it (the MAF) IS pegged, which I'm sure it is, it comes down to how well your chip guy knows your cars fuel requirements.

Wellll,
Just for grins, since you seem interested in this, I ran a few chips on the ecm bench to actually put some numbers to this.
editors not: Steve turn away, we don't want to blinded by any real data, ie that stuff that doesn't make a HP or ET claim.

Given a set of normal operating conditions for temps, and TPS values.

Using an injector size of 55PPH, and a MAF of 160 to acheive a commanded AFR of 12.5:1

At 3K RPM, the DC is 63% and at 5K 62.6%

Now to repeat that with a MAF of 255 we get
At 3K, 98.4%, and at 5K 100.1%

So what does that really mean?.
If you want to peg the meter, fine, but when you peg it you've just about totally wiped out getting any resolution, with the 255 entries there is just nothing left. You can't change a darned thing.

HOWEVER,
Look at what happens when you limit the MAF reporting to 160. You still have PW to play with. Lots of time to add PE vs TPS, or RPM.

Now do things make more sense?.
If you want to run on a pegged MAF that is a valid option, but your hands are tied for what you can do.

NOW, to continue........

Since we're at 24 PSI +-, those 55s are more like 70s.
So we'll run the MAF at 160, and we get
At 3K 49.7% DC, and at 5K 49.4%

Now the run the 255 value,
and we get
At 3k 78.5%, and at 5K, 77.9%


So now whatdawedo?.
Let's see we know what DC give up what AFRs, for a Given injector. We know when our boost begins, we know the injector's new flow at max boost, and the DCs we need to get a desired AFR, so we just need to figure out if we want to add the fuel via RPM or TPS.

Footnote:
See Steve when someone actually asks a guestion or expresses a desire to learn, and acts somewhat civil, I reply. It the nonsense like you and those like you that discourages any actual tech posting.

 

[ijames]

Since we're at 24 PSI +-, those 55s are more like 70s.

By this I assume you mean that the boost is 24 psi so the fuel rail pressure has gone up 24 psi from the base setting? However, the intake manifold pressure that the injectors are spraying into is also up 24 psi and so the pressure difference across the injector hasn't changed so they still look like 55's. That's the whole reason for referencing the fuel pressure regulator to the intake manifold, so manifold pressure/vacuum is removed as a fuel delivery variable.