009's all done @110% Duty Cycle? (T+ tuning)
- Thread starter BEATAV8
- Start date
REDS HOT AIR
Buick Tweaker
- Joined
- May 24, 2001
are you guys having problems getting along in here???
well have fun
well have fun
Bruce:
I admire your knowledge and scientific approach, but hey; you could've cut Steve some slack here. He was man enough to give a formal apology to you and the entire forum, which I also think is admirable. People will be more likely to discredit your skill and knowledge,,, if presented with such arrogance and lack of a forgiving nature. (the "my sh*t don't stink approach" is usually a turn off.) That's merely my opinion, but I've eaten alot of crow in my day, which has obviously soaked in. I'm still learning from this thread, and I encourage its continuance, but give the guy some credit as he too has good info to offer, even if it's not revolutionarily new data. Just food for thought...
Originally posted by salvageV6
I hear a dyno is much less stress on a drivetrain than WOT street runs?
Not to mention more safer.
Any truth to that one?
TIA
Actually it can be worse.
There is a huge amount of air flow around and thru the engine compartment. Not to mention along the undercarriage. A dyno is a great way to roast a tranny.
I've had crow with about every seasoning made, and while he did make an attempt at excusing himself, he immediately covered his tracks with stuff that was just PC.
He mentioned the 700 gm/sed and I'm curious about it, it's just that simple.
Any arrogance you see in it is just what you see in it.
Bruce,
I'm trying to follow along so please bear with me.
160 gps vs. 255 gps Less air would require less fuel to maintain 12.5 AFR at 6K rpm (62% d.c. vs. 100.1% d.c.) correct?
Now since you have limited the maf to 160 gps, you can massage the fuel curve to maintain 12.5 AFR once the engine requires more fuel to match the air coming into the plenum (>160 gps).
The question is: Do you use WOT WBO2 AFR reading to calculate WOT fueling requirement changes to the fuel curve and extrapolate down the rpm scale?
ex. Do you program in a fuel curve that you think will meet fueling requirements to maintain 12.5 AFR at WOT, then after making a run and observing that the true AFR was 11.8 via WBO2, go back and adjust the programmed fuel curve?
Thanks,
Mike
I'm trying to follow along so please bear with me.
160 gps vs. 255 gps Less air would require less fuel to maintain 12.5 AFR at 6K rpm (62% d.c. vs. 100.1% d.c.) correct?
Now since you have limited the maf to 160 gps, you can massage the fuel curve to maintain 12.5 AFR once the engine requires more fuel to match the air coming into the plenum (>160 gps).
The question is: Do you use WOT WBO2 AFR reading to calculate WOT fueling requirement changes to the fuel curve and extrapolate down the rpm scale?
ex. Do you program in a fuel curve that you think will meet fueling requirements to maintain 12.5 AFR at WOT, then after making a run and observing that the true AFR was 11.8 via WBO2, go back and adjust the programmed fuel curve?
Thanks,
Mike
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
What you call PC was an attempt to insure your theories receive fair play from those of us that prefer actual facts rather than speculative calculations without personality playing a part in the analysis..
As far as the 700 maf, I was not the first to mention it here.
As the stock maf has been at least to the 9.8s fpr sure and 9.6s by rumor, I don't see a need for 700 plus myself, and I personally prefer the mafless route anyway. I would be happy to actually require one that provided such flow measurement, however.
As far as the 700 maf, I was not the first to mention it here.
As the stock maf has been at least to the 9.8s fpr sure and 9.6s by rumor, I don't see a need for 700 plus myself, and I personally prefer the mafless route anyway. I would be happy to actually require one that provided such flow measurement, however.
1) Yes, but remember, the goal.
We're just changing the upper end of the fuel curve to give it more resolution.
2) we're just changing the reported limit that the ecm for the MAF side of things.
3) AT WOT, the PW is just about a constant to maintain a given AFR. While the DC will move all around the PW stays about the same, for a given AFR. Once you get that far, then it's a matter of just finding out the exact AFR you engine likes, and weither to get it to stay the same, get richer, or posssibly even leaner as you go from max torque to max HP.
NOTE:
The power of the MAF-N, which is what I've labeled this set up is that unlike pegging the system with the MAF at such a high PW/DC, the MAF's contrabution to the PW is just decreased enough so that you can manipulate the fuel curve with out being tied to the static injector chain of thought.
Ok, now I see what's going on. So the next step would be to remove the limitation (stock MAF) and step up to a Translator and extender chip? With the ability to monitor incoming air beyond the requirements of a stockish motor, d.c. shouldn't get near 100% to maintain a target AFR? If so, do you set the WOT fuel settings so that they are around 80% d.c.? This should give enough room for the injector to "do its thing" if gps should ever go over "usual for your combo" WOT MAF readings. i.e. If you typically run 340 gps WOT and your injectors are running 80% d.c. to maintain target AFR, you decide that more boost is needed, now your WOT MAF reads 360 gps, there is enough headroom with inj d.c. for the ecm to add more fuel to keep in line with targe AFR. Does this sound anywhere close to the tuning procedure?
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
The extender is one way of doing it.
One thing that's really nice about using the later MAFs is that you can measure the air that's actually entering the enigne. With the temp compensation for the MAF being in the MAF, you can then go to a blow thru MAF, and forget it as being a restriction.
Once you get to the stage of not totally relying on the MAF, all you want to worry about is what's coming out the pipe or best performance.
With the MAF type systems, you have to be concerned with the gm/sec., since the ecm is heavily replying on that for fueling. doing things this way get you away from that. It becomes, just do I want to add fuel, or remove it. And like you noted, when you have a reasonable PW/DC it's a piece of cake.
OK, how about the MaxEffort? Instead of limiting the range of the MAF, it has kept the 255 range and changed the WOT fuel curve? So, it uses a fuel curve to give say 70% d.c. at WOT for 255 gps for a target AFR. You make a pass and WBO2 indicates 13.1 AFR, so you go up a position or two to get at say 85% d.c., now you are at 12.5 AFR. Is this similar (except for MAF limits) in theory to what you are doing, except ME has diff. fuel curve .bins loaded into a selector, and you burn a chip as needed?
Thanks,
Mike
Thanks,
Mike
Wow, now your speaking for entire communities. Glad to see you've taken on such a responsibility.
If the MAF has gone 9.8s, according to you, then why the push to remove it?. You're the one that in other posts has said the thing to do is go with the ME since it gets away from the MAF. Like you said it's just preference, well what I've mentioned here is my preference.
This thread was originally about going static with injectors, and I've tried to deal with that issue, and your contibution is that is doesn't seem to matter.
Well it does.
Put an injector on a emc bench and run some tests, then feel free to comment when you have some actual information.
Weither you were the first or not is immaterial, you must have some info about the subject, you accused me of leaving threads without spilling my guts about an issue, I'm just challenging you not to be quilty of what I've done. So let's hear about it.
Steve Wood
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
Perhaps I have learned well from you. Use the search engine like the rest of us.
The ME removes much of the potential MAF variation from the equation and now it offers the ability to remove it all. I consider that progress. Whether or not you do is immaterial to me.
This thread started with injector sizing and most agreed that the gentleman's injectors were sufficient for his current goals. I believe that using a b.s.f.c. of .6 and a dc of 80% is more than adequate when calculating injector size when starting from scratch.
Based upon the above, I run 75#/hr injectors in one of my cars so I don't necessarily advocate small injectors....
The ME removes much of the potential MAF variation from the equation and now it offers the ability to remove it all. I consider that progress. Whether or not you do is immaterial to me.
This thread started with injector sizing and most agreed that the gentleman's injectors were sufficient for his current goals. I believe that using a b.s.f.c. of .6 and a dc of 80% is more than adequate when calculating injector size when starting from scratch.
Based upon the above, I run 75#/hr injectors in one of my cars so I don't necessarily advocate small injectors....
BEATAV8
The Engine Whisperer
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
Raising the dead!
This thread has been quiet for a while but at the request of one of the members I figured I would post some recent results after my injector upgrade.
Heeding Bruce's recommendation I upgraded from the 009's to 55lb delphi's (ECM modded too ofcourse).
My lean condition and popping associated with overdriven injectors is completely gone.
Injector duty cycles are reaching only 80-85% now, as one would expect for 400+gm/sec of airflow and a 12.6 commanded A/F ratio. With the correct fueling now being acheived I found I am able to run an additional 4 degrees of advance (25 degrees total) with the same 100 octane sunoco and same 23-24 PSI boost level. Knock retard is 0.5-0.7 degrees on 2-3 and 3-4 shift. The additional spark advance will help the BSFC of the engine substantially. Track times hopefully by next weekend.
And the 55's drive beautifully, thanks to TurboBob.
Only regret is that I should've gone even larger, perhaps 65's or 72's. On the other hand the 55's have given me enough room to meet my goals, any more injector and the temptation to push the car even harder would probably lead to broken parts!
This thread has been quiet for a while but at the request of one of the members I figured I would post some recent results after my injector upgrade.
Heeding Bruce's recommendation I upgraded from the 009's to 55lb delphi's (ECM modded too ofcourse).
My lean condition and popping associated with overdriven injectors is completely gone.
Injector duty cycles are reaching only 80-85% now, as one would expect for 400+gm/sec of airflow and a 12.6 commanded A/F ratio. With the correct fueling now being acheived I found I am able to run an additional 4 degrees of advance (25 degrees total) with the same 100 octane sunoco and same 23-24 PSI boost level. Knock retard is 0.5-0.7 degrees on 2-3 and 3-4 shift. The additional spark advance will help the BSFC of the engine substantially. Track times hopefully by next weekend.
And the 55's drive beautifully, thanks to TurboBob.
Only regret is that I should've gone even larger, perhaps 65's or 72's. On the other hand the 55's have given me enough room to meet my goals, any more injector and the temptation to push the car even harder would probably lead to broken parts!
Thrilled to hear it.
You're also away from abusing DC to time when an injector goes static.
When your injector is static, and you incease the DC the injector ain't flowing any more fuel, well at over 104, anyway, but you're changing when in the run the injector is trying to go static.
BEATAV8
The Engine Whisperer
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2002
I agree Bruce,
The condition I had with the 009's is probably best described as lean "blips". O2 volts would be steady around 770's or so until a blip came along and the voltage would drop to ~700mv and the car would pop. That lean spot would also bring a little knock retard with it. I imagine the injectors were chattering. Grossly overdriving the ECM to 120% DC seemed to help a little bit, but even then the problem persisted.
What have you seen on the bench? Do injectors chatter less at very high DC than they do nearer to 100%?
Regardless, I would not want to drive through the 100% mark knowing they will chatter.
thanks for your help!
The condition I had with the 009's is probably best described as lean "blips". O2 volts would be steady around 770's or so until a blip came along and the voltage would drop to ~700mv and the car would pop. That lean spot would also bring a little knock retard with it. I imagine the injectors were chattering. Grossly overdriving the ECM to 120% DC seemed to help a little bit, but even then the problem persisted.
What have you seen on the bench? Do injectors chatter less at very high DC than they do nearer to 100%?
Regardless, I would not want to drive through the 100% mark knowing they will chatter.
thanks for your help!
Starting at 95% you can hear injectors starting to operate intermittently. Some will wait to 100%, and then at times start chaterring when over 100%.
It will also vary some as to how fast the engine sweeps thru the stage of going static. ie a chip that stays at say 102% will sometimes, just allow the injector to chatter the whole time.
I just wonder how this relates or if it relates to Dan Smith's problems from what was that 3 years ago?. When he wound up doing alot of harness work to sort things out.
turbov6joe
Signal 1 J-12
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
I know this is prolly a fluke case, but I'm running almost 120 mph with the original injectors, alky injection, and a JC street chip that I know is not programmed for 100% DC, and a TE44. My O2's at the big end are around .79x to .81x with 0 KR and 24-25 psi of boost. I have my static FP set at 47 psi if that makes any difference. Three months ago I would have argued that I needed 50's to go with the TE44 and this combo, but after last week at the track and my dyno session, I think I'm leaving the 50's out for now. As long as my O2's are where they are, my EGT is staying below 1600º, and I have no KR, I don't see a need to upgrade at this point. Seems that the alky is giving me enough extra fuel to keep the #'s where they need to be.
Ok going on a limb here..but exactly how does one know for sure the injectors are at 100 percent..I know Direct scan does a computation to calculate this with values it recieves from various sensors.but what is the formula for this determination..
If load is at 254 and Maf is pegged at 255 ...what other parameter is involved in the correllation to the injectors being static..
And finally How is an AFR calculated on direct scan..and how accurrate is it?
If load is at 254 and Maf is pegged at 255 ...what other parameter is involved in the correllation to the injectors being static..
And finally
How is an AFR calculated on direct scan..and how accurrate is it?Similar threads
