55#ers on a stocker

[bruce]

55#ers on a Stocker.
Run really nice, thank you.

Been tweaking on a friend's Ttype. His best two times to date were just about a tie from stockers to 009s. He'd gone 12.2s at 106-109. I got involved when he had just hit a wall with the 009s. Nothing he did really helped, and things were knock sensitive. So he brought a bag of chips he'd be using over, and we ran them on the ecm bench to see what was going on, and see if there was anything we could do to improve things. It was the old story about just pegging the injectors to static, and then try to tune from there. So I said lets just try a few other things.
So we burned a few chips. And while we got the car to launch harder, we were just out of being able to TUNE the fuel anymore. But, the car went out to the track just for some giggles, and on a bad air day dropped the 60' times, .05 sec..
So he ordered a Translator Plus, and some 55s.
Last weekend we did a little tuning newly installed parts, and had gotten idle and cruise right, but the rains came. So, he dropped by this morning and we did some work on the WOT stuff. Since we knew where the PWs WERE, and commanded AFRs WERE that were too lean we just started there, and added
fuel to just keep the WB happy.
Added some fuel, and got her rolling pretty good, and then noticed the AFR leaning out so did some more editing, and got rid of that. With the added fuel we dropped the EGTs so the 20 PSI was now 18, but the car pulls alot stonger now.
So he has a Stock turbo, with stock I/C, stock cam, and 55s. This has left him with a car that still idles like stock, and he can actually tune now. Now I will admit it takes a little talent to get the 55s to idle CORRECTLY but they do so very well when right.
And, yes we used some of the MAF-N technology. <g>
When we get the Plenum Spacer it will be converted to a blow thru.
He won't be to the track for a few months now, but I'll be following up for those that are stuck on 1/4 mile numbers.

One reason for cars going lean, it that the injectors are static by the 60' line so you can't add any more fuel to maintain the indicated mixture as the chamber temps raise.

As Yogi says,
Mazin what ya see when ya look.

 

[Intercooler]

So you found a test rat huh

 

[motorhead]

Hmmm...

Interesting... at least he won't run out of injector.

Hey bruce... how long of a drive is it from Ohio to Ontario? Carry to use my car as a G-pig? I have a fuel line that could choke a horse!

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Intercooler
So you found a test rat huh

Nope, it was a Buick powered car.

 

[bruce]

Re: Hmmm...

Originally posted by Mr. T
Interesting... at least he won't run out of injector.

I have another Mule Car to work on that's a bit healthier, this will be interesting.

Once we run the day's final chip on the bench we'll see just how much extra he has before commiting on the other cars injector size.

Nice thing about actually being able to run a chip and see what it's going to do before and AFTER Testing.

 

[ijames]

Hey, Bruce, just one comment about your characterization of "static happy". In the old days some chipmakers would set the pe tables so the injectors were static basically all the time in pe. That's one reason red stripe injectors got such a bad reputation because now the linearity of the injector is what gives the delivered fuel vs. rpm, and chips like the one from ATR that I started with were pig rich at the low rpm end because the pe-rpm table was set to all $FF's from 4000 rpm up. Some vendors still take this approach over at least part of the rpm range. Another approach is to get the shape of the pe-rpm table correct but to allow the maximum duty cycle to approach 100% to get the most flow out of an injector, and the most conservative approach is to get the shape right but limit the duty cycle to something less than 90%. The latter is certainly the safest, but the middle choice can let you get more performance out of a given size injector if you are not ready to spend the money for a bigger set yet. You asked once about flow data as an injector went static. I don't have any bench data, but I did find that as I let the max duty cycle go from 92 to 95 to 97 to 98 to about 99%, the O2 volts rose with each step. Going to 100% didn't seem to give any more fuel so I didn't map any higher and in that chip where I was needing all the fuel I could get (and already running 62-65 psi base fuel pressure) I let the max duty cycle hit about 99.5-100.5% at one point in the rpm range. The uncertainty is from the battery voltage and other trims giving slightly different pw's from run to run even though the maf was pegged and everything else was the same. Anyway, just a counterpoint to the "approaching static is always bad" viewpoint - as an informed decision it may not be so bad in some circumstances.

 

[BEATAV8]

He'd gone 12.2s at 106-109. I got involved when he had just hit a wall with the 009s.

Are those 12.2 times where he started to run out of fuel/tunability with the 009's? I ask because when I posted about maxing out my 009's at similar ET's I was surprised by the number of folks saying there's "obviously" something wrong with my car/tune since they had run mid/low 11's with the same injector.
(you know the thread!)

Looking back, none of those discussions included information about spark timing or fuel octane, which is probably where much of the difference resided.

Anyways, good feedback on the 55#r's.
thanks

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by ijames
Anyway, just a counterpoint to the "approaching static is always bad" viewpoint - as an informed decision it may not be so bad in some circumstances.

Run an injector, and increase the PW, and listen to it.
That's all it takes. If you like listening to an injector's erratic chatter, and knowing that each time it does a cylinder is going lean, that might be fine with you.
Try it, please. I can't get an injector to cleanly go to static and stay there. And if you can get the transfer to static clean, then how do you progressively richen the fuel curve?.


I agree totally on making informed decisions.

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by MJRWOOD


Are those 12.2 times where he started to run out of fuel/tunability with the 009's? I ask because when I posted about maxing out my 009's at similar ET's I was surprised by the number of folks saying there's "obviously" something wrong with my car/tune since they had run mid/low 11's with the same injector.
(you know the thread!)

Looking back, none of those discussions included information about spark timing or fuel octane, which is probably where much of the difference resided.
Anyways, good feedback on the 55#r's.

Yep, after tuning that was the wall.
Sure you can push them a little more, by trying to tune with F/P.
But, why?.
IMO, it just makes more sense to keep the tune, tunable.

For the cost difference it just really doesn't make sense.

What was actually scarey was running this chip on the bench tonight, this stock motor is using a bunch of fuel.

 

[Intercooler]

So what exactly make up this mystical bench and how can that be translated from your garage, basement, etc... to a motor in a car running? What test methods are employed for simulation?

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by Intercooler
So what exactly make up this mystical bench and how can that be translated from your garage, basement, etc... to a motor in a car running? What test methods are employed for simulation?

Mystical?.
No mystery to it, the original one has been posted at the DIY-EFI for years. The current setup is 148 specific and much nicer. Look under GMECM, and then projects. The version there is meant to run 2 ecms at a time to compare results.

I duplicate what the engine sensors generate and input them to the ecm. Then with Direct Scan or some other software I have look at what the ecm is doing. So while you trying to data log at a certain rate, I can slowly sweep thur the inputs to see in exact detail what the ecm is doing. If I want to change injector size I burn a new prom, and then can see how that effects things.
Anything that is editable, I can change and see what effect it has on the ecm calculations.

I don't understand what you last guestion is supposed to mean.

 

[Razor]

Quote:

He'd gone 12.2s at 106-109. I got involved when he had just hit a wall with the 009s.

I think the wall he hit was the stock turbo and not injectors..On my car I ran 12.1's at 110 pretty consistently and according to direct scan my stock injectors were at 120 percent

I replaced the stockers with Delphi 50's and change the constant in the chip..no other changes to fueling whatsoever..ran the car again many times same identical et's and MPH..but direct scan said 70 percent..

My wall was the turbo saying "no more" and heating the air...

new turbo(PT51) and up all ready to over 115...120 here I come.

Bruce..I'm one not looking for ET..but horsepower..which is MPH..and with MPH..the ET will come.

I would love to see a DS run of your car at WOT if you have it to share..Especially the AFR throughout the run..

Thanks

Julio

 

[John Larkin]

Mine idle nice too, alot more low tech tuning though: (1) email Testa (2) send money (3) receive chip (4) install chip (5) set fuel pressure to 42 (6) watch o2 for a while and end up at 40 (7) drive

I still want one of those DIY WBs. Are they shipping boards and parts kits yet?

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by John Larkin
Mine idle nice too, alot more low tech tuning though: (1) email Testa (2) send money (3) receive chip (4) install chip (5) set fuel pressure to 42 (6) watch o2 for a while and end up at 40 (7) drive

I still want one of those DIY WBs. Are they shipping boards and parts kits yet?

Yes, the only mess up was when Paypal screwed up the original guys account , that was doing the parts kits.
New ones are improved they have a mask now.

 

[Scott231]

Boards are ~$5.50 and the parts kits ~$16.50. I sent a personal check (which they do take), that way no one has to deal with Paypal matters.