Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Hello all, hope this finds you well. Have an interesting issue, and trying to decide how serious of an issue it is.

Car is built, can post build, or you can find it on here --> https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...o-8-build.html

This is a fuel issue, so lets get to the parts that deal with fuel.
Walbro 255, put in back in 2010.
Stock wiring.
Stock Fuel line
Skunk 2 Composite Fuel rail. Same size internal as the AEM one.
Stock FPR
FIC 1350cc Bluemax Injectors. Look to be used, put in by the gentlemen I paid to have tune, who partial tuned it, and kicked it to the curb, selling me used injectors as new... don't ask.
(These are Ignition related, but just incase)
Okada Direct Coils
Magnacore Spark Plug Wires
160 Amp Alternator
Custom Grounding Kit

Ok, so he tuned the car and said it put down 450HP on the Dyno. I looked at the fuel map, and it was ok. I looked at the Injector scaling and this is what I find:

1044 Scaling
Latencies as follows:
4.992
3.264
1.968
1.416
1.224
0.888
0.648

Under this scaling, the trims register pig rich, and are pegged at -12.5 on both Low and Mid. With the STFT adding or subtracting about 20%. Car throws a P code on running to rich. Pulls hard though, no knock, all the way to red line.

So of course, I thought, well he didn't scale them correctly. I called FIC and got the latencies from them, and changed the scaling to this:

Scaling: 1218
Latencies:
5.952
3.984
2.184
1.536
1.200
0.960
0.840

Fuel trims are now spot on, with in +/- 1%. STFT swings between +/- 2%. Verified over a week of trials, and logs.

SO here is the trouble I am having. Both scalings have issues starting. Of course I have been working with the current scaling I have done, and get the car to fire like it should. I utilized Dynatech's ICSV tuning to achieve this. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...cv-tables.html
However, the car doesn't catch it's idle and register AFR's for a random amount of time. It fires up, gets to 1000 RPM which is the BISS setting, and rough idle for random period, seriously, like 3-4 minutes if I let it. No AFR's on the gauge, no trims in the logs, nothing. Then randomly when it decides to, like the fuel pump kicks in or something, it starts to idle up, and then settle back down to 1000. THen it idles like a champ. Not sure what the deal is there. Both maps do it. Mine and the other guys.

Second issue, more importantly, is the WOT issue. Under the other guys map, remember it is scaled pig rich, you can do a boost pull and numbers in AFR reflect 11.3.ish. Numbers in the fuel map don't match the AFR's, but that would be correct if the injectors are not scaled properly. With my scaling, everything runs nice , try a boost pull, and the AFR's lean out to 12.5 and stay there. I have the WOT section of the fuel map at 8.5:1... Stays at 12.5 AFR.

What the hell? Am I running out of fuel? Am I out of pump? Are my relays going bad, and the fuel pump is shutting off when it should be in full voltage? No fuel leaks. I can verify the relays gong on and off as the pump kicks in for WOT pulls. Read up on the Fuel pump rewire, and found out how to log this now. Of course I shut her down mid pull once I see she is lean in the torque section. I can't make heads or tails of it. New everything, don't want to damage her.

UPDATE:Drove around tonight. First thing was same issue on startup, AFR gauge stayed way lean, for like 2-3 minutes, then everything kicked in, did it's idle up, and settled back down, then struggled swinging wildly lean to rich. I did not notice the pump prime when the key was turned to on, ready to fire... Second thing, once it warmed up, AFr's still erratic, I drove it down the street, and on a road holding the throttle at partial and rpms steady at 2500(45 miles an hour) and it felt like like it was struggling, then ok, then struggling, then ok. Seemed as though the low setting on the pump or relay was messed up. Also in EVOSCAN, the pump switch that MFRED listed to log low to high, kicked in at 40 load. I verified settings for fuel pump switch at 100 load for this speed. I did not do a boost pull or heavy throttle to get up to speed. It rained earlier tonight, and seems when it does, things get worse from a fuel pump standpoint. This suggest a short in the engine bay. or possibly that the relay under the hood is bad, don't know, need suggestions.

As to the second issue, what specific calculations are done with scaling and latencies by the ECU. It suggest that the ECU knows something about scaling size and allowing the pump to flow more fuel. I can't seem to understand, why if I dial in the injectors, even on the other guys map, it still leans out. But if I use his size scaling, it pulls just fine with 11.3 AFR up top. It doesn't make sense, that the only thing you change is the size scaling, and fuel flows. Any one got any ideas or know calculations used by the ECU specifically with size scaling?

UPDATE: Had some time today to do some test's. Here is what I found.

Tuner's Injector numbers:

1044 Scaling
Latencies as follows:
4.992
3.264
1.968
1.416
1.224
0.888
0.648

Trims:
LTFT low -12.5% Maxed out rich.
LTFT mid -12.5% Maxed out rich.
STFT -25% Maxed out at Idle.

I tried These setting's, non of which I worked:

Set as 1050's ->
Scaled at 1008
Latencies:
4.725
2.593
1.272
1.09
.840
.620
.528

Car fired, but never got IDLE, and never ran any trims due to being so lean. Shut her down after 3 minutes likes this. It was painful.

Scaled at 1088 (His Scaling) Latencies at 1150 settings
New Latencies:
4.992
3.041
1.436
1.224
.960
.725
.600

Again, car wouldn't fire very well, idled like poop and afr gauge lean again. Never caught idle. Shut her down again.

Scaled at 1088 (His Scaling) Latencies at 1250 settings
New Latencies:
4.992
3.49
1.60
1.37
1.06
.840
.620

These latencies fired, but still ran lean. I don't get this one. Running latencies that FIC gives for 1250cc Injectors, but scaled at the tuners size, I figured these might work. I am assuming that the Injector is not able to fully open and close like it should, do to the low latencies. Going any lower and it has serious issues like listed above.

Here are the Latencies the FIC gave me for the 1350's.
5.88
3.936
2.16
1.512
1.176
0.936
0.816
Scaled at 1170 -> LTFT Low and Mid run -4, STFT runs -2
Scaled at 1218 -> LTFT Low and Mid run +3, STFT runs +3

What I am running currently again:
Scaling: 1218
Latencies:
5.952
3.984
2.184
1.536
1.200
0.960
0.840
LTFT Low sits at +2%, LTFT mid sits at +/- 0.5

Everything done here was utilizing Merlins Legendary tuning guide, or this thread -->https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...upermerge.html

Here is a current parts list of what I am running. Maybe it will explain something in the results I am about to list. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...o-8-build.html

Decided to update the Fuel Pump. Walbro 255 to Deatsch Works 300. Condition of the Walbro is presumably good. New fuel pump did not change anything. Still no prime on fresh ignition prior to start. Used to always prime before I started car, I could hear it. Not anymore. Same results with both pumps.

I have an AEM FPR and gauge I will be putting in as soon as possible. Then I can look at what is going on pressure wise at startup. Since I don't hear the pump Priming anymore.

I have a cold and warm start issue. I am assuming the lean condition right after the car starts is due to the pump not priming prior to firing. The other issues are probably due to the Cams, Intake, Intake Plenum, Ported and Polished Heads, etc. I can move a lot of air. So to break it down, I start the car, it struggles suggesting I need to blip the throttle, blip the throttle, car fires, struggles a little to make it to the 1000 rpm's mark, sits at 1000 rpm's, AFR gauge is full lean, just bars, no trims register in logs, it idles like that for approx. 60 seconds, then AFR gauge starts to richen up, Idle raises like it should to about 1400 RPMS, sits their like its doing its warmup settings, then slowly decreases back down to 1000 RPM's. Like I said, its like the pressure finally builds in the tank or in the fuel rail, to run like it should. From there on out, Idles like a champ. Lot a work to get it there, but anyway.

Since I found no change in pump, at WOT pulls, I decided to run a little test. I Adjusted the MAF Compensation in the 300 HZ and above range to 101% up from it's stock 96% settings. Then I scaled the MAF above the 300 HZ range about 3-4 points per setting, keeping the stock curve.

Hovered around 2500 RPM's, said a prayer, then put my foot through the floor. She pulled like a freight train all the way to red line. I seriously didn't expect that. I watched the AFR's sit at high 11's. Checked the logs, and where I fattened up the MAF you could see the AFR curve from A little lean in the 3000 RPM range and start to richen every step to redline. Very curious other result, my Load error has always been at -20, towards the top end, it almost dropped to zero. Another interesting note, at top end, I'm way beyond the MAF HZ reading, stock MAF stops at 1610 HZ, I hit 2500 HZ in my logs.

Word of not, I'm Hitting 28 LBS. of Boost.

UPDATE: Had some time today to do some test's. Here is what I found. 5/23/2016

Here's what I tried today:

Scaling set to 1044
First set of latencies:
5.232
3.504
1.92
1.344
1.056
0.84
0.744

To my surprise, the car idled, but was adding 20% fuel.
Never got a short term trim after idling for 20 minutes.

Scaling 1044
Second set of latencies:
5.352
3.576
1.968
1.392
1.08
0.864
0.768

Car idled up good, ran for 20 minute.
Can't find my logs, but it was off, and still trying to add fuel.

Scaling 1044
Third set of latencies:
5.544
3.696
2.04
1.416
1.128
0.888
0.792

Car idled up nice like we were on to something. Stft started off right away at +/- 2%
Let it idle for 10 min. Did not get any ltft till I drove it. After a steady cruise, and then 10 min at idle again,
LTFT Low was -2%
LTFT mid was -11%
STFT after cruise and idle was +5%.

For the next test, I took a shot, looking at the data, both trims in the negative, and decided to scale up one size. Ran with the same latencies.
Scaling at 1083
Fourth set of latencies:
5.544
3.696
2.04
1.416
1.128
0.888
0.792

Inconclusive results. Let it idle to catch itself, then drove it around a little.
LTFT Low, never got a reading.
LTFT mid -2% after cruising for about 10 min.
STFT after sitting and idling waiting for the LTFT low to come on +18%

This test was just out of curiosity,
Scaling 1125
Latencies: Same as previous test, and test 3.
5.544
3.696
2.04
1.416
1.128
0.888
0.792

Idled the car as normal for about 10 min. Drove it around.
LTFT Low -4% after idling for 20 min after cruise.
LTFT Mid -5% after 20 minute cruise.
STFT +12% after additional 20 minute cruise, and idle for 20 min. Same trims for low and mid.
Also worthy of noting, the car started to throttle hang, and idle at 1500 RPMS sporadically. Nothing else changed in tune from the base tune I have with everything virtually set to stock to run all 5 tests. Same stockish rom I used to get my scalings and latencies for the original post. Of course MAF is set to stock on all these tests as well. Don't know what is going on here.

I also think it is worthy to note, as the trims got closer with today's test, the boost pull got leaner and leaner with stock MAF settings. This last test was also like my original post, leaned out to 12.5AFR at 4000 rpm, Map in WOT is set to 10.5. so I didn't try any further.

Second thing of note, running same stockish rom with my scalings and latencies, same stable rom with the exception of the startup issues, and high boost issues, that I set my BISS with. I was idling it tonight to get it warmed up to drive home, ended up sitting for about 20 minutes talking on the phone. Car started to idle up from 1000 rpm's to 1200 rpm's, then back down after a minute, then up again, then down. Something told me to hit the actuator on the BISS again to see if it was still holding constant. It wasn't. With the BISS actuator test activated, the idle would bump up to 1200 rpm, then back to 1000, then down to 850 then up to 1000 then up to 1200, repeatedly, I left the actuator on for a good 5 minutes to see if it was going to settle down. It didn't. The only thing I have done is flash the test roms today. Any ideas?


Any help would be outstanding. Be great if I could get anyone's help here, would even love to here from the greats.

Thanks in advance,

Ryan

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Bump to the top.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Bump to the top. Help Please. Someone has to know something.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Bump to the top please.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

As I said in my PM to you, ditch the FIC1350s. They are old technology and are not a great injector. I had the 1450s for a short period, and could not get of inconsistent idle. I popped in a set of new technology high-Z injectors, tuned them, and idle was perfect.

I will say though that your tune sounds pretty messed up. There's no way to tell from your description whether its hardware beyond the 1350s, or if its just a really crappy tune. First thing I would do if I were you is verify that the fuel pump is getting the proper voltage by piercing the power wires just before the plug, and reading voltage while driving the car. If that looks ok, then I'd throw in a new Walbro 255.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Thanks again MFRED. I here you on the injectors. With my scaling it is pretty consistent. The big thing I am trying to understand, is if I run the 1044 scaling, it runs fine through redline. If I only change the scaling, up to 1218, it leans out to a consistent 12.5 at 3500-4000k rpm. Why does scaling affect whether the pump runs? Why does the lower(1044) scaling run ok AFR's in boost vs. the higher(1218) scaling? It doesn't make sense to me. The other thing I noticed, I don't hear the fuel pump prime anymore, when key is in the on state before starting. Thanks again.

wreckleford

iTrader: (2)

The larger the scaling number the leaner the car will be. Check your fuel pressure under boost first. If it is not dropping off, then stick to the smaller scaling number. Then adjust your latencies and MAF scaling to bring the fuel trims in line at low load/rpm.

I would take the scalings and latencies from FIC with a grain of salt.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Tried that. Car runs like ****, the injectors can't operate under a certain latency limit. Also of note, the FIC1250's Scaling and Latencies listed on this forum or pretty close. THey scale them at 1218-1271, with latencies very close to what FIC lists. So with the scaling I have at 1218, and latencies being the same that FIC gave me vs. what tuner used, are almost identical, it should run good. Remember my scaling and latencies give me almost perfect trims. The tuner I used trims are maxed out with -12.5 for low and mids, and 02 feedback is -25 as well. Car throws a P code when I use his values for running to rich. I was reading somewhere that scaling value is used in a calculation with MAF to get pulse on injector duty cycle. If I interpreted it correctly, the lower the scaling, the more times the ECU tells the injector to fire to compensate the fuel. I could be wrong though on that.

wreckleford

iTrader: (2)

Latency is just an adder to the injector pulsewidth commanded by the ECU. It is basically the minimum pulse width required to get any flow out of the injector. It is always added to the pulse width but has a more noticeable effect at low pulse widths because it is a fixed value (for a given battery voltage) and therefore makes a greater percentage contribution to the total pulse width the lower the pulse width commanded by the fuel table (along with other trims/adders).

Seeing as you are able to get the car to idle well with sensible trims (using your values), it means there is no physical reason why the injectors are not delivering good performance with the original tuners settings. It therefore should be possible to use his injector size scaling with even lower latencies to get similar low load performance to your settings. Start by reducing his latency values until you get the trims in line. You may then need to do some MAF scaling to get better driveability but often times this is not necessary.

Note that it is very possible to have good fuel trims but have the ECU not deliver enough fuel/or deliver too much under high loads. As I said before, as long as you are not dropping fuel pressure at higher loads (and have sensible values in your fuel table) you will need to reduce the scaling value to get enough fuel delivery.

Also I wouldn't mess around with trying to determine pump voltage etc. until verifying if your fuel pressure is good or not under load. The fuel pressure gauge will tell you immediately if you have a physical/hardware issue with your fuel delivery or if it is a tune issue.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

Race - I think you're misunderstanding what the injector settings do. They don't tell the ECU to flow at a particular rate. Instead, they tell the ECU about the characteristics of the injector. The more accurate the information, the better control you'll have over fuelling.

The injector scaling is used to tell the ECU what size injector is installed. If you tell the ECU its a 1218 cc/min injector, but the injector only flows at 1044 cc/min, then its going to run really lean.

In a similar way, the latency values tell the ECU how long it takes for the injectors to respond to a request to open. If you put in a lower latency value than what actually takes for the injector to open, then the total pulse width will be too short, and lean fueling will again result.

Oh, and I'll say it again - bail on the 1350s.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

First off, I want to say thank you to both of you. I truly appreciate any and all help. Further more, I am not trying to be a tool, or ignore, or challenge either of you. With that said, I used Merlin's Guide, or the Injector Scaling thread to come to the Scaling and Latencies I found.

I tried his size scaling, and tried to lower the latencies, and got failing results. Information above under my latest update. I did some MAF testing with interesting results as well.

I fully understand this, I think. On his tune, his latencies are equivalent to what FIC says they should be. But at his size scaling, it runs pig rich. Try to lower the latencies and the injectors don't operate. Raise only the size scaling following Merlin's tuning guide or Injector scaling thread, and I arrive at the 1218 settings.

I have PTE 880's, PTE 1200's, and the FIC 1350's. This tuner told me that the PTE 1200's that were in it when I delivered it to him, were wrong for the car...??? His words. He said I needed better injectors, from a reputable company, and sourced a used set of FIC's, that he sold me for new. I didn't see them till the car was back in my hands, 200 miles away. Word of note, car was missing other parts when I got it back. So I am leaning towards his tune being ****. Also, I have burned a brutal amount of money on this car in the last 2 years. Not complaining, just saying I am running really low on funds. I don't have the 5-600 to get those HI-Z Injectors. I will be listing a few things on here in the next week or so, so that might change in the next month or two.

I was able to run some test's. I updated the original post with my findings.

Thanks again to both of you.

mrfred

iTrader: (50)

FIC is a good company. The 1350s were aimed at people making 500-600 whp on e85 back when there were no hi-z injectors in that size range. They are a poor choice for running on gasoline. If still have all three sets of those injectors, sell them to fund a set of FIC1100s or FIC1050sp injectors. Or you could install the PTE880s. They are likely to be more consistent than the 1350s.

Have you read the thread on how to dial-in injector settings? It describes a methodical routine to determine good baseline values.

wreckleford

iTrader: (2)

Some comments:

That's a very big jump in latency values. You need to make much smaller changes. Start by reducing about 0.080 at a time. Don't worry about what FIC said to use for this injector or what the latency thread says. Just take your time and find what works for your car. You can get a car to idle and drive very well without having any scaling number or latency values to work off of, just by taking some time and following a methodical approach. I have done it many times. However I agree with Mr. Fred, you will have an easier time with smaller injectors (if you still have them) or Hi Z injectors. These low Z large size injectors are difficult to work with and in the end will never give as good performance as your other options. It is likely your tuner just wanted to offload some injectors that nobody wanted.

The issue you are having at startup sounds like the car is running lean until the ECU adjusts the trims to get the AFR rich enough. Watch the short term fuel trim next time you start up and see. You will probably see that the ECU is gradually adding fuel until the AFR gets to be circa 14.7:1.

My car doesn't prime the pump until I turn the key to start so I don't think that is your issue.

The MAF scaling you have done would have no effect on the car under boost you are talking about. It would affect the lower load areas.

Raceghost

iTrader: (4)

Thanks again guys.

That is what I was thinking on sales of those injectors to fund the Hi-Z's.

You mean this thread: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...upermerge.html or Merlins Tuning Guide? They are what I used.

Here MFreds Listed FIC Bluemax 1250 settings:
FIC Bluemax 1250s

Scaling 1271

latencies
4.7v 4.8
7.0v 2.4
9.4v 1.896
11.7v 1.368
14.1v 0.96
16.4v 0.744
18.7v 0.456

Here are another listing:

FIC Bluemax 1250s

scaling 1170

latencies
4.8
2.4
1.896
1.368
0.96
0.744
0.456

Scaled at 1088 (His Scaling) Latencies at 1150 settings
New Latencies:
4.992
3.041
1.436
1.224
.960
.725
.600

What I am getting at, is anything below 1.1 in the 14v column of the latencies, the injectors did not like.

Again, I used these two guides --> https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...upermerge.html and Merlins Tuning Guide, to get to the settings I have now.

I will try a few more settings again, as you suggest.

When short term kicks in, its adding 2% of fuel, then drops to +/- 2% and remains steady that way, this is utilizing the scaling and latencies I have listed. So I'm not seeing the results your suggesting.

Start as in right before you crank the starter, or when cranking the starter? Mine used to prime, when the key was in the start position, waiting for me to turn it one more click to crank.

The testing I did last night with logs says otherwise. The more I adjusted MAF above 300HZ, the richer the car got with each pull. I adjusted nothing else to get more fuel delivery than the MAF Compensation or MAF Scaling. MAF Tics is part of the equation that tells the car to add more fuel by registered amount of air.

Found this information here --> https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...really-do.html

Ceddy posted this --> Found this information here --> https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...-question.html

John Bradley of English Tuning said this --> Mfred said this --> Work with me here,
Of course all this information is to scale the MAF, once Injectors are dialed in. If what I have done following the Injector Tuning and Merlins Guide to tuning is correct, and my results I am seeing with my scaling and latencies are right in line with both of these guides, then it suggest the next thing I need to do to get fueling correct is to scale the MAF portion of this formula: (MAF_Scaling + MAF_Adder) x MAF_Comp / 128 = Injector_MAF_Comp to get the AFR's closer to the High Octane Fuel Map settings.

The testing I did yesterday with logs is showing me that I am on the right track, if I follow the Injector Tuning, Merlins Tuning Guide, and MAF tuning section Instructions.

Can either one of you explain where I am going wrong in my current path with my settings? Again I will try some other Scaling and Latencies again. Which if they work, I will be right back to base on trims, then will have to scale MAF on those settings probably a little anyways, but it will be the same method of instruction I have been using, unless the before mentioned method I have listed is incorrect.

Also, can either of you tell me, is there anything wrong, of course understanding that scaling and latencies have to be correct, with scaling the MAF that much to get the AFR and Fuel Map to mach? Meening, whats the risk of scaling the MAF to large?

Thanks again,

Ryan

wreckleford

iTrader: (2)

Sorry, I misread what you said. I thought you adjusted values at 300 Hz, not all values from 300 Hz and above.