I recently switched to E85 and installed pte 1000cc injectors scaled to 609. when I did my first few logs I noticed my loads were way down then previous logs with the stockers. then I realized that I needed to change the value in the load calculated column in evoscan so I switched it from 513 to 609. Is this all I need to do? My loads still seem a little lower then with the stockers even with a little more boost.
thanks,
ed

 

Forget calculated load (LoadCalc), and just start logging 2-byte load. Instructions are posted in this forum (search). Since it's the value the ECU is actually using to determine the map cells, it's far more useful compared to LoadCalc.

 

if your ecu doesnt have this 2 byte patch ready, can changing the injector scaling value in the evoscan load calculation bring it closer to the load map?

As in if your injector scaling is 600, than u just change it to 600 in the evoscan file.

Original:
<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="Load Calculated" LogReference="LoadCalc" RequestID="00" Eval="5*513*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]" Unit="load" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="500" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="500" Notes="5*InjScaling*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]"></DataListItem>

Injector Scaling 600:
<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="Load Calculated" LogReference="LoadCalc" RequestID="00" Eval="5*600*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]" Unit="load" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="500" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="500" Notes="5*InjScaling*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]"></DataListItem>

Please advise..

 

That does not sound right at all. You should be well over 609 for your scaling. Search and find the scaling injectors thread, and there is a chart in there that will tell you *approximately* what your scalings should be based on what injectors you have. 609 for a set of 1000's is wayyyyy to small..

EDIT: I have my PTE 680's scaled to 609, and my fuel trims are all OK. Yours are probably trying to compensate and are probably all out of wack.

 

609 should be good for 1000cc injectors while running E85. Changing the evoscan file as you noted should work ok as long as you didn't change the injector latency table. If you did, you need to make adjustments to it as well.

Injector Scaling 600:
<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="Load Calculated" LogReference="LoadCalc" RequestID="00" Eval="5*600*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]" Unit="load" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="500" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="500" Notes="5*InjScaling*([InjPulseWidth]-(-0.1026*[Battery]+1.8741))/[AFRMAP]"></DataListItem>

-Paul

 

I just switched to 2-byte instead
thanks,
ed

 

when the guys run e-85 they are pouring fuel through their cars. so it has to be scaled to run lots more fuel.


how many miles to the gallon do you get with e-85?

 

about 14-15 mpg but that is with alot of WOT runs and still fine tuning. I was getting about 20mpg's with 92oct
nothing like watching the fuel gauge drop while you drive
it is currently $2.59 and premium is about $3.20. it almost the same for $ per mile
ed

 

and you feel a power difference?

 

^yeah, I added about 5-6 degrees of timing in the upper rpm range and upped the boost to 27 with little to no knock. I can do a wot run in this 100 degree weather and only see maybe 1 count of knock if any
the only downside is the mileage but as long as it stays about $.60 cheaper then premium it is about the same price.
ed

 

The two values that u have highlighted...Where does it correlate to the injector latency...cant seem to find the exact value in the 513 stock scaling and its latency..

Please advise..thanks!

 

It's a linear relationship for the 11.72v and 14.06v latencies. To get the first number you subtract the 14.06v latency from the 11.72v latency and divide by 2.34 (which is 14.06-11.72). To get the second number you multiply the first number by 11.72 and subtract it from the latency at 11.72v.

-Paul

 

Paul, sounds like the relationship between numbers in the latencies is important.
I've been altering them more or less *****-nilly, have I botched it up?

 

Not really. The formula is just a way of getting a more accurate calculated load than just using the 14v latency. Each number is the latency at that voltage and the ECU interpolates between the two. As long as your car is running well and your fuel trims are in check, you're fine.

-Paul

 

i had this same thing happen to me when i did my 880's, does logging with 2-byte fix this issue?