so a set of these just popped up in the for sale section, but im wondering what everyones thoughts are on these vs the 1050 sp's i was going to buy. right now my car is a stock turbo bolt ons track car with maxxed out stock injectors.

 

these were great injectors for me, however english racing's thread on the 1050sp injectors suggests that they are even better, at least for making power.

 

guys

what do you think about my fic 1100 scalings? mrfred's fic 1100 linearization scaling applied.



ron93

idle and cruise looks good

LTFTLow: -1.75781

LTFTMid: -.390625

but i have big difference in map and afr.

in map 12 afr 10.8

thanks

ps: i haven't front o2. zt-2 simulate signal for it with 15.6 afr

 

14 V latency and injector scaling are both lower than I would expect. I've found it necessary to rescale the MAF table to get a good match between requested AFR and actual AFR. My thought would be to raise injector scaling to 1008 cc/min and then fix the mid trim using the MAF scaling table.

 

I saw your recommendation about 14v on FIC 1100
so can i use your latency(last march 2011) with 1008 scaling?

scaling: 1008 cc/min
volts latency (ms)
4.69 5.650
7.04 3.552
9.39 2.136
11.73 1.488
14.08 1.128
16.43 0.912
18.70 0.816

and tweak maf compensation table if i need?

 

It seems that every car is a bit different, but those numbers match up well from my analysis of the flow curve, and they worked well for me.

 

I've been sucsessfully using these settings for a year or two on my 2.3l+FPGreen73hta on MAF with FP silicone intake and K&N filter:

Scaling 1044

4.69 5.16
7.03 2.616
9.38 1.992
11.72 1.272
14.06 0.936
16.41 0.792
18.68 0.624

Maf tables are almost stock, no global changes, fuel map (see below)is smooth and even somewhere close (+\-0.5afr) to actual AFR in most areas.

The whole concept sounds reasonable to me, so I decided to mess with linearization table, hoping that it could make some things better than they are. So I've played with suggested scaling and latencies, tried to find my own numbers, but no luck. In most cases that just totally screwed up the fuel map without any benefits to any aspect of fueling... Gave up for now, went back to my original proven settings.

 

so just in case anyone finds this thread by searching. mrfred's scaling/latency on the first page is almost dead on for the 1050sp's also (JohnBradley was nice enough to tell me to use the 1100 settings).

after a short drive ive got -3 and -5 for trims. will drive more and see if they settle tomorrow.

if everything is still a tad negative id want to lower the latency a little more correct? it doesnt seem like my ecu flash wants to increment the latency value using the bracket keys (makes a huge jump), so how do i determine how much to reduce the latency?

 

If both trims are negative, I suggest starting first by increasing injector scaling by one step, especially if cruise trim is more negative than idle trim. If you find there is a need to decrease the injector latency, the minimum step size is ~0.025 ms. If your ECUFlash def has a large step size programmed into the bracket setting, then use the "add to" option to add "-0.025 ms".

 

mrfred, do you have stock 8859 maf compensation table?



found that i have fq360 maf smooting table

want fully copy you injectors size and scalings. and maf compensation.

i have stock intake box and pipe

ps: alreadi found other tread (fic2150) where you show maf smooting filled with 128 and tweaked other maf table

thank you!

 

well now im even more confused. i bumped scaling up to 975 did some idling and a 20 minute cruise and trims wound up at -9/-11...based on what i thought i knew that move in scaling should have leaned everything out?

 

Here are all my modified settings for FIC1100s. A few notes:

The injector scaling listed there is for when I was running 58 psi base fuel pressure. For standard 43.5 psi base pressure, 680 cc/min should be used:

These settings were determined from a tuning session before I started using the pulsewidth linearization table. I have not tried FIC1100s with the pulsewidth linearization. If you want to use the FIC1100 pulsewidth linearization values that I posted in the other thread, then use the latency values from the first post in this thread, and then you'll likely need to retune the MAF scaling table somewhat.

 

latency on last pic bit higher than in 1st post

i'm not sure that i can copy your maf comp and maf scaling tables, cause you have bbk-3b- so not stock intake.

do you recommend tweak this tables like you? maf comp filled by 128 and tune maf scaling or i can tune only my maf comp table? what a reason, it's easier?

thank you!

 

Both tables do the same thing. I find it easier to set the MAF comp table to 128 (effectively setting the values to one), and then tuning the MAF scaling able because I get to see what the final curve looks like.

 

mrfred, can you explain your latency on last pic?

in 1st post you put scaling which corresponds with fic1100 linearization thread:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...0-fic1650.html

but in your last pic latency bit higher, why?

#109
ps: sync accel enrichment is the same "Sync Load Accel Compensation vs RPM"? address 3278

tank you!