Notices
ECU Flash

ID2000s/FIC 2150s on MAF? Anyone doing this?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 03:37 AM
  #1  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
ID2000s/FIC 2150s on MAF? Anyone doing this?

Just wondering if any of you guys are running the ID2000s/FIC 2150s on the MAF? If so what are your scaling and latency settings?

The reason I ask is I installed some High Z 2000s last night and used JohnBradley's scaling and latencies (derived from an SD car) and my car would not start at all... We chatted a bit last night to get a game plan going, but we can't remember if anyone with a MAF is actually running these or not...
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 07:48 AM
  #2  
tephra's Avatar
EvoM Guru
15 Year Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,486
Likes: 67
From: Melbourne, Australia
EvoX + MAF + ID2000's

Minimum IPW (currently still being tuned) = 1.136ms
Injector Scaling = 1539
Injector Latency =
4.69v 2.01
7.04v 1.38
9.38v 0.915
11.73v 0.660
14.08v 0.495
16.42v 0.405
18.70v 0.285

That's with the new latency scaling formula for EvoX (0.015 instead of 0.024)
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 07:53 AM
  #3  
buchnerj's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,497
Likes: 2
From: the burgh, pa
Evo IX + MAF + ID2000's

E-85

Minimum IPW = 1.3ms
Injector Scaling = 1218
Injector Latency =
4.69v 5.232
7.03v 2.400
9.38v 1.368
11.72v 0.888
14.06v 0.600
16.41v 0.456
18.68v 0.360

Pump gas

Minimum IPW = 0.9ms
Injector Scaling = 1624

Last edited by buchnerj; Aug 19, 2010 at 08:02 AM.
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 07:55 AM
  #4  
05blue8's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (28)
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 843
Likes: 5
From: Austin, TX
Are you running e-85, 93, 91? Here are the initial settings that I used -

Scaling 1949 on pump, 1539 on e-85. Keep in mind these settings were used and the car started right up and idled great, albeit rich. It could be a good starting point to get it to fire up at least. I'm not saying that these are the ideal settings to use long term, but they should get it to fire up.

5.208
3.504
1.512
1.104
0.96
0.648
0.384

Side note - are you resetting the ECU? After trying 3-4 different latencies and scaling numbers and it not working I reset the ECU and then tried one of the ones that didn't work when I was trying different maps going back to back and it worked fine after I had reset the ECU. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it's happened twice now so I only try two latency and scaling sets before resetting the ECU. You should check out this thread for ideas also -

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...llllppppp.html
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 08:00 AM
  #5  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Thanks for that input Tephra, hopefully I actually have time to mess with the car today, and atleast get it to start and idle so i can see what is going on...
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 08:04 AM
  #6  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Originally Posted by buchnerj
Evo IX + MAF + ID2000's

E-85

Minimum IPW = 1.3ms
Injector Scaling = 1218
Injector Latency =
4.69v 5.232
7.03v 2.400
9.38v 1.368
11.72v 0.888
14.06v 0.600
16.41v 0.456
18.68v 0.360

Pump gas

Minimum IPW = 0.9ms
Injector Scaling = 1624
Interesting Latency settings...
Reply
Old Aug 19, 2010 | 08:06 AM
  #7  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Originally Posted by 05blue8
Are you running e-85, 93, 91? Here are the initial settings that I used -

Scaling 1949 on pump, 1539 on e-85. Keep in mind these settings were used and the car started right up and idled great, albeit rich. It could be a good starting point to get it to fire up at least. I'm not saying that these are the ideal settings to use long term, but they should get it to fire up.

5.208
3.504
1.512
1.104
0.96
0.648
0.384

Side note - are you resetting the ECU? After trying 3-4 different latencies and scaling numbers and it not working I reset the ECU and then tried one of the ones that didn't work when I was trying different maps going back to back and it worked fine after I had reset the ECU. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it's happened twice now so I only try two latency and scaling sets before resetting the ECU. You should check out this thread for ideas also -

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...llllppppp.html
Yes resetting the ecu... just didn't have much time to work on the car last night as it is my daily driver...
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 12:01 PM
  #8  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Aight, using tephras settings and dropping the IPW minimum to 1.040 the car idles at 14.7ish and can actually use the fuel trims to keep up. Just got done retuning the car on pump gas at 30 psi, feels good. I will run 1 more tank of 93 through to clean the injectors some more, and it is time for E85 again!
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 12:06 PM
  #9  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
-8 to -13 at 1.04 is still what I consider acceptable on gas. Not sure what your trims are. E85 is better of course but still in the basic window (-5 to -10).

aaron
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 12:46 PM
  #10  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
It is actually at +5-6... boy did the change my fuel map and scaling... now I am hitting 340 load! I had to rescale my maps...
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 02:45 PM
  #11  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Always pulling seems to work better than always adding FYI, makes starting easier in most cases.
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 04:14 PM
  #12  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
Always pulling seems to work better than always adding FYI, makes starting easier in most cases.
Start up is perfect on pump... if I get the trims to pull fuel, it automatically begins idling at 12.0 afr, that is why trims are on the lean side...
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 05:30 PM
  #13  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
You mean before the O2 starts cycling it wants to idle at 12.0? Still learning with your MAF combo since I have only done the SD and only IX's so far.

aaron
Reply
Old Aug 20, 2010 | 08:52 PM
  #14  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
No, as soon as it transitions into closed loop if the trims are negative (on my setup anyway) it slowly works its way down to 11.9/12.0 afr and stays there...even bumping the injector scaling way up didn't help, due to the IPW minumum. May be different on the IXs as they have a lower IPW minimum already set up in the rom...
Reply
Old Aug 21, 2010 | 09:32 AM
  #15  
Fast_Freddie's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Veteran: Navy
iTrader: (50)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 15
From: Lexington Park, MD
Here is a screenshot of Evoscan for the ney sayers...

Attached Thumbnails ID2000s/FIC 2150s on MAF?  Anyone doing this?-2000cc.png  
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:53 AM.