Yeah, 9.2V-9.8V is what I saw, but on normal start ups at the injector.

On the ECU side, I think cranking messes up the logging software because it would read 1.4V and then after the car started, it would read right only about 50% of the time. Some kind of sync issue and data gets corrupted, would be my guess. Makes measuring IPW difficult during cranking too.

My concern is that you get a battery that's cold and low on current and you could easily drop very low on voltage during cranking. Right now, you basically have to extrapolate (which is never a good thing) the table down to lower voltages. It would be helpful to just have a data point lower into the table since really most injector go very non-linear at lower voltages.

 

I am reporting that I have not had any warm starting issues as of late... It was about 55 here in Jax today, and the car sat for about 45 minutes after eating sushi, and it started right up. I also checked the LTFT Low, and it has drifted to about +8 %, and I haven't reset the fuel trims in about 2 months now...

 

i really want to give these injectors a try, but i'm a little confused after reading over 30 plus pages of failed hot starts and success. Is there anyone else out there with inspiring results who hasn't converted to SD? i know travman said SD didn't help, but i'd like to get as much info before spending $500 bucks on a set.

 

Bumping this thread. Just tried speed density, tried a lower scale and different latencies, messed with the cranking fuel tables and no luck yet. However I will persevere eventually!

 

0xDEAD (dan) and myself over xmas grounded my car extremely well, ran 10 ga. wires all over the place to properly ground my evo. It didn't seem to have any effect - we did jump the car with his beater honda and it did start quicker BUT the temps outside were close to zero that day and it was bitter cold so I am not conclusive on our results.

We are going to revisit this once the temps come back up to normal - also I plan to check the voltage at the fuel pump while cranking, could be dropping out from the relay when heat soaked or something. Dan still is sure its a voltage drop issue upon cranking and were going with that at this point.

I have had zero luck trying to "tune" it out so this is the next logical approach......I am also getting ready to switch back to SD - I did switch over the summer with no results, but I like SD and have been planning to go back once it was warmer to work on my car outside.

 

Well they do start noticibly better with e85. Not fixed, but better, I'm nearly convinced it's a tuning issue and I have solicited proffessional help

Did you try dropping your scaling down and retuning? I believe you were at 886.

“Rawkus” scaling (93 oct.)
3.816
3.144
1.944
1.392
0.984
0.72
0.504
Scaling: 790

 

I hope you find something tuning wise I am looking over - I have been trying to tune this out for almost a year now (originally installed april 09). I have tried everything under the sun and even with the new start-up fueling tables found I have had zero luck....doesn't mean its not possible because I could be looking over something stupid so keep all of us informed of what you find with the professional help.

After some tweaking I have my scaling for 93octane at 835....0xDEAD who does not have issues still runs the 886 scaling and his trims are as near perfect as you can get - he is one of the lucky ones with no issues.

Yeah E85 starts up much better - its still not what i consider good but its much more acceptable and livable. Come April I will be back on E85 for the spring/summer season so least it will get better than it is now.

I am back on SD and start up is still the same for me - I am still working on tuning SD so things could change once I get it dialed in the way I want. I will update if anything changes for me once I get SD tuning done.

 

I'm thinking it's an issue heavily related to voltage but is something that can be tuned around. I'm wondering if we need to look at more then just the fuel tables though.

My car went from taking about 10 seconds to start when warm to about 2 seconds.

I have to modulate the gas pedal though. As soon as I hit the starter, I go 100% throttle, hold it for about a second and then let off smoothly and it starts right up. I have never been able to get it to start quick when warm without using the throttle though.

AFAIK, going 100% throttle cuts all fuel while cranking? This leads me to believe it is overly rich. I've tried reducing cranking base pulsewidth and initial primer pulse, but have had no luck. I'm wondering if combining a reduced pulswidth with an increase in ISCV would get it there. I've stopped messing with it though because I was able to go from ~10 second start times to 2 second start times, which hasn't bothered me much.

Cold starts and hot starts are perfect, which makes up about 90% of the starts I see. No throttle needed.

 

I have the same results as you - if i modulate the gas pedal i can get the car to start much quicker when warm....i have adjusted the tables as well for a rich condition and I cannot go any lower because if i do the car gets 0 fuel.

I have messed with the iscv startup table as well but have had no luck with it either..

dan and I plan to do more testing on voltage but just waiting till the weather gets warmer - winter is the worst time to mess with cars

 

I'm not on 1000cc, but the FIC Bluemax 1250s. When I was tuning them, I had to use very small values in the cranking and running tables for IPW for the 'warm' areas. Since then, my cold, warm, and hot starts are all fine. The telltale sign of too much fuel is the need for throttle to start better.

 

yes but when you adjust the table down to the point the next step is zero fuel....then what?

I went as low as I could go and the car cranked and cranked and cranked - logged 0 ipw. The next value up from zero the car fires perfect hot / but not warm.

In most cases you are correct but I don't think that is the whole story with these, i have been messing with the tuning of them since april of last year and seriously have yet to feel i am getting somewhere other than chasing my tail (if i had one)...

 

Are you typing in the values or just using the increment key in ECUFlash?

I haven't looked at it in a while, but make sure that you are actually stepping up in actual resolution increments instead of maybe what the scaling in ECUFlash is set for, if that makes sense.

If not, then I agree...not much you can do in that situation...at least not easily.

 

Yea I did

at one point my first pulse was set at 0 and my initial cranking ipw table was a 0.9, that is the lowest it would go. If you type in anything lower it stays at .9 or go to .0 which then the car will not fire.

So that's why i said not sure what more to tune at this point - need to rule out the voltage issues which wont happen till it gets warmer. If i never figure it out then oh well , i can live with it but i feel with the time i have invested plus money swapping parts i owe it to myself to get to the bottom of it

 

PM me so we can stop messing up the thread. Let me know what scaling definition you are using. I think you may be able to go lower than the .9 that you mentioned.

 

Just installed my ID's. Cold starts good, but after about 45min-1hr it takes two trys. First try fails after 5 cranks, and the second try it starts up after about 2-3 cranks.

I'm on the stock ECU and non-SD. I did notice that upon start up, my o2 feed back was reaching values of ~(-)9% indicating a rich condition.