7449 ECU and AE fueling reaction times
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
7449 ECU and AE fueling reaction times
im having a hard time with something on my syclone. i have been fighting with it for quite a while and still havnt really gotten very far. for those that dont know i have a fully built motor with extensive head work and intake work on a flowbench..... great pains were undured to get every thing with in 1% in the top end. intake, heads, valves..... everything. engine build can be seen here http://www.syty.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21568 the end result is a motor thats extreemly sensitive to change in load. its very jumpy when on and off the throttle. just a touch of the throttle, or quick change in MAP will give a lean spot, that varys depending on how much the MAP changes in a given time frame. i have tried adding fuel in each of the AE tables, as well as all of the AE tables. the result is really discouraging. what im finding is that a quick change in MAP will result in an instant lean condition, and adding fueling in the AE tables causes the lean condition to be followed by a rich condition. both options haveing a slight stumble if the change in fueling is over 1 point. its like the AE fueling in the ECU is responding slower than the motor is. i understand that this is not the normal "run of the mill" motor, but im really hoping that the stock ECU is capable of taming this beast. i tried looking thru the P4 and some of the chipping information provided on syty related sites, and from what i see im using the right tables, im just not having any luck with the on off throttle stuff, and the TC lockup. the truck runs wonderfully, and cruises around with no issues. the tune is incredibly close to perfect other than the AE issues. if anyone has any insight on this, id love to hear your suggestions. i have tried just about everything i can think of including increasing the VE fueling, but it doesnt seem to be a VE issue. would suck to come all this way with the tune, and have to dump the stock ECU for a BIGSTUFF system.
im running 75lb low impedance injectors, with the injector driver upgrade and a DIG patch on the code so i can datalog WB info directly thru datamaster.
a small spike is unnoticable while driving and totally acceptable......
the larger spikes can best be described by a "hesitation" from the engine.
the really large spikes (TC lockup at greater than 50% throttle) are great enough that in order to compensate i have to run my fueling pretty far on the rich side. it can also cause a stumble or a split second of knock retard if it goes really lean. i have been keeping it at least at 11:1 under boost to keep from going too lean under a rapid change in engine load. (like TC lockup, or a 3-4 shift) i can partially compensate by richening the VE mix, but that can take the throttle sensitivity down as well if its richer than it needs to be. im just wondering what everyone else is doing to remedy this. surely there are a few custom motors out here that have rather specific fueling requirements/ similar issues
e
im running 75lb low impedance injectors, with the injector driver upgrade and a DIG patch on the code so i can datalog WB info directly thru datamaster.
a small spike is unnoticable while driving and totally acceptable......
the larger spikes can best be described by a "hesitation" from the engine.
the really large spikes (TC lockup at greater than 50% throttle) are great enough that in order to compensate i have to run my fueling pretty far on the rich side. it can also cause a stumble or a split second of knock retard if it goes really lean. i have been keeping it at least at 11:1 under boost to keep from going too lean under a rapid change in engine load. (like TC lockup, or a 3-4 shift) i can partially compensate by richening the VE mix, but that can take the throttle sensitivity down as well if its richer than it needs to be. im just wondering what everyone else is doing to remedy this. surely there are a few custom motors out here that have rather specific fueling requirements/ similar issues
e
#2
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
after talking to some good tuners, iv found that the reaction time of the injectors im using is much less than a small stock injector, and that is at least half of my problem. BIGSTUFF and FAST systems have an adjustment for this...... im looking into the 7449 ECU to see if theres a table for this (crosses fingers)
e
e
#3
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Try dropping the TPS% enable for PE WAYYYY Down.
Have you tried using the MAP AE?.
With the AE/TPS/RPM wonders can be had.
You can cure, just takes some dinkin with.
The aftermarkets, just throw so much fuel atta motor, that it's almost hard to not have one overly rich in AE.
I spent some time working on something similiar to what your fighting on a car with a 4,500 stall converter, and it took some playing with to get it right.
If you resort to making a code change(s), then using a MAP based PE enable works wonders.
Have you tried using the MAP AE?.
With the AE/TPS/RPM wonders can be had.
You can cure, just takes some dinkin with.
The aftermarkets, just throw so much fuel atta motor, that it's almost hard to not have one overly rich in AE.
I spent some time working on something similiar to what your fighting on a car with a 4,500 stall converter, and it took some playing with to get it right.
If you resort to making a code change(s), then using a MAP based PE enable works wonders.
#4
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
yeah the AE delta MAP table didnt help much, i just cant get it to respond fast enough. if i increase the value in this table the lean spike is just followed by a rich spike a split second after the event. (typically 1 to 2 frames of datamaster which is ~1/6th of a second) i can see the ECU applying the fuel as requested by the table changes, but its later than the event. the AE for TPS is already pretty low since we are running a 3600 9/11 hybrid lockup converter. like i said the drivability of the motor is really pretty great at light throttle and cruise, although its a hair richer than id like it in some of the VE..... but its like that intentionally because im trying to compensate for the ECU's inability to react fast enough to rapid changes in engine load. all the datamaster files i have look like the fuel is always trailing the event. is there an injector offset, or reaction time table to compensate for delay from large injectors?
e
e
Last edited by e-rue; 03-16-2005 at 01:00 PM.
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
this is the info i got from mark at turbotune in greensboro, and phillip long (another local syclone tuner)......
i talked to mark about your tuning problem
he says the larger injectors have a much slower reaction time
a 29# one might be .30 ms
and a 75# coulc be around .9ms
there is not a way in the 749 computer to compensate for injector timing
you have to lead em a little kinda like timing in a motor
if not mark said to do fast or bigstuff....there is a table in there that will cure it for sure
he is doing bigstuff on a mustang next week
he said he has that problem you have on hondas all the time..
can hardly drive it around
because they went from 140cc to 1000cc
said it spikes really lean
i talked to mark about your tuning problem
he says the larger injectors have a much slower reaction time
a 29# one might be .30 ms
and a 75# coulc be around .9ms
there is not a way in the 749 computer to compensate for injector timing
you have to lead em a little kinda like timing in a motor
if not mark said to do fast or bigstuff....there is a table in there that will cure it for sure
he is doing bigstuff on a mustang next week
he said he has that problem you have on hondas all the time..
can hardly drive it around
because they went from 140cc to 1000cc
said it spikes really lean
#6
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by e-rue
is there an injector offset, or reaction time table to compensate for delay from large injectors?
is there an injector offset, or reaction time table to compensate for delay from large injectors?
What for fuel pump are you running?. I had to go to staged 340l/hr pumps. You might be out of fuel pump when in AE, and they go static for a moment. No it won't show on any fuel pressure guage.
And a bad TPS can be a PITB to find.
#7
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
i went back to the stock TB (had a twin 58mm BBK) to slow down the tip in lean spike, without much success, but that rules out a TPS problem as they were complete (had different sensors in them).
the pump is a walbro 340, and its doing it at part throttle just off idle as well as on TC lockup and 3-4 shifts, on and off boost, so i doubt its a fuel delivery issue or it would get much worse as power increased.
guess ill dick with it for another week or so, till phillip gets his motor up and running (we built a duplicate of my motor for him) and see if either one of us is able to get this ironed out. just hate to give up and go BIGSTUFF, when the tune is so freaking close...... took at least 2 solid weeks of tuning to get where i am right now. if i could just speed up the AE function this tune would be dead on the money.
e
the pump is a walbro 340, and its doing it at part throttle just off idle as well as on TC lockup and 3-4 shifts, on and off boost, so i doubt its a fuel delivery issue or it would get much worse as power increased.
guess ill dick with it for another week or so, till phillip gets his motor up and running (we built a duplicate of my motor for him) and see if either one of us is able to get this ironed out. just hate to give up and go BIGSTUFF, when the tune is so freaking close...... took at least 2 solid weeks of tuning to get where i am right now. if i could just speed up the AE function this tune would be dead on the money.
e
Trending Topics
#8
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
0x0619 F92_TABLE Fuel Bias - Injector Offset vs Battery Voltage
mSec.
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
9.6
11.2
12.8
14.4
16
17.6
19.2
20.8
22.4
24
25.5
(mSec)
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.946
0.946
0.946
0.732
0.641
0.58
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
i havnt tried it yet, but i think jim sloan just found the answer to my question....... ill post back after lowering the values in this table. if my math is right, i need to drop all the values in this table by about .333 ms to place my rich spike directly over my lean spike in datamaster. either way, i appreciate your help thinking thru this grumpy.
theres also this table, but it appears to be unused since its zero'd out. probably used in another application.
0x062A F94_TABLE Fuel Injector Offset vs Base Pulse Width
mSec.
0.488
0.732
0.977
1.221
1.465
1.709
1.953
2.197
2.441
2.686
2.93
3.174
3.418
3.662
3.906
(mSec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
mSec.
0
1.6
3.2
4.8
6.4
8
9.6
11.2
12.8
14.4
16
17.6
19.2
20.8
22.4
24
25.5
(mSec)
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.946
0.946
0.946
0.732
0.641
0.58
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
0.519
i havnt tried it yet, but i think jim sloan just found the answer to my question....... ill post back after lowering the values in this table. if my math is right, i need to drop all the values in this table by about .333 ms to place my rich spike directly over my lean spike in datamaster. either way, i appreciate your help thinking thru this grumpy.
theres also this table, but it appears to be unused since its zero'd out. probably used in another application.
0x062A F94_TABLE Fuel Injector Offset vs Base Pulse Width
mSec.
0.488
0.732
0.977
1.221
1.465
1.709
1.953
2.197
2.441
2.686
2.93
3.174
3.418
3.662
3.906
(mSec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
Last edited by e-rue; 03-16-2005 at 02:41 PM.
#9
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by e-rue
0x0619 F92_TABLE Fuel Bias - Injector Offset vs Battery Voltage
i havnt tried it yet, but i think jim sloan just found the answer to my question....... ill post back after lowering the values in this table. if my math is right, i need to drop all the values in this table by about .333 ms to place my rich spike directly over my lean spike in datamaster. either way, i appreciate your help thinking thru this grumpy.
theres also this table, but it appears to be unused since its zero'd out. probably used in another application.
0x062A F94_TABLE Fuel Injector Offset vs Base Pulse Width
0x0619 F92_TABLE Fuel Bias - Injector Offset vs Battery Voltage
i havnt tried it yet, but i think jim sloan just found the answer to my question....... ill post back after lowering the values in this table. if my math is right, i need to drop all the values in this table by about .333 ms to place my rich spike directly over my lean spike in datamaster. either way, i appreciate your help thinking thru this grumpy.
theres also this table, but it appears to be unused since its zero'd out. probably used in another application.
0x062A F94_TABLE Fuel Injector Offset vs Base Pulse Width
#10
Supreme Member
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Corona
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 92 Form, 91 Z28, 89 GTA, 86 Z28
Engine: BP383 vortech, BP383, 5.7 TPI, LG4
Transmission: 4L60e, 700R4, 700R4..
Axle/Gears: 3.27, 2.73
Those tuners are waay off base if they think this problem is caused by injector response. Like Grumpy says, the response time is just the open/close time offset vs battery voltage.
This problem sounds exactly like dTPS AE. TPS is used to anticipate the transient in lay terms (what's actually going on is a bunch of different puddles and vaporization rates, and sensor lag, and actual air flow inaccuracies during transients with SD, and GM fudges it over with a few tables).
dTPS AE is for the first instant, dMAP for the following .3 seconds give or take.
Your modified intake and all that really should require what you are seeing. It's a much more efficient air mover now, and throttle openings cause more "transient" things to take place.
This problem sounds exactly like dTPS AE. TPS is used to anticipate the transient in lay terms (what's actually going on is a bunch of different puddles and vaporization rates, and sensor lag, and actual air flow inaccuracies during transients with SD, and GM fudges it over with a few tables).
dTPS AE is for the first instant, dMAP for the following .3 seconds give or take.
Your modified intake and all that really should require what you are seeing. It's a much more efficient air mover now, and throttle openings cause more "transient" things to take place.
#11
Supreme Member
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Browns Town
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: 86 Monte SS (730,$8D,G3,AP,4K,S_V4)
Engine: 406 Hyd Roller 236/242
Transmission: 700R4 HomeBrew, 2.4K stall
Axle/Gears: 3:73 Posi, 7.5 Soon to break
There is a AE Delta TPS multiplier in $8D, I don't know if there is a multiplier in that mask. would raising the multiplier add more fuel faster because of the accellerated delta TPS value that is calculated? for the initial "tip in" anyway.
Seems like that would help that issue if the calc is raised to indicate more transition.
Just to clarify, I mean a separate multiplier for the delta TPS that is multiplied with the BPW first. Then other calcs are done to add the "pump shot" table value.
Seems like that would help that issue if the calc is raised to indicate more transition.
Just to clarify, I mean a separate multiplier for the delta TPS that is multiplied with the BPW first. Then other calcs are done to add the "pump shot" table value.
Last edited by JP86SS; 03-16-2005 at 07:57 PM.
#12
Supreme Member
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Corona
Posts: 1,692
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 92 Form, 91 Z28, 89 GTA, 86 Z28
Engine: BP383 vortech, BP383, 5.7 TPI, LG4
Transmission: 4L60e, 700R4, 700R4..
Axle/Gears: 3.27, 2.73
http://www.sunflower.com/~leroy/P4/section9.htm
Says they have dTPS AE in here.
I've never tuned with that mask either, but that's the place I would focus on and keep focusing on and keep on focusing on with a problem like that.
Says they have dTPS AE in here.
I've never tuned with that mask either, but that's the place I would focus on and keep focusing on and keep on focusing on with a problem like that.
#13
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
while i really appreciate you guys offering tips on tuning, your getting kinda off topic.
the real issue as i see it, is this.
this is full race motor that responds to change in engine load and TPS faster than the usual "mushy" motors this ECU was originally setup to control. a change in TPS or MAP will send this motor into action like nothing else i have seen from a 4.3 the throttle is extreemly touchy.
larger injectors really do have a slower reaction time, but in this case its no where near a large enough change (32lb to 75lb) to show up in the tune to the extent im seeing (roughly 3 ms delay).
now for the good part.... what i did to fix the problems i was having.
0x033B threshhold for delta TPS
this value was originally set to 1.9 meaning that the TPS had to change 1.9% before the ECU would deliver any AE fueling based on change in TPS, and ultimately delaying the fuel delivery as it waited for this change to occur before responding. changing this value to 1.17 centered the AE TPS fuel delivery right over the lean tip in hesitation i was seeing. tip in is now perfect.
0x0338 threshhold for delta MAP
this value was originally set to 3.6 (but i believe theres another table that automatically doubles this number based on percent TPS) this was requiring the ECU to wait for a large change in MAP before delivering fuel. changing this value to roughly half of its original value centered the rich spike caused by the AE MAP value directly over the lean spike caused by the actual change in MAP. once the 2 spikes were centered over each other i went from having a 1.5 point AFR lean spike to a .5 point AFR lean spike. while this is still less than perfect, its acceptable for TC lockup, and 3/4 shifts under hard acceleration, and unnoticable without datamaster.
while i wont argue, if you guys claim that these tables have other functions than AE timing, i believe they work extreemly well for AE timing, and i have seen no negative affects from making these changes. the tune on this motor is tighter than ever, and its just gonna get even snappier as i lean it out a little more in the VE. preciate you guys helpin me think thru this, and listening to me babble.....
e
the real issue as i see it, is this.
this is full race motor that responds to change in engine load and TPS faster than the usual "mushy" motors this ECU was originally setup to control. a change in TPS or MAP will send this motor into action like nothing else i have seen from a 4.3 the throttle is extreemly touchy.
larger injectors really do have a slower reaction time, but in this case its no where near a large enough change (32lb to 75lb) to show up in the tune to the extent im seeing (roughly 3 ms delay).
now for the good part.... what i did to fix the problems i was having.
0x033B threshhold for delta TPS
this value was originally set to 1.9 meaning that the TPS had to change 1.9% before the ECU would deliver any AE fueling based on change in TPS, and ultimately delaying the fuel delivery as it waited for this change to occur before responding. changing this value to 1.17 centered the AE TPS fuel delivery right over the lean tip in hesitation i was seeing. tip in is now perfect.
0x0338 threshhold for delta MAP
this value was originally set to 3.6 (but i believe theres another table that automatically doubles this number based on percent TPS) this was requiring the ECU to wait for a large change in MAP before delivering fuel. changing this value to roughly half of its original value centered the rich spike caused by the AE MAP value directly over the lean spike caused by the actual change in MAP. once the 2 spikes were centered over each other i went from having a 1.5 point AFR lean spike to a .5 point AFR lean spike. while this is still less than perfect, its acceptable for TC lockup, and 3/4 shifts under hard acceleration, and unnoticable without datamaster.
while i wont argue, if you guys claim that these tables have other functions than AE timing, i believe they work extreemly well for AE timing, and i have seen no negative affects from making these changes. the tune on this motor is tighter than ever, and its just gonna get even snappier as i lean it out a little more in the VE. preciate you guys helpin me think thru this, and listening to me babble.....
e
#14
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: great lakes
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where you located ???
there are also tps and map Ae multipliers and filtering values . sometimes dinking with them a bit can net big rewards in throttle response. i got a 2.0 n/a 4cyl with a 75mm tb. yeah it was a pita to get tip in just right. also there is a Ae decay rate in there as well. if your leaning out starting decreasing the decay rate. belive me you dont want ot overcompensate with to much ve to clean up a tip in issue. get the motor into some steady state typ of operation refine you ve and spark then go after ae for throttle response.
there are also tps and map Ae multipliers and filtering values . sometimes dinking with them a bit can net big rewards in throttle response. i got a 2.0 n/a 4cyl with a 75mm tb. yeah it was a pita to get tip in just right. also there is a Ae decay rate in there as well. if your leaning out starting decreasing the decay rate. belive me you dont want ot overcompensate with to much ve to clean up a tip in issue. get the motor into some steady state typ of operation refine you ve and spark then go after ae for throttle response.
#15
Junior Member
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Woodstock, IL USA
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 vet
Engine: v8
Transmission: Automatic
Could not changing the sense resistors with the combination of low z injectors create a delay in reaction time.
Here's a post discussing the resistor change.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...se+%2Bresistor
NON EE Alert
ED89
Here's a post discussing the resistor change.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...se+%2Bresistor
NON EE Alert
ED89
#17
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: great lakes
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ED89
Could not changing the sense resistors with the combination of low z injectors create a delay in reaction time.
Here's a post discussing the resistor change.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...se+%2Bresistor
NON EE Alert
ED89
Could not changing the sense resistors with the combination of low z injectors create a delay in reaction time.
Here's a post discussing the resistor change.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...se+%2Bresistor
NON EE Alert
ED89
#18
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by ED89
Could not changing the sense resistors with the combination of low z injectors create a delay in reaction time.
Could not changing the sense resistors with the combination of low z injectors create a delay in reaction time.
HOWEVER, the longer you run them that way, and at higher RPM, you will weaken the injector drivers, due to excess heat. Once they start to fail, then they can do all sorts of odd things. Once they're not enough long enough, they won't fire an injector (so far I've only seen them fail, open).
#19
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by e-rue
do you have an address for the AE decay rate? im not seeing it.
e
do you have an address for the AE decay rate? im not seeing it.
e
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
Originally posted by Grumpy
Look for table F37, I believe that's the one you're looking for.
Look for table F37, I believe that's the one you're looking for.
the fairchild low impedance drivers have been installed but that is all. this is the usual syty recipee that most people are having luck with. i read the post about the sense resisters several times and im unclear why they are needed. most tuners from syty.net typically replace the injector drivers and run the low Z injectors in the standard syty wiring configuration rather than the sunbird configuration. no one seems to be having any issues with this, other than having to use a slightly larger ECM fuse, although id really like to hear someone talk about the advantages of one option over the other. as iv gotten more involved with the 7449 ECU, its mainly been because i needed to tune a truck, rather than just loving electrical engineering and being fascinated with electronics. to be honest i kinda hate the electronics side of things, but i find myself being pushed more and more in that direction as my need for advanced tuning options increase to meet the demand our sport/group. although honestly the more i learn about this stuff adn how it works the less im afraid of it. so if there is a tech artical on peek and hold vs saturated, point me in the right direction. i wouldnt be against trying a peek and hold setup if theres gains to be had. especially if its soemthing that hasnt been done with 6 injectors, and you guys need some one to document any notable differences.
the reaction problems have been cured. it was all an AE fueling timing issue. the truck is running great. been driving it almost every day for a week now (it doesnt come out in the rain). the tune is so close to perfect if you werent the one tuning it, you would never notice the small imperfections left.
the break in miles are on the motor now, and its about time to get some good gas and see what the dyno has to say.
e
Last edited by e-rue; 03-24-2005 at 08:41 AM.
#21
Originally posted by e-rue
thanks
the fairchild low impedance drivers have been installed but that is all. this is the usual syty recipee that most people are having luck with. i read the post about the sense resisters several times and im unclear why they are needed. most tuners from syty.net typically replace the injector drivers and run the low Z injectors in the standard syty wiring configuration rather than the sunbird configuration. no one seems to be having any issues with this, other than having to use a slightly larger ECM fuse, although id really like to hear someone talk about the advantages of one option over the other....
thanks
the fairchild low impedance drivers have been installed but that is all. this is the usual syty recipee that most people are having luck with. i read the post about the sense resisters several times and im unclear why they are needed. most tuners from syty.net typically replace the injector drivers and run the low Z injectors in the standard syty wiring configuration rather than the sunbird configuration. no one seems to be having any issues with this, other than having to use a slightly larger ECM fuse, although id really like to hear someone talk about the advantages of one option over the other....
#22
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by e-rue
the fairchild low impedance drivers have been installed but that is all. this is the usual syty recipee that most people are having luck with.
the reaction problems have been cured.
the fairchild low impedance drivers have been installed but that is all. this is the usual syty recipee that most people are having luck with.
the reaction problems have been cured.
And it's not reaction problems, while using words close enough is fine for bench racing, if you want to speak the language you need to learn it. Not trying to hammer you with details, but if you can't pose the question in a way that's readily understoodable, you'll be chasing answers forever. If you'd originally said tip-in stumble, I'm sure you'd have heard about the dTPS, dMAP AEs in the first few replies.
BTW, I've actually tested several 749s to destruction using P+Hs.
The drivers get erratic, and then fail. Not always will you see or feel them going out, until the motor really leans over.
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: great lakes
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Grumpy
Lots of people do lots of things wrong, and get by with it forra while. With the advent of 60PPH and larger saturated injectors, even using P+Hs is obsolete.
And it's not reaction problems, while using words close enough is fine for bench racing, if you want to speak the language you need to learn it. Not trying to hammer you with details, but if you can't pose the question in a way that's readily understoodable, you'll be chasing answers forever. If you'd originally said tip-in stumble, I'm sure you'd have heard about the dTPS, dMAP AEs in the first few replies.
BTW, I've actually tested several 749s to destruction using P+Hs.
The drivers get erratic, and then fail. Not always will you see or feel them going out, until the motor really leans over.
Lots of people do lots of things wrong, and get by with it forra while. With the advent of 60PPH and larger saturated injectors, even using P+Hs is obsolete.
And it's not reaction problems, while using words close enough is fine for bench racing, if you want to speak the language you need to learn it. Not trying to hammer you with details, but if you can't pose the question in a way that's readily understoodable, you'll be chasing answers forever. If you'd originally said tip-in stumble, I'm sure you'd have heard about the dTPS, dMAP AEs in the first few replies.
BTW, I've actually tested several 749s to destruction using P+Hs.
The drivers get erratic, and then fail. Not always will you see or feel them going out, until the motor really leans over.
i also disagree that hammering the nube is fiar. he obviously doesnt know. so its our job to present fact then allow him to draw conclusions from them. i intially thought this was an AE problem. but until we got him away from (blame the injector conspiracy thoerists) we accomplished nothing. if anything this post should be included in the other posts a sticky resource. its got some good info in it.
but please dude we love new memebers but take some time to familerize yourself with the lingo. makes it easier on everybody. i knows its an intimidating process. but once you learn the lingo its gets alot easier for us to help you and for you to help yourself.
just my 2cents.
#24
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
Originally posted by Grumpy
And it's not reaction problems, while using words close enough is fine for bench racing, if you want to speak the language you need to learn it. Not trying to hammer you with details, but if you can't pose the question in a way that's readily understoodable, you'll be chasing answers forever. If you'd originally said tip-in stumble, I'm sure you'd have heard about the dTPS, dMAP AEs in the first few replies.
And it's not reaction problems, while using words close enough is fine for bench racing, if you want to speak the language you need to learn it. Not trying to hammer you with details, but if you can't pose the question in a way that's readily understoodable, you'll be chasing answers forever. If you'd originally said tip-in stumble, I'm sure you'd have heard about the dTPS, dMAP AEs in the first few replies.
for the good of the group.
now back to your regularly scheduled program of bashing the noob.
e
#25
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by e-rue
now back to your regularly scheduled program of bashing the noob.
now back to your regularly scheduled program of bashing the noob.
#26
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
although the tune is REALLY smooth now, it may have all been in vane. we are seeing just above 70% duty cycle at a measly 17psi, and we are only spinning the motor to 5200 (going to 5800 and ~28psi) so its possible we have started with too small of an injector. not knowing exactly how much power the motor was gonna make, made it a little hard to size the injector. probably should have gone with an 84lb injector over the 75lbers.
i like your idea about large saturated injectors (will keep me from rewiring the ECU), but so far the biggest thing i have seen available is a 65lb motron. are there larger offereings i dont know about?
e
i like your idea about large saturated injectors (will keep me from rewiring the ECU), but so far the biggest thing i have seen available is a 65lb motron. are there larger offereings i dont know about?
e
#27
Junior Member
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
Originally posted by e-rue
although the tune is REALLY smooth now, it may have all been in vane. we are seeing just above 70% duty cycle at a measly 17psi, and we are only spinning the motor to 5200 (going to 5800 and ~28psi) so its possible we have started with too small of an injector. not knowing exactly how much power the motor was gonna make, made it a little hard to size the injector. probably should have gone with an 84lb injector over the 75lbers.
i like your idea about large saturated injectors (will keep me from rewiring the ECU), but so far the biggest thing i have seen available is a 65lb motron. are there larger offereings i dont know about?
e
although the tune is REALLY smooth now, it may have all been in vane. we are seeing just above 70% duty cycle at a measly 17psi, and we are only spinning the motor to 5200 (going to 5800 and ~28psi) so its possible we have started with too small of an injector. not knowing exactly how much power the motor was gonna make, made it a little hard to size the injector. probably should have gone with an 84lb injector over the 75lbers.
i like your idea about large saturated injectors (will keep me from rewiring the ECU), but so far the biggest thing i have seen available is a 65lb motron. are there larger offereings i dont know about?
e
#28
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by InTech
The mototron is a good high impedance injector, you can achieve ~85lbs per hr at ~85psi.
The mototron is a good high impedance injector, you can achieve ~85lbs per hr at ~85psi.
#29
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: great lakes
Posts: 1,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are bigger injectors in saturated. i think they stretch out to like 120pph. there not very stable however, id be looking at a disc style injector bigger then 60pph in saturation.
#30
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
we leaned the motor out a little more, and upped the base fuel pressure, and have gotten up to 20psi at 75% duty cycle, so its looking like these fuel injectors are gonna work out ok after all. gonna be close up around 28psi of boost, but i think they will work.
now i just need to research the changes needed to convert to the sunbird wiring configuration. i think we are set on making these injectors work, since we ahve them installed and running in both race motors, but im curious......whats the largest injectors you guys have run in this ECU with decent idle and drivability?
threw in a picture just for fun
![](http://gallery.turbotime.us/albums/syclone/aeh.jpg)
e
now i just need to research the changes needed to convert to the sunbird wiring configuration. i think we are set on making these injectors work, since we ahve them installed and running in both race motors, but im curious......whats the largest injectors you guys have run in this ECU with decent idle and drivability?
threw in a picture just for fun
![](http://gallery.turbotime.us/albums/syclone/aeh.jpg)
e
Last edited by e-rue; 04-01-2005 at 09:09 AM.
#33
dunno if it helps but...
I am not trying to push it on you e-rue but Nolan at campbell automotive here in canada (he has a white typhoon that goes ~10.70s) seems to be a good resource on this subject.
#34
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: turbo 4.3
Transmission: 700r4
nolan is a great help, and even provided me with a startup file to tune from, for these projects......without his advise i probably wouldnt have gotten this far. the problem is that im trying to go farther than he has, and since hes the best resource in syty land i came here looking for help that doesnt hang out on www.syty.net.
at this point im glad i did, because i would have never known that i had the ECU wired incorrectly for a peek and hold setup.
this sunday phil ran a 6.83@100mph with only 20psi of boost with an 85% injector duty cycle (75lb injetors). im pretty sure we can just go to 84lb injectors and have plenty of fuel for this project. just curious if anyone has tried tuning 95lb injectors, or 180lb injectors?
e
at this point im glad i did, because i would have never known that i had the ECU wired incorrectly for a peek and hold setup.
this sunday phil ran a 6.83@100mph with only 20psi of boost with an 85% injector duty cycle (75lb injetors). im pretty sure we can just go to 84lb injectors and have plenty of fuel for this project. just curious if anyone has tried tuning 95lb injectors, or 180lb injectors?
e
#35
Originally posted by e-rue
.
now for the good part.... what i did to fix the problems i was having.
0x033B threshhold for delta TPS
this value was originally set to 1.9 meaning that the TPS had to change 1.9% before the ECU would deliver any AE fueling based on change in TPS, and ultimately delaying the fuel delivery as it waited for this change to occur before responding. changing this value to 1.17 centered the AE TPS fuel delivery right over the lean tip in hesitation i was seeing. tip in is now perfect.
0x0338 threshhold for delta MAP
this value was originally set to 3.6 (but i believe theres another table that automatically doubles this number based on percent TPS) this was requiring the ECU to wait for a large change in MAP before delivering fuel. changing this value to roughly half of its original value centered the rich spike caused by the AE MAP value directly over the lean spike caused by the actual change in MAP. once the 2 spikes were centered over each other i went from having a 1.5 point AFR lean spike to a .5 point AFR lean spike. while this is still less than perfect, its acceptable for TC lockup, and 3/4 shifts under hard acceleration, and unnoticable without datamaster.
.
now for the good part.... what i did to fix the problems i was having.
0x033B threshhold for delta TPS
this value was originally set to 1.9 meaning that the TPS had to change 1.9% before the ECU would deliver any AE fueling based on change in TPS, and ultimately delaying the fuel delivery as it waited for this change to occur before responding. changing this value to 1.17 centered the AE TPS fuel delivery right over the lean tip in hesitation i was seeing. tip in is now perfect.
0x0338 threshhold for delta MAP
this value was originally set to 3.6 (but i believe theres another table that automatically doubles this number based on percent TPS) this was requiring the ECU to wait for a large change in MAP before delivering fuel. changing this value to roughly half of its original value centered the rich spike caused by the AE MAP value directly over the lean spike caused by the actual change in MAP. once the 2 spikes were centered over each other i went from having a 1.5 point AFR lean spike to a .5 point AFR lean spike. while this is still less than perfect, its acceptable for TC lockup, and 3/4 shifts under hard acceleration, and unnoticable without datamaster.
When I switched to the bigger cam that has more duration on the intake lobe, I get a slight stumble if I move the throttle slighty while in DFCO. There is a lag and a lean spot. Adding pump shot just makes it rich after the lean spot. It is a never ending battle.
#36
At L852E my chip (based on a 90 Vette 6 speed) was set to 10. The 8D hac has a value of 3 that corresponds to 13.5% tps threshold before AE fuel kicks in. At least that is the way I understand the table. The 6 speeds are set up with a value of 10. Would this be 40% then if 3 = 13.5%?
Anyway I set this to 2 and there was a huge improvement. I now have to try and get it to stumble. In third gear and about 3500 RPM I leave off the throttle and wait until DFCO kicks in. At that point, I slightly increase the throttle and that is where the dead spot was. I can hear it slightly and by playing with the table a little more, I feel like I can remove it. It seems to me this is a huge discovery especially for the MR guys out there that still suffer from the intake backfire.
Anyway I set this to 2 and there was a huge improvement. I now have to try and get it to stumble. In third gear and about 3500 RPM I leave off the throttle and wait until DFCO kicks in. At that point, I slightly increase the throttle and that is where the dead spot was. I can hear it slightly and by playing with the table a little more, I feel like I can remove it. It seems to me this is a huge discovery especially for the MR guys out there that still suffer from the intake backfire.
![burnout](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/smilies/burnout.gif)
#37
Moderator
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,432
Likes: 0
Received 224 Likes
on
210 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Typically TPS% values get multiplied by .39 (100/256) to get the TPS precentage. So a 3 would be 1.17% TPS and a 10 would be 3.9% TPS.
You mentioned DFCO. Upon exiting DFCO there is a pulse of fuel added that is intended to re-wet the manifold. Can play with this too, it's at $85EC and is a 2 byte value.
RBob.
You mentioned DFCO. Upon exiting DFCO there is a pulse of fuel added that is intended to re-wet the manifold. Can play with this too, it's at $85EC and is a 2 byte value.
RBob.
#38
Thank you for the clarification on how to calculate the values. I was not aware of that. Thank you also for the information on the DFCO pulse. If I disable the DFCO, then all stumbles and hesitations are gone. If I enable it and set the AE TPS to .78%, then most of it is gone and I have to try and find it.
As far as the pulse of fuel that wets the manifild after DFCO, what do you mean by it is a two byte value? My base AXCN bin (91 Vette manual) has a zero in that spot. I also checked the AXCR (91 Vette auto) since the auto's have more AE fuel and it to is set to zero.
Thanks
As far as the pulse of fuel that wets the manifild after DFCO, what do you mean by it is a two byte value? My base AXCN bin (91 Vette manual) has a zero in that spot. I also checked the AXCR (91 Vette auto) since the auto's have more AE fuel and it to is set to zero.
Thanks
Last edited by 89vette; 04-18-2005 at 07:45 AM.
#39
Moderator
![](https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/images/ranks/tgo10.gif)
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 18,432
Likes: 0
Received 224 Likes
on
210 Posts
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check
Originally posted by 89vette
As far as the pulse of fuel that wets the manifild after DFCO, what do you mean by it is a two byte value? My base AXCN bin (91 Vette manual) has a zero in that spot. I also checked the AXCR (91 Vette auto) since the auto's have more AE fuel and it to is set to zero.
Thanks
As far as the pulse of fuel that wets the manifild after DFCO, what do you mean by it is a two byte value? My base AXCN bin (91 Vette manual) has a zero in that spot. I also checked the AXCR (91 Vette auto) since the auto's have more AE fuel and it to is set to zero.
Thanks
Code:
L85EC: FDB 128 ; DECEL FUEL C/O STALL SVR ; ACCEL ENRICH PW = 1.953 Msec
The math to include both bytes is:
msec PW = (value at $85EC * 256 + value at $85ED) * .01526
RBob.
#40
Ahhhh I understand now. This is all great information. Way back when I had this problem with a Miniram intake. The hesitation after a DFCO was the least of my problems. The biggest one was a lean pop in the intake when under a heavy load. I finially got rid of the pop but had to add a huge amount of fuel to cover it up. All that fuel caused a very rich condition that caused the fuel trims to dive. When the AE fuel was burned up, the motor went lean like right now. I finially gave up and re-installed my Super Ram.
Last night I disabled the DFCO and all is fine. I get some small backfires in the exhaust when I decellerate but nothing bad. Adding more timing at 20 KPA helps the backfiring. I have read older posts that suggest retarding the timing. I assume by advancing the timing, more fuel is burned in the chamber than in the header.
Thanks again for the detailed clarificaiton.
Last night I disabled the DFCO and all is fine. I get some small backfires in the exhaust when I decellerate but nothing bad. Adding more timing at 20 KPA helps the backfiring. I have read older posts that suggest retarding the timing. I assume by advancing the timing, more fuel is burned in the chamber than in the header.
Thanks again for the detailed clarificaiton.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
eightsixseven
Tech / General Engine
1
08-14-2015 03:09 PM