Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Question on Greg's inj info....dont worry I bought the DVD

  1. #1
    Advanced Tuner angrygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Baltimore, MI
    Posts
    358

    Question on Greg's inj info....dont worry I bought the DVD

    I was curious if Greg used the standard formula to calculate IFR with the change in pressure. As I understood it, it was (sqrt (new pressure/old pressure))* old flow rating. I ran the math on this for the short 60's and came up with a number 4 lb/hr below what Greg has listed in the DVD.

    58/43.5= 1.333333
    sqrt 1.3333333 = 1.1547
    1.1547 * 61 = 70.4367 lbs/hr

    This isnt what is in the 0 kpa column. Did I miss something?
    Joe
    2006 M6 GTO
    APS TT
    10.76@131

    "The goal of tuning is for the tune to run well enough you dont need any corrective mechanisms"

  2. #2
    Advanced Tuner omega_5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Maidstone, SK
    Posts
    464
    I'm pretty sure the data on the DVD is the true flow rate at a given pressure.
    The formula you listed is the old 'rule of thumb' method for determining flow with respect to pressure increase.
    Tyler

  3. #3
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern FL
    Posts
    2,044
    Not that I'm giving away some big secret, but since FRPP (Ford Racing) already gave us what the injectors flow at a higher pressure than their base (Ford Racing uses 39.15 psi for base), then this is how he came up with the new injector flow range for a given pressure. Take a look at the injector calibration data by FRPP, and you will see where they give values for differences in pressures (20.01, 30.02, 39.15, 50.03, 54.96, and 60.03 psi).

    http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts...-9593-lu60.pdf

    So at 39.15 psi the Siemens (Continental) 60 flows 0.016741 * 3600 = 60.2676 #/hr. Ford's data then tells you that at 60.03 psi you would multiply that value by 1.2383, which would equal 74.62936908 #/hr. Greg just did some nifty interpolation to come up with the values for 58 psi.

    The rest of what Greg did to convert all the data is "his" secret. If I knew it, I wouldn't give it away anyway, lol.
    Last edited by RWTD; 09-09-2009 at 04:43 PM.
    Formerly known as RWTD

    Toys: '22 Tesla Model S Plaid / '20 Chevy Duramax / ?20 Sea-Doo RXT-X (2)

  4. #4
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    969
    and since we can't input anything higher than 63 were just pissin in the wind. lol

    is this where we start scalling 50%??

  5. #5
    Advanced Tuner angrygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Baltimore, MI
    Posts
    358
    thats what I am working on doing.

    I was just wanting to see the math for myself. So the SD 60's were originally a FRPP injector like the svo's that we use so much. I didnt know that
    Joe
    2006 M6 GTO
    APS TT
    10.76@131

    "The goal of tuning is for the tune to run well enough you dont need any corrective mechanisms"

  6. #6
    Senior Tuner eficalibrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by RWTD View Post
    So at 39.15 psi the Siemens (Continental) 60 flows 0.016741 * 3600 = 60.2676 #/hr. Ford's data then tells you that at 60.03 psi you would multiply that value by 1.2383, which would equal 74.62936908 #/hr. Greg just did some nifty interpolation to come up with the values for 58 psi.
    Correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by carlrx7 View Post
    and since we can't input anything higher than 63 were just pissin in the wind. lol

    is this where we start scalling 50%??
    Now you're catching on...

  7. #7
    Advanced Tuner angrygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Baltimore, MI
    Posts
    358
    Has anyone else noticed that HPT wont allow you to enter the exact numbers in the short pulse adder table from the DVD? Is this acceptable?
    Joe
    2006 M6 GTO
    APS TT
    10.76@131

    "The goal of tuning is for the tune to run well enough you dont need any corrective mechanisms"

  8. #8
    hear what greg told me about it .

    The values for short pulse added on the data disc are raw numbers directly from my calculations. They must be rounded off to the nearest breakpoint that you see in the tables on HPTuners. Don't worry if the number changes slightly after entered into HPT either, since it must again be rounded off to the nears hexadecimal-physical conversion breakpoint in the actual PCM code. We're really splitting hairs here with only very slight numerical changes to the data provided. What's important is that these new rounded off values are significantly different than the original numbers in the table that you're replacing.

  9. #9
    Advanced Tuner angrygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Baltimore, MI
    Posts
    358
    awesome...thanks
    Joe
    2006 M6 GTO
    APS TT
    10.76@131

    "The goal of tuning is for the tune to run well enough you dont need any corrective mechanisms"

  10. #10
    yeah i thought i was doing something wrong at first..... greg says in his dvd it will look like a staircase in the 2d chart view.

  11. #11
    Advanced Tuner angrygoat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    New Baltimore, MI
    Posts
    358
    I remember that now...I guess I need to watch the DVD again
    Joe
    2006 M6 GTO
    APS TT
    10.76@131

    "The goal of tuning is for the tune to run well enough you dont need any corrective mechanisms"

  12. #12
    Advanced Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Close to my Z06
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by eficalibrator View Post
    Correct.

    Now you're catching on...
    Greg,
    When you scale down the K sensor sensitivity, isnt this going to make them less sensitive? Can you show an example of 20% scaled down of that table? I think i have managed to scale down all other tables but the K sensing one worries me if i dont do it right.
    Pity i am few thousand miles away, otherwise i would be asking such questions and learing quite a bit by attending one of your training courses.

  13. #13
    Senior Tuner eficalibrator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by HNK View Post
    When you scale down the K sensor sensitivity, isnt this going to make them less sensitive?
    It's not a question of reducing the sensitivity, but rather just realigning the same sensitivity values with new g/cyl axis breakpoints that correlate with the new scaled airmass.

    However, in practice this hasn't been a huge issue for knock. If you've done the base fuel and spark calibration properly, there's almost no knock to worry about correcting in the first place. "Mr. Miyagi say: best block, no be there."

  14. #14
    Senior Tuner DSteck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,856
    When ratioing down the knock sensor tables, you end up with blank rows at the bottom. I just kind of fibbed numbers, to be honest. I took the last row of good data, and basically multilplied it by 90% for each successive row. I have no idea whether or not that was a valid way to do it, but the table had to have something.

    DSX Tuning - Authorized HP Tuners Dealer
    http://www.dsxtuning.com
    http://www.facebook.com/dsx.tuning
    Just say no to bull s***.
    IF YOU WANT HELP, POST A FILE!

  15. #15
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern FL
    Posts
    2,044
    DSteck, do you mind giving me the parameter you're referring to, what "listed" g/cyl axis value referring to, and what ratio you're using?

    My guess is you're referring to the Knock Sensor Multiplier tables, right? If you're using 50%, then 0.9 g/cyl row goes in 0.5 and above (0.6, 0.7, 0.8). So, basically, it simulates this:

    Code:
    OLD	NEW
    0.1	0.2
    0.2	0.4
    0.3	0.6
    0.4	0.8
    0.5	0.9
    0.6	0.9
    0.7	0.9
    0.8	0.9
    0.9	0.9
    Last edited by RWTD; 09-14-2009 at 12:41 PM.
    Formerly known as RWTD

    Toys: '22 Tesla Model S Plaid / '20 Chevy Duramax / ?20 Sea-Doo RXT-X (2)

  16. #16
    Senior Tuner DSteck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,856
    See this post:
    http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showpo...8&postcount=45

    http://pages.slu.edu/student/steckdw...%20Scaling.xls

    Basically, when you run out of usable data, I just used some multipliers for the next rows to taper the values off in the higher g/cyl rows. In my Z06 file, it was a table for each cylinder, as those were the only knock sensor tables with cylinder load as an axis.

    In the 80% tab...
    Row 0.8 g/cyl is 90% of the 0.7 row
    Row 0.9 g/cyl is 70% of the 0.7 row

    In the 75% tab...
    Row 0.7 g/cyl is 90% of the 0.6 row
    Row 0.8 g/cyl is 78% of the 0.6 row
    Row 0.9 g/cyl is 65% of the 0.6 row

    In the 50% tab...
    Row 0.5 g/cyl is 90% of the 0.4 row
    Row 0.6 g/cyl is 80% of the 0.4 row
    Row 0.7 g/cyl is 75% of the 0.4 row
    Row 0.8 g/cyl is 62% of the 0.4 row
    Row 0.9 g/cyl is 50% of the 0.4 row

    I don't have much of a system to choosing those ratios for the cells that would be left blank, and it was a total assumption. I was hoping somebody might be able to tell me a good trend to follow for them. Basically I was trying to just make it taper down as cylinder load went up, but the % reduction I used was totally arbitrary.

    DSX Tuning - Authorized HP Tuners Dealer
    http://www.dsxtuning.com
    http://www.facebook.com/dsx.tuning
    Just say no to bull s***.
    IF YOU WANT HELP, POST A FILE!

  17. #17
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern FL
    Posts
    2,044
    On the knock sensor mulitplier tables, the factory calibration uses the SAME value for 0.9 g/cyl and any g/cyl measurement above 0.9 anyway, so my question is why would you use "untested" data for higher g/cyl ranges, especially values that are less sensitive? The way I showed above is the correct way of doing it.

    So again as an example, on a 50% scale, on the knock sensor mulitipliers, anything from 0.5 g/cyl and above uses the factory data from 0.9 g/cyl.
    Last edited by RWTD; 09-14-2009 at 04:00 PM.
    Formerly known as RWTD

    Toys: '22 Tesla Model S Plaid / '20 Chevy Duramax / ?20 Sea-Doo RXT-X (2)

  18. #18
    Senior Tuner DSteck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by RWTD View Post
    On the knock sensor mulitplier tables, the factory calibration uses the SAME value for 0.9 g/cyl and any g/cyl measurement above 0.9 anyway, so my question is why would you use "untested" data for higher g/cyl ranges, especially values that are less sensitive? The way I showed above is the correct way of doing it.
    Spreadsheet is fixed. I wasn't totally positive of how the data in the last cell was used for higher cylinder airmasses. I was originally trying to follow a trend assuming one existed.

    DSX Tuning - Authorized HP Tuners Dealer
    http://www.dsxtuning.com
    http://www.facebook.com/dsx.tuning
    Just say no to bull s***.
    IF YOU WANT HELP, POST A FILE!

  19. #19
    Senior Tuner
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Southern FL
    Posts
    2,044
    Damn I'm moody today. Sorry, it ain't your fault. LOL!
    Formerly known as RWTD

    Toys: '22 Tesla Model S Plaid / '20 Chevy Duramax / ?20 Sea-Doo RXT-X (2)

  20. #20
    Senior Tuner DSteck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by RWTD View Post
    Damn I'm moody today. Sorry, it ain't your fault. LOL!
    At least the spark table adjustment works just fine. I'll still sleep at night!

    DSX Tuning - Authorized HP Tuners Dealer
    http://www.dsxtuning.com
    http://www.facebook.com/dsx.tuning
    Just say no to bull s***.
    IF YOU WANT HELP, POST A FILE!