Running way too rich w/ Motron 80lb Injectors

[Nodnarb]

The first one.

[hardrock21]

The first one.

OK that's how I had it set. Thanks so much for your help.

[hardrock21]

Ok, so I still have some questions.

1. I have my wideband reading in Lambda and accurately reporting into HPT...However, I can not get the histogram logging this sensor correctly. It keeps saying the data is not supported...

2. Why are my STFT trying to pull fuel when my wideband is reading .8x lambda and trying to add fuel when it is at 1.09 lambda? It's commanding 1.0 for lambda. The more I try to trust the STFT's, the worse the car bucks, surges, dies,etc.

I posted my config, log and tune files in my previous posts. Anyone able to help w/ these issues? I am going nuts trying to understand exactly what I need to change to make these right. Thanks.

Paul

[Nodnarb]

1 lambda = Stoich. Numbers less then 1 are richer, greater than one are leaner.

It gets a little confusing because GM works in EQ ratios where numbers more than one are richer and less than one are leaner.

[homebuilt]

One contributing factor might be the min fuel milligrams transient qualification field. FUEL > TRANSIENT > TRANSIENT FUEL QUALIFICATIONS

You still have it at 0.045 which I imagine is still stock. I'm going to do some additional testing to verify my results but I believe the best approach is to reduce this number by the amount the injector static flow rate was increased over stock. (example if the static flow of your injectors are 2.5 times stock, divide the 0.045 by 2.5

My reasoning is that I believe based on my testing that this number is also used to set the scale for all of the transient adjustments which in my case correct 99% of my surging with this one number change.

I would also expect you might run into a min PW barrier at low load conditions if you leave this number untouched.

[hardrock21]

1 lambda = Stoich. Numbers less then 1 are richer, greater than one are leaner.

It gets a little confusing because GM works in EQ ratios where numbers more than one are richer and less than one are leaner.

Ahhh...Now that you mention it, I knew that! Any idea why the driveability is getting worse with every VE adjustment I do based on the STFT's?

[hardrock21]

One contributing factor might be the min fuel milligrams transient qualification field. FUEL > TRANSIENT > TRANSIENT FUEL QUALIFICATIONS

You still have it at 0.045 which I imagine is still stock. I'm going to do some additional testing to verify my results but I believe the best approach is to reduce this number by the amount the injector static flow rate was increased over stock. (example if the static flow of your injectors are 2.5 times stock, divide the 0.045 by 2.5

My reasoning is that I believe based on my testing that this number is also used to set the scale for all of the transient adjustments which in my case correct 99% of my surging with this one number change.

I would also expect you might run into a min PW barrier at low load conditions if you leave this number untouched.

Nodnarb posted a tune earlier in this thread where I think he adjusted that transient fuel value...I'll go back and double check, but I think I remember seeing that he had changed those.

I am really struggling w/ trying to get the lambda to log in the histograms. Is anyone able to tell why that may be? Thanks.

[hardrock21]

It looks like he changed it to .035, should I bring it down some more from that? Thanks again.

[Nodnarb]

Post a log, latest tune and a config. Make sure you're logging IPW.

[hardrock21]

I posted a very short cruising log in the 2nd to last post on the first page. The config and tune are there as well. I've made a couple adjustments to the VE since that tune, but it's only made it worse, so I may go back.

The car bucks, surges and stalls out so bad on take off that any lengthy cruise at all is almost impossible...

[homebuilt]

It looks like he changed it to .035, should I bring it down some more from that? Thanks again.

That is much higher than what I would expect for these injectors. I have the same injectors and my value is 0.013 but this might not exactly be the same for yours because it is based on the change from stock. If you give me the stock flow rate at 0 kPA I can tell you what to try in this field.

On the histogram logging issue. If you are talking about histogram 6. Try changing the plot value to the PID you created for Commanded Lambda.

[Nodnarb]

Here's two. Try using the closed loop enabled tune first to get you going.

Get a log of it idling that shows IPW.

[homebuilt]

Ahhh...Now that you mention it, I knew that! Any idea why the driveability is getting worse with every VE adjustment I do based on the STFT's?

I wouldn't tune based on the trims. I would work on the portions of the VE table you can cover with some constant "safe" speed driving and tune based on your Lambda error.

Then if you want to go in closed loop do so with the LTFT disabled. Atleast until the transients are right and you don't see large STFTs anymore.

Let me know if you need more help getting the scanner histograms working. I can just change the file and send it back to you.

[turbos10inCT]

Hard to believe you would actually ask about tuning the ve table with fuel trims. Even harder to believe some people here would actually think about, then post some answers about how to tune ve with fuel trims. LOL. Not one post in this thread has told you how goofy big that cam is. I mean you are kidding right? You got a puny 347" engine. [email protected] is that correct?Not impossible to run half ass on the street but Why? When somebody with a whole llot less will run right by you. About as useless as tits on a bull in a 347. Your car is supposed to buck when a cam that silly is combined with the rest of your combo.

[hardrock21]

Hard to believe you would actually ask about tuning the ve table with fuel trims. Even harder to believe some people here would actually think about, then post some answers about how to tune ve with fuel trims. LOL. Not one post in this thread has told you how goofy big that cam is. I mean you are kidding right? You got a puny 347" engine. [email protected] is that correct?Not impossible to run half ass on the street but Why? When somebody with a whole llot less will run right by you. About as useless as tits on a bull in a 347. Your car is supposed to buck when a cam that silly is combined with the rest of your combo.

This post is both irrelevant and un-needed in this thread. Everyone else is being very helpful and the reason they didn't tell me to get a smaller cam is because I didn't make a post asking what size cam everyone thinks I should run. If you are gonna post in my thread, please keep it constructive... Moreover from that, I had this cam idling and running fine with the previous single Walbro and 42lb injectors on stock feed line. Things went crazy after I went w/ the larger injectors. The TRak cam is what I started w/ and had much better results/power w/ it, but I bought this one off a friend to try something new. I also stated in the first post how big it is and how I'm aware it isn't doing any favors for me power wise. I do have a SI TU1 cam that I bought for the turbo setup sitting on my bench. So, there is my explanation, not that I owed you one. Thanks.

Nodnard, thanks for the tunes, I'll give them a shot when I go out there next and get back with you. I'll start adjusting the tune as soon I get my histogram logging my lamdba error correctly. Thanks again for the help.

[hardrock21]

I wouldn't tune based on the trims. I would work on the portions of the VE table you can cover with some constant "safe" speed driving and tune based on your Lambda error.

Then if you want to go in closed loop do so with the LTFT disabled. Atleast until the transients are right and you don't see large STFTs anymore.

Let me know if you need more help getting the scanner histograms working. I can just change the file and send it back to you.

Ideally, I didn't want to tune w/ the STFT's, but I couldn't get the histogram correct at the time. I have Lambda to log in histogram 9 and lambda error in histogram 10. I'll keep playing with it to try and get it right.

As far as the flow rate of the injectors at 0kpa, Speed Inc. couldn't supply any of the flow data when I bought them so I just had to search on here and find some data for them. I believe the data I found was for Siemens 80lbs.

Thanks again.

Paul

[turbos10inCT]

You certainly dont owe me any explanations. my point was how reliable do you think the narrowbands and even a wideband somewhat will be tuning with your combo at street type driving? And with a 10.5 comp ratio makes for a sluggish, inefficient running engine.

[hardrock21]

You certainly dont owe me any explanations. my point was how reliable do you think the narrowbands and even a wideband somewhat will be tuning with your combo at street type driving? And with a 10.5 comp ratio makes for a sluggish, inefficient running engine.

I agree that it's a mis matched setup. I can prove that in many different way s. The car was MUCH stronger on the TRak cam. With this cam, the best dyno I have had to date is 431rwhp/391 lb-ft which is on the low side for a head/cam/12 bolt/6 speed car from what I have seen. Neither here, nor there, I'm not looking for a max effort setup here, just working with what I have.

[homebuilt]

I attached a config. file. I could fix the histogram to display the commanded Lambda but the error wouldn't work for me. I think you need to try deleting the custom AUX input and re-set it up. Then check to see if the new name for the aux in put shows up when you look at the Lambda_err Aux input. I hope that makes sense. Or if you could give me your transfer function for your wideband I can finish it. I don't think you will be able to have it work for the previous scans but you have the data.

Regarding the flow rate I was asking for the what your stock tune value was at 0 kPA. What type of vehicle it this? I can download a stock tune. I need to look at the starting point to calculate the new min fuel mg value. There is a post on here where Greg touches on adjusting the min fuel mg.

Focusing on what was changed I really think your problem is coming from effects of the min fuel mg and the min PW floor (also based on the min PW tables). Looking at the scan, the trims are fine until it is trying to go below 2.2 msec which is telling me you were hitting the min PW floor. The computer is maxing out the negative trim and it still can't get to stoch. Then as you move up in load the trim is carried up and it is too lean. You can see it in the attached pic where that is happening.

If you keep it out of closed loop for now that might be more apparent but you need to get the injectors to go to a lower PW. It is way rich. I would lower the min pw and default pw more. I have 0.593 in mine and this works out fine with the addition of the offset.

Lastly, if your previous VE table data was known to be good I would load that back in.

[Redline MS]

Good reading here......

I've seen the 80's on a flow bench tested with J1832 test methods....believe me they have horrible flow characteristics at pulse widths below 4.00 ms...

http://forum.efilive.com/showthread....acked-up-to-be!

Howard