[cjperformance]

Originally Posted by JP374

What opted you to go with the plates vs an intake with injector provisions using the PC?

You can get a btr Trinity with pi holes cnc ported for less then the plates i believe, at the end of the day it’s your build thou. I was merely curious is all.

Thx JP

Im a sucker for the latest thing! Actually, it just seems like a solid kit, and lots of folks are interested so i figured why not!

[JP374]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Im a sucker for the latest thing! Actually, it just seems like a solid kit, and lots of folks are interested so i figured why not!

Lol I hear ya! I’ve been thinking real hard on adding the thpsi kit myself but just put the injectors in my intake and be done. But I always end up saying I need to just enjoy it and drive it the way it is for now lol.

[cjperformance]

I had checked into the BTR Trinity in the past... and looked at it again yesterday since you mentioned it... and the price is close. There doesn't seem to be as much info around how to get it fully working. More unknowns for a noob like me to mess up on. The THPSI info seems very well known and straight-forward.

[JP374]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

I had checked into the BTR Trinity in the past... and looked at it again yesterday since you mentioned it... and the price is close. There doesn't seem to be as much info around how to get it fully working. More unknowns for a noob like me to mess up on. The THPSI info seems very well known and straight-forward.

Yea I guess for me since I already have the Btr is would save a few bucks. Would just need the thpsi controller, fuel rails, and injectors. Still pondering lol

[cjperformance]

Originally Posted by JP374

Yea I guess for me since I already have the Btr is would save a few bucks. Would just need the thpsi controller, fuel rails, and injectors. Still pondering lol

If i had the btr already id stick with it. I think the injector orientation is probably better on the btr than thpsi. I see no advantage of the plate system in this case.

[cjperformance]

Watched THPSI Mike's tuning video. Looks pretty straightforward. Since i have the car dialed in on the DI alone right now, there shouldn't be any guesswork in the initial tune for PI.

My guess is that after the initial copying of existing maf settings into the spreadsheet, and then into the respective tables in E92 and Reflex, that any follow up MAF adjustments below the 6000 hz transition point would be done on the DI system. After 6000 hz adjustments to fuel would probably be done exclusively on the port system.

Or alternately, after the first round of testing, i would need to copy the needed adjustments again into the spreadsheet input, and then again redistribute new values to both the E92 and reflex. Although, it seems like once the DI system is dialed in to a desired inj pulse width, there shouldnt need to be any further changes to the E92 above 6000hz...

The real answer is probably a combination of the two. Not a big deal JUST adding PI on my current system, but ill have more questions when i go to pulley down...

When i DO pulley down, thinking ill be adding a 5% to 10% fueling safety factor across the board, and perhaps bumping up the % of fueling done by the port inj from 30% to something like 35% to prevent overtaxing the DI. Dropping shift points, spark, etc too during the first couple of pulls.

Before i pulley down, though ill just try running straight pump E85 and see what happens.

To recap:
- sort out fueling on E50 with PI
- try running pump E85 and make sure things are still good
- pulley down and recalibrate

[KingLT1]

Depending on your current tune, you might need to increase the virtual torque tables where you reduce MAF flow in the ECU. Pulling 30% from the maf will basically make the ECU think you are making less torque.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Watched THPSI Mike's tuning video. Looks pretty straightforward. Since i have the car dialed in on the DI alone right now, there shouldn't be any guesswork in the initial tune for PI.

My guess is that after the initial copying of existing maf settings into the spreadsheet, and then into the respective tables in E92 and Reflex, that any follow up MAF adjustments below the 6000 hz transition point would be done on the DI system. After 6000 hz adjustments to fuel would probably be done exclusively on the port system.

Or alternately, after the first round of testing, i would need to copy the needed adjustments again into the spreadsheet input, and then again redistribute new values to both the E92 and reflex. Although, it seems like once the DI system is dialed in to a desired inj pulse width, there shouldnt need to be any further changes to the E92 above 6000hz...

The real answer is probably a combination of the two. Not a big deal JUST adding PI on my current system, but ill have more questions when i go to pulley down...

When i DO pulley down, thinking ill be adding a 5% to 10% fueling safety factor across the board, and perhaps bumping up the % of fueling done by the port inj from 30% to something like 35% to prevent overtaxing the DI. Dropping shift points, spark, etc too during the first couple of pulls.

Before i pulley down, though ill just try running straight pump E85 and see what happens.

To recap:
- sort out fueling on E50 with PI
- try running pump E85 and make sure things are still good
- pulley down and recalibrate

Mike has mine set up at 69% DI and 31% Port and the transition occurs at about 6500 hz. Main thing is to have a smooth transition when the port comes in or it hits pretty hard if you don't, we went thru several adjustments of the Tuner Pro RT

[cjperformance]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Depending on your current tune, you might need to increase the virtual torque tables where you reduce MAF flow in the ECU. Pulling 30% from the maf will basically make the ECU think you are making less torque.

Trying to wrap my head around that. How would that manifest itself during a test run in terms of driveability? In other words, what would be the symptoms im looking for?

VTT, max torque, peak torque, etc is probably my least understood area. It sounds like a good opportunity to dive in.

I can say that my current VTT from Rick's tune are stock.

I believe peak and max torque values were changed however, but im not clear what impact those have.

[cjperformance]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

Mike has mine set up at 69% DI and 31% Port and the transition occurs at about 6500 hz. Main thing is to have a smooth transition when the port comes in or it hits pretty hard if you don't, we went thru several adjustments of the Tuner Pro RT

Good info, so 35% prob excessive. Mike's vid recommended starting at 30%. Honestly im much more concerned with how im going to f up when i pulley down. Not so much on dialing in my current pulley.

Did you have to manually smooth, or is that done by the spreadsheet?

Also what are your DI IPW? Mine are around 5.8ms. Mike's vid recommended targeting 5.0 to 5.5 while on PI.

[KingLT1]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Trying to wrap my head around that. How would that manifest itself during a test run in terms of driveability? In other words, what would be the symptoms im looking for?

VTT, max torque, peak torque, etc is probably my least understood area. It sounds like a good opportunity to dive in.

I can say that my current VTT from Rick's tune are stock.

I believe peak and max torque values were changed however, but im not clear what impact those have.

Trans will shift funky. Ever watch vids of cars running with meth and they shift like crap? That is because the VTT tables are not correct. The same thing will happen tuning PI as Meth because similar methods are used to tune. You pull MAF airflow to lean out the DI side, so it compensates for the additional supplemental fuel source to hit target AFR... but it throws off the torque modeling in the process.

Not sure why Rick would leave those stock. Part of your TM issues that you have mentioned in the past likely stem from stock VTT tables.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Trying to wrap my head around that. How would that manifest itself during a test run in terms of driveability? In other words, what would be the symptoms im looking for?

VTT, max torque, peak torque, etc is probably my least understood area. It sounds like a good opportunity to dive in.

I can say that my current VTT from Rick's tune are stock.

I believe peak and max torque values were changed however, but im not clear what impact those have.

The throttle and spark could be retarded by the ECM. If you log the necessary parameters, you could see all of that.

Although the reduction from the airflow model is probably not enough to cause the TCM to slip the tranny or anything, adjusting the VIRTUAL TORQUE TABLES will offset that.

PEAK TQ is just the maximum you set it.

I believe MAX TQ, in part, comes from the VIRTUAL VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY (VVE) and SPARK tables. It's not exactly known, in it's whole, where this channel is derived, but some smart people have found definite correlations, if I understand correctly.

VIRTUAL TQ TABLEs (VTT) are what you want to align, as close as reasonable, to actual ENGINE TQ. However - I believe it is also said that this is not strictly engine dyno TQ. It's the absolute TQ produced by the engine, including parasitic drag from accessories and a bunch of stuff. So it would, theoretically - be a higher value than what you would see from an engine dyno, apparently. Also - it seems like the current theory on how these relate to TCM/TRANNY is these tables control pressure/shift aggressiveness/etc (Airmass/MAP), so if you just max' one of the table domains out, you could have unnecessarily harsh shifting, or perhaps unnecessary line pressure, and more.

Not that I'm an expert (but I can say that my tune does have 100% THROTTLE and 100% commanded SPARK. I haven't max'd tables out, either, as that's not correct. I tried to model my VTT, at varying INTAKE CAM ANGLES to mimic what I've seen from engine dyno/chassis dyno examples I can find, and extrapolate that information to my set-up. I've gotten my VVE tables to as close as I can make them, and then remodel my VTT if I get TMA/SPARK retard. If I get THROTTLE closure, I fart around on the Driver Demand (DD) tables until they're adjusted appropriately.

Basically - you want PEAK TQ higher than FINAL THROTTLE PEDAL/MAX TQ, and that higher than PREDICTED/IMMEDIATE TQ, higher than ENGINE TQ and blah blah blah. And then you have to make sure your DD tables are high enough they are balancing within that. The point, is, though, you want to touch any of these as little as necessary, so if you don't have THROTTLE closure and DO have COMMANDED SPARK, then you are good. The closer you can make the VVE, the better, as using the OEM tables, for all of this, if possible, is the best.

More or less...

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Good info, so 35% prob excessive. Mike's vid recommended starting at 30%. Honestly im much more concerned with how im going to f up when i pulley down. Not so much on dialing in my current pulley.

Did you have to manually smooth, or is that done by the spreadsheet?

Also what are your DI IPW? Mine are around 5.8ms. Mike's vid recommended targeting 5.0 to 5.5 while on PI.

You can smooth manually, but Mike's newest V3-sheet is the most current spreadsheet to use as a jumping off point. You have some options you can use for smoothing and fine-tuning. He goes over some of those in the video.

It's my understanding, if you're targeting about 5ms, that you'll want to adjust the DI-fueling enough that it hits that target, and use the PI to get you to a good EQ. So - one method of doing this is adjust your PE table, some bits lower, so the DI isn't pushing as much fuel per part of air. Then you could balance the PI fueling by adding a measure of fuel until the DI shows your desired IPW and your EQ, from the PI, is in the range you're looking for.

It's going to be important to get everything for the DI side as close to calibrated as possible, first. Otherwise - you'll end up chasing your tail, some, when you introduce your PI. Get that OEM MAF dialed in as perfect as possible, because that has a lot of influence.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Trans will shift funky. Ever watch vids of cars running with meth and they shift like crap? That is because the VTT tables are not correct. The same thing will happen tuning PI as Meth because similar methods are used to tune. You pull MAF airflow to lean out the DI side, so it compensates for the additional supplemental fuel source to hit target AFR... but it throws off the torque modeling in the process.

Not sure why Rick would leave those stock. Part of your TM issues that you have mentioned in the past likely stem from stock VTT tables.

I can speak first hand to this.

Obviously - I'm no calibrator, or anything close to a tuner, but I started noticing, over time, that I was getting harsh downshifts. I'm constantly watching all my torque and always evaluating my VVE/MAF/TMA and as I would adjust over time, my VTT crept up, and it got to the point that it was high enough the ECM was telling the TCM I was making way more torque that I really was, and the TCM was applying more pressure than it needed to for the downshifts. When I lowered the VTT in the appropriate areas, the TCM was commanding less pressure, and the downshifts smoothed right out.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Good info, so 35% prob excessive. Mike's vid recommended starting at 30%. Honestly im much more concerned with how im going to f up when i pulley down. Not so much on dialing in my current pulley.

Did you have to manually smooth, or is that done by the spreadsheet?

Also what are your DI IPW? Mine are around 5.8ms. Mike's vid recommended targeting 5.0 to 5.5 while on PI.

I would dial in the pulley you have and rectify any issues with that tune. Then you'll probably only have to make slight changes for the smaller pulley. I think you'll be surprised how much more hp you can make just with the same pulley. I went from 677 rwhp to 707 with just a 3mm pulley change from 98mm to 95 and really not much of a change in the tune. I'm going to be running the 98mm pulley for the 10.00 class at WWtraceway in the headsup class but I'm basically running the 95 mm tune for that class. These are not big jump in any of my tunes, just tiny timing and PE changes, don't think we made any Port %s changes between the pulleys.