[radz28]

Originally Posted by JSH

I shouldn't have posted. I could post the details of what he told me but that wouldn't make sense on TooHigh's thread.

For me personally, I'm not doing PI because my OEM short block must already be nearing the failure point of various components.

Hmm... OK. Well - if I came across as a jerk, that was not my intent. It took MONTHS for me to get to where I am, only in THIS aspect. I'd never suggest I'd know more than anyone else. I'm only trying to be helpful - if that's even possible. It would be interesting to learn what he said, but it's not my business, and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by NicKey

I believe that you may be getting some miss information. First; This is the least expensive system we have yet to see on the market and next it is the least complicated management system that we have seen. Have your "Tunner" get a hold a Mike @ THPSI as he is a wealth of Knowledge regarding these systems and tuning them.

Also while it is true that it takes some time to properly tune this Set up, 30 days is not in the realm of reality. We tune pump gas to full e85 with three pulley combos along with trans tuning and street driving which is completed in two days.

Stefano and Matt at Nickey have probably done more Thpsi PI with the Reflex than any other performance shop. Matt is a serious tuner and love seeing the videos when he's on the dyno with the Zl1's. He really like to go into depth and give as much information as possible but not to give away his tuning skills.

[jlaudio11]

A little bit back on topic here. I reached out to radz28 via pm for a little more information as I've read this thread multiple times but getting interrupted or side tracked I missed some things. We exchanged some emails and I got the pieces I was missing.

I am currently running my reflex in the Nickey/Matt method of pulling from both maf and pe, adjusting vt but I think this method will work better. Altering the maf curve and pe throw off, not just surface level of torque reported based on airflow but also airmass reported, which moves around the look up for spark timing, which throws off torque again.

In switching my current E92 tune over to this fuel flow percentage method I forsee a potential issue. My LT1 hpfp fuel pressure multiplier tables (33353-33355) only go to 21mp rather than 28mp on a LT4. This basically gives me a smaller window initially to offset. Then I thought about rescaling the column axis to give better resolution for these changes in 33354 and 33355. When I did that it it changed the fuel rail pressure axis in all three not just 33354 and 33355. It also changed the axis in 33350 the density multiplier. This table is a multiplier based off fuel rail pressure and injector tip temp. What I think that means though is that I basically have another table I can modify in the higher fuel rail pressure areas to "hide" more port injection so to speak. The multiplier in here is currently only 1.0 and caps at 2.0. The reason I'm looking for more room is because offsetting 30% right now basically caps out the multiplier of 33355 @ 2.0. I'm only on 6lbs of boost with safe ipw but if I increase boost, I can add port injection fueling to supoort it but the E92 is still going to do what it thinks it needs to which will be a longer pulse width. Hopefully the density multiplier offset will tone it back down. Again this is all theory I plan to prove, but I thought it could be valuable for others in the future.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by radz28

Hmm... OK. Well - if I came across as a jerk, that was not my intent. It took MONTHS for me to get to where I am, only in THIS aspect. I'd never suggest I'd know more than anyone else. I'm only trying to be helpful - if that's even possible. It would be interesting to learn what he said, but it's not my business, and I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble

No, you didn't come across as a jerk. Although my feedback was well-intentioned, TooHigh's thread isn't the place for it.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

A little bit back on topic here. I reached out to radz28 via pm for a little more information as I've read this thread multiple times but getting interrupted or side tracked I missed some things. We exchanged some emails and I got the pieces I was missing.

I am currently running my reflex in the Nickey/Matt method of pulling from both maf and pe, adjusting vt but I think this method will work better. Altering the maf curve and pe throw off, not just surface level of torque reported based on airflow but also airmass reported, which moves around the look up for spark timing, which throws off torque again.

In switching my current E92 tune over to this fuel flow percentage method I forsee a potential issue. My LT1 hpfp fuel pressure multiplier tables (33353-33355) only go to 21mp rather than 28mp on a LT4. This basically gives me a smaller window initially to offset. Then I thought about rescaling the column axis to give better resolution for these changes in 33354 and 33355. When I did that it it changed the fuel rail pressure axis in all three not just 33354 and 33355. It also changed the axis in 33350 the density multiplier. This table is a multiplier based off fuel rail pressure and injector tip temp. What I think that means though is that I basically have another table I can modify in the higher fuel rail pressure areas to "hide" more port injection so to speak. The multiplier in here is currently only 1.0 and caps at 2.0. The reason I'm looking for more room is because offsetting 30% right now basically caps out the multiplier of 33355 @ 2.0. I'm only on 6lbs of boost with safe ipw but if I increase boost, I can add port injection fueling to supoort it but the E92 is still going to do what it thinks it needs to which will be a longer pulse width. Hopefully the density multiplier offset will tone it back down. Again this is all theory I plan to prove, but I thought it could be valuable for others in the future.

I noticed what you noticed, too... Trying to adjust the axis in just [33354]/[33355] also adjusted the other related definitions by the same, and if I did calculations correctly, it changed the values in the definitions, too. It was by 15%, or something like that, so it wasn't small. I'm not sure what all those changes do, overall (I have a guess), and I'm not sure it's something I won't try in the future, after I'm done here. SO FAR - I'm getting the fidelity it seems like I need.

Could this be a mechanical limitation from the LT1 system? None of my logs show (ever) that I exceeded 20MPa (there were little spikes to 21, here and there, but most of the time, it went to, and stuck at, 20MPa). I thought that was a function of my maximum commanded pressures from [17071], where my max' commanded pressure is 20MPa. My IPWs (in almost all regimes at this point) seem to max-out around 5.2ms, so I'm not seeing them going further than what I was shooting for. But - with what your combination seems to be, you might, already, be close to meeting and exceeding my power level, contributing to why I'm not seeing the IPWs go nuts. And - I've only tuned ONE Gen V, and that's this car, so I have very limited practical experience. You, and many others here, have vastly more experience on this platform.

VERY interesting...

[jlaudio11]

Originally Posted by radz28

I noticed what you noticed, too... Trying to adjust the axis in just [33354]/[33355] also adjusted the other related definitions by the same, and if I did calculations correctly, it changed the values in the definitions, too. It was by 15%, or something like that, so it wasn't small. I'm not sure what all those changes do, overall (I have a guess), and I'm not sure it's something I won't try in the future, after I'm done here. SO FAR - I'm getting the fidelity it seems like I need.

Could this be a mechanical limitation from the LT1 system? None of my logs show (ever) that I exceeded 20MPa (there were little spikes to 21, here and there, but most of the time, it went to, and stuck at, 20MPa). I thought that was a function of my maximum commanded pressures from [17071], where my max' commanded pressure is 20MPa. My IPWs (in almost all regimes at this point) seem to max-out around 5.2ms, so I'm not seeing them going further than what I was shooting for. But - with what your combination seems to be, you might, already, be close to meeting and exceeding my power level, contributing to why I'm not seeing the IPWs go nuts. And - I've only tuned ONE Gen V, and that's this car, so I have very limited practical experience. You, and many others here, have vastly more experience on this platform.

VERY interesting...

I went and compared a stock zl1 file and yes we both max out around 20mpa commanded on the stock tune. The lt4 hpfp is capable of more (26-28mpa) and I thought you were already raising that to offset ipw. Your higher volume stock injectors (140.7lbhr) compared to my LT1 (121.1lbhr) are probably also helping your ipw. I dont think I'm exceeding your power level but I think I'm closing in on the limits of my stock hpfp and injectors and how much they can be manipulated sooner than you are.
For anyone looking from the outside, with the lt4 fuel system naturally being able to support a higher hp level, it also lends itself to more area to work in and manipulate numbers to hide more port injection than the LT1. I'm still working in theory and havent increased power levels enough to prove but I think I'm going to have to get into the Density multiplier table (33350).

Also if you prefer Radz28 any future discussions could be in another thread. I don't want to pull away from all the great information you've already shared on your toohighpsi port injection as a whole.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

I went and compared a stock zl1 file and yes we both max out around 20mpa commanded on the stock tune. The lt4 hpfp is capable of more (26-28mpa) and I thought you were already raising that to offset ipw. Your higher volume stock injectors (140.7lbhr) compared to my LT1 (121.1lbhr) are probably also helping your ipw. I dont think I'm exceeding your power level but I think I'm closing in on the limits of my stock hpfp and injectors and how much they can be manipulated sooner than you are.
For anyone looking from the outside, with the lt4 fuel system naturally being able to support a higher hp level, it also lends itself to more area to work in and manipulate numbers to hide more port injection than the LT1. I'm still working in theory and havent increased power levels enough to prove but I think I'm going to have to get into the Density multiplier table (33350).

Also if you prefer Radz28 any future discussions could be in another thread. I don't want to pull away from all the great information you've already shared on your toohighpsi port injection as a whole.

No. I haven't raised [17071] at all. I've been lowering the lighter load areas, from lower RPM through redline, so that I can bring fuel in, and keep CL trims reasonable. I got WOT pretty close early on, but what I found was any time I was in the lower half (or so, and from 2000 RPMs to redline) of [17071], as commanded fuel pressure went up, my CL corrections went up, too - they went LEAN - as much as about 30% (which was about what I reduced fueling by, in [33354]/[33355] at 20MPa - which was also where I was initially floating around, in [17071]). So - let's say I was cruising at 0.45g/6000RPMs, in my stock tune. The stock tune file is commanding 20MPa, in that cell. So - after I made my fueling reductions in [33355] @ 20MPa ("2.000", or the max allowed, as you and I noted), that turned out to be right around 30% or so. As a result, I thought I started to see the trend of my CL corrections following about the difference (in [33355]) from stock to my change. Then - I started to LOWER the commanded pressure where I was seeing these large corrections in [17071] - to about the pressure I hadn't changed (13MPa, in [33355]). SO: I wound-up changing all the cells in [17071], beginning around 2400 RPMs to redline, and from about 0.31g AIRMASS to 13MPa (for the most part), and blended into surrounding cells. Since inching toward this change, as I lowered commanded pressure in [17071], my CL corrections started falling from +30%, to less than +10% (actually less). AND - my MAF errors have, correspondingly, fallen, too.

To summarize all that: I learned by raising the values in [33354]/[33355], I had to lower the correlating cell pressures in [17071]. Unless I'm interpreting the SCANNER data wrong (which is possible, but I'm pretty confident it IS set-up correctly, and I am understanding it correctly), that makes it all true, and is working. I couldn't explain how CL trims get better, and OL maintaining earlier good/reasonable errors. I haven't changed the OEM "20MPa" values in [17071] outside of the lower-to-middle parts of the table, and the REFLEX has been covering most anything from about 0.65g AIRMASS and above. IPWs have been in the low- 5ms range. I wonder if you might need to scale back [17071] even more than I had in order to keep IPWs from going crazy... Hmm...

I think this is the perfect place for it. I wouldn't mind breaking out a separate thread, maybe in the tuning section, but I certainly don't mind it here. When I started this thread, that was my intent, but I could definitely see a good argument to start a new thread in the TUNING section. What do you think?

[jlaudio11]

Originally Posted by radz28

No. I haven't raised [17071] at all. I've been lowering the lighter load areas, from lower RPM through redline, so that I can bring fuel in, and keep CL trims reasonable. I got WOT pretty close early on, but what I found was any time I was in the lower half (or so, and from 2000 RPMs to redline) of [17071], as commanded fuel pressure went up, my CL corrections went up, too - they went LEAN - as much as about 30% (which was about what I reduced fueling by, in [33354]/[33355] at 20MPa - which was also where I was initially floating around, in [17071]). So - let's say I was cruising at 0.45g/6000RPMs, in my stock tune. The stock tune file is commanding 20MPa, in that cell. So - after I made my fueling reductions in [33355] @ 20MPa ("2.000", or the max allowed, as you and I noted), that turned out to be right around 30% or so. As a result, I thought I started to see the trend of my CL corrections following about the difference (in [33355]) from stock to my change. Then - I started to LOWER the commanded pressure where I was seeing these large corrections in [17071] - to about the pressure I hadn't changed (13MPa, in [33355]). SO: I wound-up changing all the cells in [17071], beginning around 2400 RPMs to redline, and from about 0.31g AIRMASS to 13MPa (for the most part), and blended into surrounding cells. Since inching toward this change, as I lowered commanded pressure in [17071], my CL corrections started falling from +30%, to less than +10% (actually less). AND - my MAF errors have, correspondingly, fallen, too.

To summarize all that: I learned by raising the values in [33354]/[33355], I had to lower the correlating cell pressures in [17071]. Unless I'm interpreting the SCANNER data wrong (which is possible, but I'm pretty confident it IS set-up correctly, and I am understanding it correctly), that makes it all true, and is working. I couldn't explain how CL trims get better, and OL maintaining earlier good/reasonable errors. I haven't changed the OEM "20MPa" values in [17071] outside of the lower-to-middle parts of the table, and the REFLEX has been covering most anything from about 0.65g AIRMASS and above. IPWs have been in the low- 5ms range. I wonder if you might need to scale back [17071] even more than I had in order to keep IPWs from going crazy... Hmm...

I think this is the perfect place for it. I wouldn't mind breaking out a separate thread, maybe in the tuning section, but I certainly don't mind it here. When I started this thread, that was my intent, but I could definitely see a good argument to start a new thread in the TUNING section. What do you think?

So before doing port injection I had already went in and raised commanded pressures in 17071 in an effort to keep ipw down and to avoid playing with soi timing. Following what youre doing I think I'm going to lower those commanded pressures down in the lighter load areas to stay out of the high pressure zones that I messed with fuel flow on in 33354 and 33355. The turbo setup by nature doesnt spend alot of time in between. I cruise at lighter load areas but if I get into it and boost shoots up im into a higher airmass zone pretty quickly and looking for the extra fueling. Basically I don't think I will have a lot of transition that will be in closed loop and boost. I know I will have to do some smoothing like you but I'm hoping that if i can just keep commanded pressures down, the ecu will continue to stft adjust like normal but when I get into it, its open loop and not adjusting, just doing what its told.
As for another thread in the tuning section, I don't think it would be a bad idea. Maybe if we get further into this and more people jump in.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

So before doing port injection I had already went in and raised commanded pressures in 17071 in an effort to keep ipw down and to avoid playing with soi timing. Following what youre doing I think I'm going to lower those commanded pressures down in the lighter load areas to stay out of the high pressure zones that I messed with fuel flow on in 33354 and 33355. The turbo setup by nature doesnt spend alot of time in between. I cruise at lighter load areas but if I get into it and boost shoots up im into a higher airmass zone pretty quickly and looking for the extra fueling. Basically I don't think I will have a lot of transition that will be in closed loop and boost. I know I will have to do some smoothing like you but I'm hoping that if i can just keep commanded pressures down, the ecu will continue to stft adjust like normal but when I get into it, its open loop and not adjusting, just doing what its told.
As for another thread in the tuning section, I don't think it would be a bad idea. Maybe if we get further into this and more people jump in.

Agreed. If this turns into something, I think it would be a good idea. Good call.

It will be interesting to see if you find the same, apparent, reaction to those changes, too. It would be nice to get confirmation from someone else

[jlaudio11]

So I was finally able to do a little testing last night, i've been waiting for a silicone coupler to show up to replace a damaged one. I did not max out the 16 and 21 mpa zones of the fuel pressure multipliers right away because I wanted to see what just adding basically 30% did, (the amount of port injection I'm shooting for). The area around the transition of 15-16mpa seemed to be the most inconsistent like you had mentioned. I was getting a high pw and rich spike in afr. I also had not just copy and pasted 33335 to 33334 as I wanted to see the results again and only raised each of them. Now experiencing it I see why you set them the same, somewhat to eliminate variables. I saw some weird stft's in some of the lower fuel pressure desired zones, I tried to run it a little bit more in ways I wouldn't normally to collect a little extra data but I still don't think I have enough conclusive information to prove anything. I'll have to revisit that. What I do have is close enough to dial in wot during testing today before racing. I'll come back with better information when I have it, but so far I'm happy with the results!

[radz28]

Good luck today and fingers crossed for some good results!

[jlaudio11]

So racing didn't go well as I spun on the hit, then white smoked in 2nd and it was over first rd. But I was able to do some testing later and got a new pb on the surface. I'll cover that in my drag thread. As for the tuning everything worked really well. I am creeping up into the mid 5's regarding ipw with boost maxing out around 10 lbs up top. I'm trying to figure out best plan of action going forward adding more boost, whether i mess with start of injection or density multiplier.

[radz28]

The tuning-part is good news! At least it sounds like some of the mystery is going away, and that you're able to plan based off evidence from your logs.

If I understand the post correctly, it seems like at least one other tuner is using the density multiplier, too, over on HPTuners. That adds a little reassurance for me.

[2023_ZL1-AUTO]

radz28 - WOW !!! I just stumbled on to this post ! What an Awesome mod/build !!! Sweeet !!!