[Megahurtz]

You will want to keep the DI side happy by not limiting it too much lower than 4.5-4.8ms and then you would need to lower the port side.

It is important to keep the DI side handling the bulk of the fueling(with room to not exceed the spray window during cold weather) so that you maintain the advantage of DI cooling in the combustion chamber. Also, if you end up having to lower the MAF in efforts to lower Di side injector pulsewidth, you will start to get too low in regards to the torque value that the ECU reports to the TCM. Then shifting will get sloppy (assuming you have an auto). Lowering the PE table lower than 1.15 also can lower reported torque to the ECU so keep an eye on that too.

Also keep in mind to look at your Injector Tip Temp when you check your Lambda values. On the LT4's these values move around some and can change WOT fueling as the Injector Density multiplier changes. I've changed the Injector Density on some cars to not move at all once above 150F so that commanded fueling was more stable at WOT. This is beneficial on Meth and Port Injection setups. OEM values have the LT4 running up to 4% more fuel when not fully warmed up. Injector Tip Temp closely follows engine oil temps.

[KingLT1]

^That's good info Jason. Thanks for sharing!!

Originally Posted by radz28

Of course - I'm not arguing or ANYTHING like that - but if I'm not mistake, I believe, at least the MOTIV REFLEX+ that I'm using, does get/use MAF data, because there is a break-out jumper for it that goes between the OEM MAF harness and MAF sensor. Again - I'm only adding what I'm seeing and have connected myself, but I am definitely just a guy who's only tuned his own stuff, and doesn't have, nearly, the mileage you do.

I admit that when I was, initially, using the CL feature, I didn't have a good grasp of all the data I was seeing. I turned it off, made the MAF curve pretty fat, and drove and trimmed, and drove and trimmed until I was within 2-3% of COMMANDED. BUT - that was before it got cooler again, before I got E' content about as high as we get it out of the pump, and before, recently, adding the smaller upper. I'm able, now, to kinda' get a global picture of what the E92/REFLEX are saying, and how to put that together to get to where I need to.

I'm getting close to the point, though, in this method, to start considering lowering the MAF curve, though, to keep the DI happy. Right now, I'm commanding about .90 in PE, and compensating the REFLEX to bring the remaining fueling down to about .82-.83. We're finally getting in to the lower 60s now, and good air, and I'll see how much more I need to bring that down. I think there's another table I can get into that might give me a little more DI INJECTOR control (it was either the SHORT PULSE ADDER or OFFSET PROFILE). I have to research that again and see if that's even a thing I can use.



I bought my set-up from THPSI just just before they released the CL functionality, but I only had to buy the connection for the WB, download the updated software, and make a few adjustments to turn the function on. It was pretty easy. I would definitely recommend it to anyone, and believe you are right.

I think I'll have another drive under my belt today and see if I'm continuing to get improvements for the smaller upper pulley, and I think I'm going to call MOTIV and see if this controller DOES, indeed, compensate for alcohol.

I'll report back. Thank you, gentlemen, for commenting

You are correct. I went back and watched Mikes setup video again. I forgot the Reflex+ sees the E92 MAF data.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

You will want to keep the DI side happy by not limiting it too much lower than 4.5-4.8ms and then you would need to lower the port side.

It is important to keep the DI side handling the bulk of the fueling(with room to not exceed the spray window during cold weather) so that you maintain the advantage of DI cooling in the combustion chamber. Also, if you end up having to lower the MAF in efforts to lower Di side injector pulsewidth, you will start to get too low in regards to the torque value that the ECU reports to the TCM. Then shifting will get sloppy (assuming you have an auto). Lowering the PE table lower than 1.15 also can lower reported torque to the ECU so keep an eye on that too.

Also keep in mind to look at your Injector Tip Temp when you check your Lambda values. On the LT4's these values move around some and can change WOT fueling as the Injector Density multiplier changes. I've changed the Injector Density on some cars to not move at all once above 150F so that commanded fueling was more stable at WOT. This is beneficial on Meth and Port Injection setups. OEM values have the LT4 running up to 4% more fuel when not fully warmed up. Injector Tip Temp closely follows engine oil temps.

AH!!! Keeping IPW about 5.0-5.2ms was what I've been able to do, and what I've been trying to do, because, I think, I read somewhere that's a good range to keep it, but I never really saw the logic. I figured it had to do with the combustion process, but I've never seen anyone make that statement (I, very well, could have missed it though). That is SUPER helpful!!! THANKS!!!

AND - I didn't know about the PE table. What's interesting, because you said it, is I think I might have just experienced that. I, actually, had my PE lowered to 1.150 until my last tune file, and lowered it to 1.110 in the file I just drove yesterday, and got BAD THROTTLE CLOSURE. Admittely - I did add a few percent to VVE in that area (because my logs showed I was just a few percent low), and added a little more to VVT to compensate for the VVE, and then added similarly to DD, and all that resulted in the THROTTLE closing to, like, 60%... Wasted runs because of that. It snapped back open after, like 6100, and boost shot up, along with everything else, but I can't tune reasonably off that. I wonder if I got too far outside of the acceptable range of reported TQ and the E92 closed the THROTTLE... So - wasted runs. I didn't know about the ~1.150 PE until you said it, and went back to the tune before, and made some adjustments off of that, but it seems like I might need to go back to 1.150 and start pulling from the E92 MAF, if necessary...

COULD YOU CLARLIFY THAT WHEN YOU SAY REPORTED TQ, THAT IS ENGINE TQ, IN THE CHANNELS? AND - if possible: could you confirm that increasing VVT would correct lowering MAF signal and lowering the PE below around 1.150? I think I've also seen people use the ENGINE TQ COEFFICIENT EQ RATIO table to help offset this, too, right?

I have not seen anything about the INJECTOR TIP temps... That is BRAND NEW, and I will be looking at this now. I don't make hits until ENGINE OIL temps are at 200*, anyways, but this is something that I'll be looking at now. I feel like my fueling is what I'm commanding, but I can scrutinize better, now.

WOW!!! THANK YOU!!! I appreciate your generosity and time to leave these comments

[toohighpsi]

Originally Posted by radz28

AH!!! Keeping IPW about 5.0-5.2ms was what I've been able to do

AND - I didn't know about the PE table. What's interesting, because you said it, is I think I might have just experienced that. I, actually, had my PE lowered to 1.150 until my last tune file, and lowered it to 1.110 in the file I just drove yesterday, and got BAD THROTTLE CLOSURE.

For the DI PW 5.0 to 5.2 is a good target on an otherwise stock LT4, much higher than that and you'll lost HP fuel pressure with the stock cam fuel lobe.
With an LT1 you can run more in the 5.5-5.8 range due to the small injectors.

As for the PE on both gas and E I run it down at 1.05. The torque based off PE can be found in the EQ ratio torque table. If your throttle is good at 1.15 PE then just copy those values in the table from 1.15 down into the 1.10 column (or 1.05 in my case) and you'll be able to remove 5 or 10% fuel from the E92 with no change in reported torque.

The reflex compensates for alcohol content (if you have a sensor connected to the E92) under all conditions and air density as it is directly calculating fuel flow based off airmass. Of course if you're using the lambda feedback any small tuning discrepancies will be resolved real time.

Radz, I did see you noted a tip in lean condition, what rpm is this at? I will say the that Magnuson cal normally has dynamic airflow disabled, my car will always have a lean tip in at low RPM (<2000 RPM) with this off. I'd recommend enabling the dynamic airflow in this area if you're noticing an issue. My low rpm throttle needs this for good drivability - I set it to disable at 2200 RPM and enable at 2000 RPM which seems pretty good.

Hope this helps!

[Megahurtz]

Originally Posted by radz28

COULD YOU CLARLIFY THAT WHEN YOU SAY REPORTED TQ, THAT IS ENGINE TQ, IN THE CHANNELS? AND - if possible: could you confirm that increasing VVT would correct lowering MAF signal and lowering the PE below around 1.150? I think I've also seen people use the ENGINE TQ COEFFICIENT EQ RATIO table to help offset this, too, right?

The value is reported Engine Torque to the TCM. There is a PID to monitor this with for the TCM. You can use VT or the TQ Coefficients to increase this. It just depends on the situation. Sometimes I change both, or just one or the other. An example would be if the car drives perfectly at part throttle, but needs more torque at WOT, then I'll adjust the coefficients instead of the VT. But again it all depends on the setup.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by toohighpsi

For the DI PW 5.0 to 5.2 is a good target on an otherwise stock LT4, much higher than that and you'll lost HP fuel pressure with the stock cam fuel lobe.
With an LT1 you can run more in the 5.5-5.8 range due to the small injectors.

As for the PE on both gas and E I run it down at 1.05. The torque based off PE can be found in the EQ ratio torque table. If your throttle is good at 1.15 PE then just copy those values in the table from 1.15 down into the 1.10 column (or 1.05 in my case) and you'll be able to remove 5 or 10% fuel from the E92 with no change in reported torque.

The reflex compensates for alcohol content (if you have a sensor connected to the E92) under all conditions and air density as it is directly calculating fuel flow based off airmass. Of course if you're using the lambda feedback any small tuning discrepancies will be resolved real time.

Radz, I did see you noted a tip in lean condition, what rpm is this at? I will say the that Magnuson cal normally has dynamic airflow disabled, my car will always have a lean tip in at low RPM (<2000 RPM) with this off. I'd recommend enabling the dynamic airflow in this area if you're noticing an issue. My low rpm throttle needs this for good drivability - I set it to disable at 2200 RPM and enable at 2000 RPM which seems pretty good.

Hope this helps!

THANKS MIKE!!!

OK on all that stuff. I've seen it before, but it makes more sense as I continue to see things change, as I make changes in the E92.

I'll give it another go at either 1.05 or 1.110 or whatever I had it at. I'm pretty sure I had the THROTTLE close because of messing with the VTT (it went way out to 1200 lb-ft because I jacked it too much) and I think it just shot way past where I increased the DD. BUT - seeing more of these bits changes as I make changes (good and bad), what you've been saying is becoming more understandable to me (because of me, not because of how you guys are saying it). I'm going to finally move the EQ RATIO TQ table I think, and put my VTT back, like Jason is saying below, because I know I'm overshooting. That was mostly an experiment that showed me how far off I really am with that tune.

That lean tip-in, I believe, is because it looks like E92 is starting to go into PE a half-percent before I command. So - I'm commanding 45% PEDAL, but it will go into PE at 44.5%, and the REFLEX won't do half percents, so it comes in a 45%, and there's just a TINY lean spot, everytime, right at that transition. I wasn't sure if that's what JL' was seeing, but I'm probably wrong about that. I have changed a lot from the Magnuson tune because I was trying to compensate for lack of T93 support (until the T87a conversion came out a couple years ago), so my VTT was shifted to help keep the TCM relatively happy. I never changed my VTT back to near stock, and that's partially because my VVE is a little different (due to the 103/RFBG). I think I have me DYNAMIC set from idle to about 2000, just because of the 103, but I'll have to look again. I'll review and try your method out, too.

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

The value is reported Engine Torque to the TCM. There is a PID to monitor this with for the TCM. You can use VT or the TQ Coefficients to increase this. It just depends on the situation. Sometimes I change both, or just one or the other. An example would be if the car drives perfectly at part throttle, but needs more torque at WOT, then I'll adjust the coefficients instead of the VT. But again it all depends on the setup.

Thanks Jason!!! I noticed that the TCM PID seemed to match the ENGINE TQ PID, so I think you just confirmed that. AND - THANK YOU AGAIN for providing more detail. I haven't played with the TQ COEFF' at all, and think I have a better grasp between what you and Mike have shared.

THANK YOU ALL FOR CONTINUING TO TAKE TIME TO COMMENT!!!

[radz28]

10/30/31 - UPDATE:

After finally getting some boost weather (lower 60's and 102kPa baro'), in conjunction with our maximum pump E' content (about 75%), this 85mm upper pulley seems to be requiring too much fuel to stay within the limits of this method. I didn't really think I would, as mild as my combination is, but this would appear to be the case. Perhaps the Magnuson 90mm would barely be okay, but it seems this 85mm, just pushes from around 30% PI to closer to 35%. Admittedly - I didn't finalize the 90mm tune on 75% E' in boost weather, but it was pretty dang close.

This method seems to only tolerate about a 25% compensation. There is a limit HPTuners imposes for the multiplier (2.0), and if it were higher, I could "over report" injector flow rate higher, to flow less fuel from the DI to keep the HIGH SIDE from going crazy, but this is not the case. Because I already played with VTT/DD/etc, not much more compensation for TORQUE settings was necessary, so except for the EQ RATIO changes, I didn't change much. I started/continued pulling my PE down, from about .83-.84, and didn't start getting much positive return in HIGH SIDE FUEL PRESSURE until I got to about .95. REFLEX was still showing I was LEAN, and HIGH SIDE PRESSURE was falling to the floor as soon as I rolled into the hit, and IPW immediately went through the roof. Nothing got under reasonable control until after I pulled about 5% FUEL from the E92 MAF CURVE. Temperatures for those hits were in the upper 60's (baro' was still about 102kPa though), but all it took to upset the HPFP/IPWs was pedal'ing the throttle because my bald@$$ ET Streets weren't getting traction and spinning (not ball'd-up like before, but into the tread indicators) like crazy. I had also tried pulling about 15% FUEL from the INJECTOR OFFSET 3 table, trying to get a little more dribble out of the DI, but that wasn't enough, and HIGH SIDE FUEL PRESSURE (LOW SIDE tanked, too) didn't back up to steam by the end of that hit, at red line (LOW SIDE came back up though). It seemed like when I stayed in the THROTTLE, pressure was completely fine, and held at about 20 mPa for all the hits, though.

So - what I'm exploring now is a blend of the usual method and this one. I don't want to stay on the edge (which I feel pretty confident I am, even this last tune), because I don't want to be running out of fuel when it's in the 50's. Although - I can't think of a scenario where I could/would be going WOT, at all, even on fresh/sticky tires, so I'm trying to fight the OCD in making the tune right for that... Still - I admit that's not a likely scenario.



Is there a good reason why I COULDN'T pull HIGH PRESSURE DESIRED - DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE [17071] down, LOWER than 20mPa?... WOT FUELL PRESSURE, STOCK, is right at 20mPa. What I have done is pulled the most HPTuners will allow me to (in this definition), but I'm only getting about 25% of FLOW RATE reduction (1.4456/2.0000 = 0.72, or about a 28% reduction). If I go lower in pressure, the OEM factor/multiplier for 18mPa would give me about a 32% decrease in FLOW RATE (1.3665/2.0000 = 0.68, or about 32% reduction). SO - is there a reason why I can't/shouldn't command DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE [17071] to like 18mPa, or something like that? Am I missing something? I know this is not the conventional method (or it would seem that way, as I have only seen it in ONE place), and could this be one of the reasons why? There's just such a low limit that it doesn't work, even on simple builds like mine? Is it because no one does this kind of combination without a camshaft, which makes up for a lot of the HIGH SIDE deficiencies that I have, because I'm on a stock cam?

So yeah - I'm a little defeated. I might be fine, if I change back to the 90mm upper, but what fun is that?... I also recognize that I can't hardly hook from a roll now, so it's not like I NEED the more power necessarily. I'm just looking to see if anyone has insight, because I know there's lots I can't fathom at my experience level. I have a couple other feelers out there, and if I get any feedback, I'll report back. I thought I'd just add this here, because I was hoping I wouldn't find a limitation at my level and combination. It seems I have, though.

[Megahurtz]

I answered you in detail over on HPTuners forum.

Is the port system maxing out or something? If not, there is the proper way to tune this and be fine. It will require MAF torque model adjustments, which is the proper way to handle this.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by Megahurtz

I answered you in detail over on HPTuners forum.

Is the port system maxing out or something? If not, there is the proper way to tune this and be fine. It will require MAF torque model adjustments, which is the proper way to handle this.

I just read it, and Thank You Jason. I'll just respond here.

No. Not at all. I have 60lb injectors, and don't plan for any engine mods', and not more power mods' beyond what I have now, so I was told these were plenty big for what I need/needed.

I'm just hung up on how much seems to be connected to the airflow model. I think I'm intimidated (for whatever reason) by realigning the SPARK tables to match the lower reported airmass, too. Then I remember someone posting something about, for example, the e'diff using the torque model for clutch-apply-pressures (maybe that uses the TCM reported torque?) and it just keeps me wondering. I don't do this everyday, like you and Joe, and I am likely making something out of nothing. I felt like I was OH SO CLOSE, but it's looking like I was wrong.

I did reach out to HPTuners to see if they could raise the limit some, but I don't have high hopes on that end. Maybe this is just the end of this experiment.

Thank You, as always, for sharing more, and again. And repeating. I really am watching and reading. I'm just stubborn.

[jlaudio11]

Originally Posted by radz28

10/30/31 - UPDATE:

After finally getting some boost weather (lower 60's and 102kPa baro'), in conjunction with our maximum pump E' content (about 75%), this 85mm upper pulley seems to be requiring too much fuel to stay within the limits of this method. I didn't really think I would, as mild as my combination is, but this would appear to be the case. Perhaps the Magnuson 90mm would barely be okay, but it seems this 85mm, just pushes from around 30% PI to closer to 35%. Admittedly - I didn't finalize the 90mm tune on 75% E' in boost weather, but it was pretty dang close.

This method seems to only tolerate about a 25% compensation. There is a limit HPTuners imposes for the multiplier (2.0), and if it were higher, I could "over report" injector flow rate higher, to flow less fuel from the DI to keep the HIGH SIDE from going crazy, but this is not the case. Because I already played with VTT/DD/etc, not much more compensation for TORQUE settings was necessary, so except for the EQ RATIO changes, I didn't change much. I started/continued pulling my PE down, from about .83-.84, and didn't start getting much positive return in HIGH SIDE FUEL PRESSURE until I got to about .95. REFLEX was still showing I was LEAN, and HIGH SIDE PRESSURE was falling to the floor as soon as I rolled into the hit, and IPW immediately went through the roof. Nothing got under reasonable control until after I pulled about 5% FUEL from the E92 MAF CURVE. Temperatures for those hits were in the upper 60's (baro' was still about 102kPa though), but all it took to upset the HPFP/IPWs was pedal'ing the throttle because my bald@$$ ET Streets weren't getting traction and spinning (not ball'd-up like before, but into the tread indicators) like crazy. I had also tried pulling about 15% FUEL from the INJECTOR OFFSET 3 table, trying to get a little more dribble out of the DI, but that wasn't enough, and HIGH SIDE FUEL PRESSURE (LOW SIDE tanked, too) didn't back up to steam by the end of that hit, at red line (LOW SIDE came back up though). It seemed like when I stayed in the THROTTLE, pressure was completely fine, and held at about 20 mPa for all the hits, though.

So - what I'm exploring now is a blend of the usual method and this one. I don't want to stay on the edge (which I feel pretty confident I am, even this last tune), because I don't want to be running out of fuel when it's in the 50's. Although - I can't think of a scenario where I could/would be going WOT, at all, even on fresh/sticky tires, so I'm trying to fight the OCD in making the tune right for that... Still - I admit that's not a likely scenario.



Is there a good reason why I COULDN'T pull HIGH PRESSURE DESIRED - DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE [17071] down, LOWER than 20mPa?... WOT FUELL PRESSURE, STOCK, is right at 20mPa. What I have done is pulled the most HPTuners will allow me to (in this definition), but I'm only getting about 25% of FLOW RATE reduction (1.4456/2.0000 = 0.72, or about a 28% reduction). If I go lower in pressure, the OEM factor/multiplier for 18mPa would give me about a 32% decrease in FLOW RATE (1.3665/2.0000 = 0.68, or about 32% reduction). SO - is there a reason why I can't/shouldn't command DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE [17071] to like 18mPa, or something like that? Am I missing something? I know this is not the conventional method (or it would seem that way, as I have only seen it in ONE place), and could this be one of the reasons why? There's just such a low limit that it doesn't work, even on simple builds like mine? Is it because no one does this kind of combination without a camshaft, which makes up for a lot of the HIGH SIDE deficiencies that I have, because I'm on a stock cam?

So yeah - I'm a little defeated. I might be fine, if I change back to the 90mm upper, but what fun is that?... I also recognize that I can't hardly hook from a roll now, so it's not like I NEED the more power necessarily. I'm just looking to see if anyone has insight, because I know there's lots I can't fathom at my experience level. I have a couple other feelers out there, and if I get any feedback, I'll report back. I thought I'd just add this here, because I was hoping I wouldn't find a limitation at my level and combination. It seems I have, though.

Just read your post and Jason's response over on hpt forum. To answer your question here, I would increase fp to get more headroom and keep ipw's lower. From what I've gathered mid to low 20's is reasonable and doable on the lt4 pump. I'm running 20mp on an LT1 pump with +38 fuel lobe.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

Just read your post and Jason's response over on hpt forum. To answer your question here, I would increase fp to get more headroom and keep ipw's lower. From what I've gathered mid to low 20's is reasonable and doable on the lt4 pump. I'm running 20mp on an LT1 pump with +38 fuel lobe.

Have you had much success with his method (i.e. the one in this thread)? I'm close to giving up...

I'm not arguing with your suggestion, and will probably try it anyways, but I'm getting NO feedback, from almost ANYONE, about using this method. I did, also, email Evan's to see if they had any other alternatives, but I was really hoping to be able to relieve the DI, lol. I know there is more headroom than I'm commanding (because I've left the commanded at stock levels), but I was hoping to make it easier on the DI.

I'm on a stock cam and didn't think commanding higher pressure would do much... I'm sure I'm missing something...

[jlaudio11]

Honestly I think you're overthinking this a little bit lol. Commanding a higher pressure, and telling E92 it flows more at those higher pressures means the injectors wont open as much. It gives you more area to play in. It achieves your goal of keeping ipw down at the cost of the hpfp working harder. Everybody does port injection the other way because that's what they've found to work. Doing things differently than everyone else means there aren't as many people to help basically. I've been doing fine but I foresee issues as I increase power just like you are now, basically where to hide it effectively.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by jlaudio11

Honestly I think you're overthinking this a little bit lol. Commanding a higher pressure, and telling E92 it flows more at those higher pressures means the injectors wont open as much. It gives you more area to play in. It achieves your goal of keeping ipw down at the cost of the hpfp working harder. Everybody does port injection the other way because that's what they've found to work. Doing things differently than everyone else means there aren't as many people to help basically. I've been doing fine but I foresee issues as I increase power just like you are now, basically where to hide it effectively.

Hmm... Maybe I'll just give this a shot. Are you saying I just raise fuel pressure in the DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE table around WOT, and see what happens?

[Megahurtz]

If you are already tanking the high side, raising rail pressure will do nothing.

Also, keep in mind that the SOI table is also linked to airmass.

I think you are overthinking it too much. Move your WOT spark rows up to the lower airmass rows. Do the same with your SOI. Lower your MAF. Adjust Torque Coefficients and/or Virtual Torque.

Leave commanded rail pressure and injector settings stock.