[NickeyMatt1LE]

Originally Posted by EDFHOBBIES

Yes I have port and doing a different type tune now. No troubles except the quick responses to throttle on and off or just cruising at 4000 rpm the mashing letting off then mashing it again it will hesitate or bog.

Normal driving normal accel hard accell no problems just occasionally the stumble like the maf or map can't keep up with the throttle responses as fast.

How are the port rails plumbed? We plumb them inline with the hpfp or in the case of a return system they're fed directly from the pumps and setup so fuel is always flowing through even when the port injectors are off. When I blend the maf curves together, I blend the drop off in the factory ecm with the step up in the Reflex controller over 3-4 cells in the curves. Not just one big step at 6000hz.

[Stefano]

Originally Posted by Mikesvt04

Can you add these to basic bolt on zl1 and be able to run full e85? Does it require any pump upgrades to accomplish full e85?

If that's discussed somewhere can you post a link. I really want to run e85 without mixing and not spending 5k+ on a fuel system.

We have run the TooHighPSI system on the stock cam lobe and with a DSX low side aux pump on full e85 @ 980 rwhp and 860tq with more room to go.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by NickeyMatt1LE

How are the port rails plumbed? We plumb them inline with the hpfp or in the case of a return system they're fed directly from the pumps and setup so fuel is always flowing through even when the port injectors are off. When I blend the maf curves together, I blend the drop off in the factory ecm with the step up in the Reflex controller over 3-4 cells in the curves. Not just one big step at 6000hz.

Would you mind commenting on part of one of your PI-videos of these cars?
You said: I'm pulling fuel from both PE and the maf curve in the stock ecu. Pulling just pe down to 1.01 is not enough and pulsewidth from the di injectors at this power level on e85 is too wide. Obviously pulling from the maf does lower the airmass and calculated torque. I rescale the timing table axis and modify the vtt and PE eq ratio multiplier to compensate.

Can you describe what timing table axis you are talking about? Do you mean the Main Spark Table, or are you talking about the Virtual Torque Table axis' for Spark?

As far as the PE EQ Ratio Multiplier: Are you just increasing it for 1.0 EQ and above? Like - do you just make everything above 1.0 EQ, and Airmass above, like 1.0, 1.0 EQ?

I'm only planning on adding port to my A10 2650 ZL1, that's basically a couple bolt-ons (i.e. 103 and Big Gulp), and am trying to get a sense of a good, safe set-up in the E92. I'm worried about reported Torque not being high enough, and want to make sure I cover all the bases to push the Torque where it needs to be so the tranny is happy. I've already altered my VTT, DD, MAF, VVE (slightly different than OEM) higher than stock anyways, so maybe I'm just over-thinking all of this.

Any additional comments you could add would be appreciated. I feel like I know the answer, but I'm just confirming my confirming information, lol...

[EDFHOBBIES]

Originally Posted by Stefano

We have run the TooHighPSI system on the stock cam lobe and with a DSX low side aux pump on full e85 @ 980 rwhp and 860tq with more room to go.

Dsx wasn't strong enough for me on full E

[NickeyMatt1LE]

Originally Posted by radz28

Would you mind commenting on part of one of your PI-videos of these cars?
You said: I'm pulling fuel from both PE and the maf curve in the stock ecu. Pulling just pe down to 1.01 is not enough and pulsewidth from the di injectors at this power level on e85 is too wide. Obviously pulling from the maf does lower the airmass and calculated torque. I rescale the timing table axis and modify the vtt and PE eq ratio multiplier to compensate.

Can you describe what timing table axis you are talking about? Do you mean the Main Spark Table, or are you talking about the Virtual Torque Table axis' for Spark?

As far as the PE EQ Ratio Multiplier: Are you just increasing it for 1.0 EQ and above? Like - do you just make everything above 1.0 EQ, and Airmass above, like 1.0, 1.0 EQ?

I'm only planning on adding port to my A10 2650 ZL1, that's basically a couple bolt-ons (i.e. 103 and Big Gulp), and am trying to get a sense of a good, safe set-up in the E92. I'm worried about reported Torque not being high enough, and want to make sure I cover all the bases to push the Torque where it needs to be so the tranny is happy. I've already altered my VTT, DD, MAF, VVE (slightly different than OEM) higher than stock anyways, so maybe I'm just over-thinking all of this.

Any additional comments you could add would be appreciated. I feel like I know the answer, but I'm just confirming my confirming information, lol...

When you pull the maf curve down it reduces the calculated airmass. I rescale the y axis of the timing tables to reflect that. No need for the airmass axis to go to 2.00 when your peak airmass is 1.40. Gives you more resolution.

The EQ torque multiplier is 1.02ish at EQ ratio of 1.2. I'll make the 1.0 column 1.02 above 2800 rpm and 1.05-1.25 columns 1.02 at all rpm.

You'll still need to add torque to the vtt at the lower airmass. Again when you pull the maf down it reduces airmass. Less calculated airmass equals less calculated torque. I typically see a .5 reduction in airmass with 40% of the wot fuel coming from the port. That's with the pe at 1.01 and the rest pulled from the maf curve. If you leave the pe and pull all from the maf curve, the airmass will read even lower.

[EDFHOBBIES]

Originally Posted by NickeyMatt1LE

How are the port rails plumbed? We plumb them inline with the hpfp or in the case of a return system they're fed directly from the pumps and setup so fuel is always flowing through even when the port injectors are off. When I blend the maf curves together, I blend the drop off in the factory ecm with the step up in the Reflex controller over 3-4 cells in the curves. Not just one big step at 6000hz.

The port rails are separated from the DI and the port is ran off a return style setup. I was the second guy running the crawford setup and when this problem 1st arose I showed Sorian Crawford's diagram on how to plumb the setup thinking this was my problem. However i just got the car back last weekend and it is now problem free. Originally to save on the build we used a lesser harness and was tuned off of ipw based of tps. Now its setup using 90% of the Haltech functions including a new map sensor.

[EDFHOBBIES]

NickeyMatt1LE, great second video... gives me a lot of insight on the kong edelbrock system vs the maggi. Same mods except 1 7/8 vs 2 inch headers. Power level right there on the 2 units. Wondering why with same pulley combos I'm about 2 lbs more? I can on figure the lpe cam 217 / 245 Lift with 1.8 rocker .635 .661 LSA 121 maybe helps build boost or something.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by NickeyMatt1LE

When you pull the maf curve down it reduces the calculated airmass. I rescale the y axis of the timing tables to reflect that. No need for the airmass axis to go to 2.00 when your peak airmass is 1.40. Gives you more resolution.

The EQ torque multiplier is 1.02ish at EQ ratio of 1.2. I'll make the 1.0 column 1.02 above 2800 rpm and 1.05-1.25 columns 1.02 at all rpm.

You'll still need to add torque to the vtt at the lower airmass. Again when you pull the maf down it reduces airmass. Less calculated airmass equals less calculated torque. I typically see a .5 reduction in airmass with 40% of the wot fuel coming from the port. That's with the pe at 1.01 and the rest pulled from the maf curve. If you leave the pe and pull all from the maf curve, the airmass will read even lower.

Thanks for taking your time to comment, Matt. Your videos are awesome, too.

I think I got most of that. Much of it, certainly, didn't even occur to me, so Thank You.

This is a dumb question, but all the VTT increases in TQ will be on the E85 tables only, or do I need to add to the standard AIRMASS groups, too?

Thanks, again, for your time.

Chuck

[laynlo15]

The THPSI is not a return system as the Crawford is. I'm not that familiar with the Crawford system so I really can't comment on it. I know it's been around for a while and a proven system with lots of people using it. There is room for both systems and both will have their benefits depending on the build.

[Joshinator99]

Originally Posted by laynlo15

The THPSI is not a return system as the Crawford is. I'm not that familiar with the Crawford system so I really can't comment on it. I know it's been around for a while and a proven system with lots of people using it. There is room for both systems and both will have their benefits depending on the build.

The THPSI system will be fine with either the OEM returnless system or a return style system like Fore uses. The Reflex controller will be able to see the low side pressure through canbus and be able to calculate injector open time.

[laynlo15]

Originally Posted by Joshinator99

The THPSI system will be fine with either the OEM returnless system or a return style system like Fore uses. The Reflex controller will be able to see the low side pressure through canbus and be able to calculate injector open time.

[Stefano]

We have installed three of the TooHighPSI kits on ZL1s. The mechanicals of the engine builds are very similar. Two of the cars use the FORE triple intank pumps and one uses stock low side with DSX aux pumps. No drivability, fueling or tuning issues up to this point, 965-980hp 16 lbs of boost peaking at 17lbs at max rpm.

[NicKey]

So for those following The Magnuson 2650R & Too High PSI port injection builds we decided to add some boost via pulley changes. We went from 16lbs avg with a peak of 16.5 to 18lbs avg peaking at 18.5.

https://youtu.be/s03XwumWtSk

[1sickzl1]

Originally Posted by NicKey

So for those following The Magnuson 2650R & Too High PSI port injection builds we decided to add some boost via pulley changes. We went from 16lbs avg with a peak of 16.5 to 18lbs avg peaking at 18.5.

https://youtu.be/s03XwumWtSk

Nice video, I saw the modification list. You're still running the stock low side? I've seen others with PI that still needed some help...