[KingLT1]

Nice update! I like your attention for details!!

[radz28]

Originally Posted by KingLT1

Nice update! I like your attention for details!!

[radz28]

Update - 04/10/23:

Just a small update on a couple things.

• TooHighPSI Billet Maggie 2650 Lid
  This lid SCREAMS, lol. I haven't been able to figure out timestamps, and to craft the videos to more efficiently show the differences, but they are what they are for now I guess (I'm no content creator and not trying to be). But - there is a BIG difference in the whine. I don't mind it at all. It's probably darn close to Hellcat levels now, which wasn't my purpose for the lid, but a fun byproduct. It might be on the edge of getting too much undesirable attention for me, but that will be fixed later, when I leave this crap hole. AND - no rubbing, LOL! Thank The Lord. The fit and finish are excellent, and gorgeous little details are icing on the cake. Even though I didn't want to spend the $$$, it was worth every penny, and more.
  
  It SCREAMS
  
  
  
  
  
• Definition [33355] - Supplemental Fueling Compensation Alternative
  Because of my level of understanding on tuning, the fuel system specifically, I could be chasing my tail a little.
  
  I think what I'm seeing is that for WOT, max'ing out the 20/24 table pressure is just fine, and seems to be predictable, and the REFLEX can blend in with the E92 just fine in this regime. What the training, for this method, stated was to approximate what fuel percentage the supplemental system would provide (about 30% in my case), and multiply this entire table by this number. This, effectively, would report to the E92 that the injectors flow that percentage higher (than the OEM setting), and the resulting fuel mass would be about that percentage less from the DI injectors. If left to OEM values, that would leave pressure in the 16/18MPa cells 30% less, too, which seems to make sense. I was getting some lean spots when I was getting into this area, and didn't know for certain what that could be from. Because of trying to get the LOW SIDE fuel pressure where it was stable, and high enough (as far as I understood it to need to be), I think that was throwing me off a bit, and it finally occurred to me that I could probably add fuel to the E92 MAF in that area. This area was around a couple hundred HZ below where I was trying to get the REFLEX to add the PI (around 6000hz, thinking that maybe below this, there wasn't enough airflow to move the fuel through the intake ports and, efficiently, into the combustion chambers, being this is a DI-based architecture), and so I'd been adding a little fuel from it to cover this lean area, but I can't see why I couldn't just add a little more fuel to the E92 MAF. So that's what I'm trying for this now. Otherwise - as I already said - the WOT part is adjusting/blending as predictable.
  
  I think I have noticed a trend, too, though, as [33355] can go a little bonkers. The last runs I made, without taking the PI-percentage out of that whole table, may have created a situation where it forced the E92 to go very RICH and push fuel pressure reference into the PROFILE 2 table. I noticed that IPW went crazy high (when I returned 16/18MPa pressures back to stock), and then it seemed like because the HPFP RAIL PRESSURE began to drop (even though WB EQ went well into the .60-range), and the E92 started using the PROFILE 2 table, which references something like 12-15MPa (or pressures a little lower - I don't remember), and the E92 continued to reference these values, and force the IPW even HIGHER, pumping MORE fuel out of the HPFP RAILs, making pressure drop even more...
  
  So - I am reverting my LOW PRESSURE FUEL CONTROL back to a file where it was acting fine, and producing pressures in the lower-to-mid-70-psi range. Then - I think I can scrutinize the [33355] better. WOT was fine, but I'm trying to refine the transitions where the PI comes in, and those lower E92 MAF frequency ranges where I was a little lean. I've added more E92 and REFLEX fueling in this range to see if I can get it to move closer to what I want.

So - more farting around. I haven't played with fueling like this before, so I'm reaching in the dark some. I think the LOW SIDE tuning is complicating it further for me because of my lack of knowledge, and this is probably easier than what I'm making of it. But - hopefully I can get closer with some more fine-tuning. This is a great excuse to drive the car though

[cjperformance]

@radz28 Have you thought about using the method I used just to compare?

I was able to get things fairly close pretty much in the first tune. Bad wiring aside lol

Maybe it would make a fun comparison for you to do?

[radz28]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

@radz28 Have you thought about using the method I used just to compare?

I was able to get things fairly close pretty much in the first tune. Bad wiring aside lol

Maybe it would make a fun comparison for you to do?

I, absolutely, have I know it works, and it's been done this way for years, so I'm using that to fall back on. My logic (if one could call it that) was I didn't want to disturb the airflow model and didn't want to compensate with fueling this way, even though the method I'm trying, effectively, is probably not much different anyways.

I have only little more motivation for my little project. I just thought I'd give it a shot. I know of at least one more person that was interested in seeking an alternate method, along these lines, so I thought I'd give it a go.

I'm impressed with what you're experiencing though. I'll be jumping into that CLOSED LOOP pool soon

[cjperformance]

I looked at the data last night from HPT from my earlier run. The lower "perceived" cyl airmass messes things up a little for spark and maybe some other things, but in a practical sense... everything is working well. Moving 10% out of PE, adding that into the MAF using the spreadsheet method Mike described, and bumping the torque in the EQ Torque table seems to have made most stuff just "work"...

Now cyl airmass and maf lbs/min/etc are all skewed low by about 20% in the HPT log from ECU... but if I take logged readings for say... cyl airmass... and multiply by 1.2... then I get the (calculated) values I would expect to have seen there from before.... hopefully that all made sense. Never having been on a dyno... my main way of seeing if changes were working was cyl airmass and maf readings. So validating that reflex + e92 still add up in the log was very satisfying.

I know it'll get messier once I pulley down... I'm just 1-for-1 right now... taking the existing curve and splitting it 60/30 essentially... but the pulley change will shake it up a little.

Overall... the "torque model" seems okay. It's manipulated... but it seems to have just worked out. Which I'm sure is why Mike recommended it

[radz28]

This is a placeholder for leaving notes, while I consternate, and before I forget what I've been thinking about, lol... I'm going to polish this as I have time to really let this stuff sink in. I'm not a tuner, so I don't do this every day, so it's not easy to keep track of where I was, where I am, and where I want to go with a lot of these settings. Having consistency on the street is also very difficult, and traction can be an issue, not to mention trying to be "safe" is just an illusion. Bottom line: I'll stay with this method until I stop getting progress, or it just isn't working, as I can understand it. Having little formal training, and learning from people here that share, and reading and reading and reading any relevant posts has been my education. I've paid for a few specific topics here and there, but no whole courses.

To start: This method is, almost, portrayed in training as simple, IMO. Perhaps it is for a person more knowledgeable than I (and I don't have a lot, lol), and someone who does this kind of thing more consistently, but that isn't the case for me. This is my first foray into fuel system tuning, and that tripped me up on this side of the injector tuning, as I see it. What this method, seems to me, is a recharacterization of the DI INJECTORS. Essentially - you consider about where you expect/want the PI to come in, and try to report they flow a higher volume of fuel than they do around those conditions. So - you increase the PROFILE 3 MULTIPLIER [33355] enough such that you retard fuel volume from the DI by about the same percentage you're trying to bring in from the PI. That makes sense. BUT - if you're in a state of understanding like me, understanding what is commanding from what is reacting, can be difficult to decipher. But - it seems like I'm seeing some consistency in how many of these changes influence how the E92 responds. It's a delicate balance.

• [33355] doesn't seem to be any easier than what it seems like the airflow method. I haven't used that method, but from reading many posts about it, that seems like it might be easier.
  + I know my SECONDARY FUEL SYSTEM added some complexity I haven't had to deal with before. I'm still messing with it now, but seem to be moving in the right direction. One of the things that trip me up is seeing the fueling move leaner when I see a drop in fuel pressure. I suspect a fuel injector will flow a given amount at a certain pressure, and that flow will change if pressure changes. So - when I see fuel pressure drop, and see AFR go lean, I ASSUME (maybe wrongly) that there is a problem in the pressure I need to correct - especially when it's not consistent. Having several runs on the same drive all act almost the same, and having one of those runs go lean, from out of nowhere, seems like a fuel system problem to me. Even with pressure on the LOW SIDE exceeding 60-psi (and DI is staying at a COMMANDED ~5.0ms), it's complicated for me to know if that's because LOW SIDE pressure is falling, and if I should add fuel, or if I need to boost the LPFP settings. Trying to get consistency has been difficult. I'll probably just add fuel, up top, where it seems pressure starts to drop, and see if fueling stays closer to where I'm commanding. At least I'm still about .85 (commanding around .82), so not that bad.
  
  + So - as best as I can understand this method, you want to focus on FUEL RAIL PRESSURES when you will be under BOOST and where the PI needs to come in. On ZL1s, pretty much as soon as you get into the THROTTLE, FUEL PRESSURE jumps to 18-22MPa at the RAIL. [33355] is where you want to focus the corrections, as the stock settings for THIS table to influence fueling, is 16MPa (I believe). There are 3-of these PROFILE MULTIPLIER tables, and all of them look the same. But - you can see what table, and what pressures within each table, are referenced under INJECTOR PROFILES, just below the MULTIPLIER tables. What you'll want to do, is start, essentially, pulling DI fuel under boost, when the PI comes in. Because the PROFILE 3 THRESHOLD is where you'll be in BOOST/WOT, you want to work in [33355], and under the PRESSURE columns you'll be operating under. And - because the FPCM is going to command high fuel pressure immediately, you'll be running in 20-22MPa (this will likely be different with different fuel injectors, HPFP, different HPFP settings, but for the sake of this thread, I'm pretty much operating under OEM fueling settings, for the most part). The take away is you'll have to monitor where you are operating, so you can figure out what PROFILE to adjust, so you can recharacterize the DI INJECTORS at those relevant points. For me - I would, mostly, be operating around 20MPa, and because I knew I'd probably be adding about 30% fuel from the PI, I MULTIPLIED the table by about 30%. I actually max'd out the table from 20MPa and up (2.000). What that enabled was the PI to come in, when [17071] I was in 20MPa cells, the injectors flowed 30% less. That was the easy part. It was difficult for me to figure out the correlations with everything else changing that affected. I had to try to find a consistent E92 MAF FREQUENCY where the PI could come in, so I could bring the fuel in. I could have been hung up (on Mike's tutorial) on trying to keep fueling from coming in until about 6000hz, as Mike suggests, but this method seems to have driven my REFLEX start point lower (at least as far as I can estimate). It could be because I set to enter PE pretty early, so that could be a contributing factor (among many others I haven't considered, either). There's probably nothing wrong with that, but I struggled with forcing that 6000hz target for a while, and probably unnecessarily.
  
  There's probably a better way to start blending the REFLEX in, but I haven't discovered it yet. I am not suggesting this has anything to do with the capability of the REFLEX, as it responds to my commands. I'm only commenting on my trials leading up to where I am now, and how I got here. Thinking more about it - it's probably my POWER ENRICHMENT settings (coming in a lot sooner than OEM) that's really influencing the delta in behavior.
  
• Trying to balance/correlate HPFP FUEL RAIL PRESSURE to E92 MAF signal triggers, consistently, is a little difficult.
  + In trying to understand my SCANNER logs, it took a while to see any, consistent, relationship between those 2. I think there is a natural spectrum where they intermingle, but this took some time because I was hung-up on the 6000hz number. It wasn't until I let that go that I was able to start blending the E92 and REFLEX MAFs together. Again - maybe partially due to PE coming in so soon in my case.
  
• Draining the HIGH PRESSURE FUEL RAIL is easy, and will throw IPW completely off, really fast. From the WB - it just shows really RICH (well into 0.6X-range, causing misfires), but fuel pressure drops through the floor.
  + It took me a long time to figure out how I made HPFP fuel pressure crash one time. My fueling wasn't too far off in the affected areas, but I couldn't understand why IPW just started sky rocketing, and RAIL PRESSURE just started to dry up. Then - it occurred to me that it could be because I was at +70% E', and fuel demand was high enough that it started draining the rails, then the pressure fell, and that led to the E92 moving into lower FUEL PRESSURE MULTIPLIER tables, which drove IPW up FURTHER, and drained the rails even more. Another learning experience.
  
• I'll probably move toward getting the CLOSED LOOP feature active in the REFLEX.
  + I think doing that will compensate the WOT areas where I THINK fueling starts going lean because of fuel pressure falling off (even though it might not be related, or even be a high enough magnitude that it effects AFR). It seems like it works great, as cj's thread is proving. I'll just start using it.

SUMMARY:
Obviously - if you were to try this, that is your choice, and I'm not responsible for what happens. I'm not sure I'll include tune & scan files here, because I'm not trying to make a tutorial. When I'm more confident in everything, I'd be happy to PM those to anyone interested for comparison, but I'll show screenshots soon. I'm probably about 95% (04/13/23) of as far as I have the ability/knowledge to take it, and that will finalize after some driving in CLOSED LOOP with the REFLEX. I think this method IS a good alternative for adding PI, and if I had experience with the fuel system prior to this endeavor, this wouldn't have taken as long. The bad weather until recently didn't help either. I tripped up a few times, and think I learned, and have made progress. I haven't had to alter my E92 airflow model for the added fuel, which was my goal, so my TORQUE should be okay. I do have some polishing to do in my TORQUE MODEL though, because I had to make up the E85 VTT. My tranny is shifting too hard in some instances, so I'll be smoothing those out. I added somewhere close to about 80-TQ over what my gasoline models were, so I might try pulling those down a little until I start seeing TMA kicking in. I might have some TCM adjustments I could make, too, but other than some shifts that are a little too harsh at lower throttle, it seems okay, and I'm not getting any weird slip in the SCANNER CHANNELS.

This has been pretty fun. My wife complains I don't drive the car enough, so this makes a good excuse to. He LOVES the E' though. SHEESH. That's too be expected, and totally fine. I like the cleaning power of the E', too. Good stuff.

[radz28]

04/26/23 - Notes/Update/Remblings:
I've been running at about 75% E' for a while now, and I'm not sure if it's because of the volume needed, AND me continuing to ask too much of the OEM high pressure fuel system, is causing continued fuel pressure woah's... I have a feeling it might be that, and because of the method I'm continuing to try to develop, that I'm trying to get the high pressure side to do more than it can, though, there are conflicting observations I think I'm seeing. I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of the data, but I'm still, seemingly, finding some improvements - that also seem to lead to more struggles elsewhere.

I like ice skating uphill, I suppose...

• Low Side Fueling Seems to be worked out for now
  
  - I've messed around under the FUEL tab and got more work from the LPFP, and it seems like it's staying out of the way of the DSX better now. Increasing [6972], [6970], and [6971], in key areas, seems to be working well. I didn't go crazy, and spent some time in key areas, referring to SCANNER information to add 5-10% here and there, depending on SYSTEM VOLTAGE, RAIL PRESSURE, and FUEL FLOW.
  - Perhaps [6976], [6975], [17022], [17023], and [17071] are all working together, in conjunction to the definitions above, to assist, too. Although - while it's working good (as far as I can tell up top, down low is a different matter.
  
• High Side Fueling seems okay at WOT from mid-to top RPMs
  
  - Everything above seems to be showing good results from mid-RPMs/mid-load to the top of the RPMs/high loads. Fuel pressure's a little higher than I want (80-psi), and comes down to HOT FUEL PRESSURE as normal, but I want to bring the pressure down into the 70s, as long as it holds and doesn't dip. Some good advice I've received is I don't need pressure that high for PI, which I'm not questioning necessarily, but I couldn't tell if changes in EQ were coming from fluctuations in fuel pressure or not, so I've been trying to normalize the pressure and see if I was right or wrong. I want to bring the pressure down, though, a little so I'm not unnecessarily over-working either LPFPs.
  - HPFP seems to be okay, too. I'm only commanding maximum OEM pressure (20MPa - though I understand the limit to be closer to 24-25), though, I'm starting to request that pressure sooner. I've been trying to keep RAIL PRESSURE high enough that it keeps the E92 in PROFILE 3, because that's WOT/slightly below WOT engine loads, and because I have the last of the applicable pressure cells max'd out, I'm retarding the DI from moving fuel volume around in those areas. That helps with the REFLEX keep better control over the PI INJECTORS, too.
  
• High Side Fueling drops/IPW skyrockets at High Load/Lower RPMs
  
  - I'm probably chasing my tail a bit on this, but I've been working on LOW RPM/HIGH THROTTLE areas (e.g. 1500-RPMs/1.3-PR). There's not a good reason to operate the engine in this range (nor, probably, good for it either, I'll admit), but because I figure I can accidently get into this area under certain circumstances - I figure I should check there, too.
  
  This is an area where I can lock into 4th gear, around 1500-RPMs, and whack the THROTTLE into WOT. My high side FUEL PRESSURE drops, nearly immediately, while my IPW goes STUPID high (well into the 10s). AND - my EQ drops into the .60s, and the fart starts missing and is very pissed. BUT - if I do the same, say from 6th gear - the high side FUEL PRESSURE is fine, and EQ is in the range of what I'm commanding. So weird... It SEEMS like I'm high enough in the AIRMASS, in 6th gear (for example), that my DESIRED FUEL PRESSURE ([17071] - that I've changed from OEM to bring in higher pressure earlier) is enough in that gear that, PERHAPS, it's high enough to keep the FUEL PRESSURE UP, and stay in PROFILE 3 control, that the DI IPW doesn't go crazy trying to add fuel because high pressure fuel pressure is dropping. Under very light load, there is no issue, and REFLEX is making good adjustments.
  
  I thought my OEM MAF scaling was sheet, but I don't think it's so far off that it's 20%. I'm certainly not adding that much in the REFLEX, either. In my inexperienced brain, that, perhaps, leaves SOI. So - now I'm trying to add some SOI in these areas, because I can see my SCANNER report EOI is dropping well below 180*, and SOI starts in the upper 280*s and falls. So - while I'm bringing [17071] in a little sooner still, I'm commanding more SOI in these areas to see if that helps with IPW/fuel pressure.
  
  - Also - continuing to consider good advice - if/when this doesn't work, I'll be playing with PI triggering, too. I'm bringing it in early, and maybe that's part of the problem, though, I can't see why that would cause the DI-pressure to drop. The low side FUEL PRESSURE is completely fine during ALL of these events referenced here... I'm wondering if I'm not bringing in ENOUGH REFLEX, and at plus-70% E', I'm asking too much of the OEM DI. I kinda' doubt that, but I think if the SOI/EOI/REQUESTED HIGH SIDE PRESSURE doesn't help, then maybe I need to consider bringing in REFLEX and retarding DI more.
  
  
• REFLEX is polishing fueling under areas of the MAF where I've been able to manipulate the E92 better
  
  - I'm starting to close in on fueling better. While I'm still trying to understand where is a good balance of when to bring POWER ENRICHMENT in, where it IS balanced well (e.g. higher load/RPMs), I'm getting REFLEX corrections closer and closer to +/- 2-5%. Retarding the E92 from fueling in these areas is still complicated in lower load and fuel pressures, though. I think I'm still trying to bring the REFLEX in too soon at too low of THROTTLE inputs, based off advice.

I THINK I'm SO close with this method. If the SOI/DESIRED PRESSURE changes don't influence things how I want, I'll have to think long and hard about the magnitude of these particular issues matter. I'm not going to drive/race starting in 4th gear at 1500-RPMs. As stated already: maybe this is a sign I'm not using the REFLEX enough, and I need to seek adjustments to utilize it to a greater percentage. Knowing this is an issue, as it stands right now, irks me, but I don't know if it's enough to abandon this method yet. I still recognize the prevailing method is completely fine, and can fall back on that any time I want. I can drive the car, as it is right now with this complication, and not worry about anything, so I have that going for me, too. Testing and trying to fix these new complications is, also, a good excuse to drive the car, so there's that, too.

I'm still having fun, and this damned billet lid is SO GREAT!!! The extra blower noise is as perfect as I could imagine I wanted.

[cjperformance]

Good read. Love the detail! I like that you are bringing new info to the forum. This is NOT a criticism, but just a comparison... My own build seems very straightforward in terms of the tuning following Mike's method. For me, getting things dialed in after i pulleyed down is the more complicated part, but so far still just mainly fueling and MAF adjustments in E92 and Reflex, and getting shift points right with the added boost from the pulley. There are some things going on with my low side fuel pressure, but nothing I'm super concerned about. Ill post more on my thread when i get time.

Learning's the fun part.

[radz28]

Originally Posted by cjperformance

Good read. Love the detail! I like that you are bringing new info to the forum. This is NOT a criticism, but just a comparison... My own build seems very straightforward in terms of the tuning following Mike's method. For me, getting things dialed in after i pulleyed down is the more complicated part, but so far still just mainly fueling and MAF adjustments in E92 and Reflex, and getting shift points right with the added boost from the pulley. There are some things going on with my low side fuel pressure, but nothing I'm super concerned about. Ill post more on my thread when i get time.

Learning's the fun part.

I totally understand, and appreciate your comments If I weren't getting improvements, I would have stopped, and just jumped on board what we know works - Mike's method. This seems like the last piece to the puzzle, and I'm not sure it's related to my method, necessarily... If it were a fuel system volume issue, I'd see a problem at WOT/6500 - but I don't see any issues. How can there be more fuel demand at 1600 RPMs, at WOT, than at 6500 RPMs, at WOT?... And - it's only the high side that poops out (these are just rhetorical questions - not directed toward you or pushing back on any of your points - me just typing ). AND...

I'm hoping I found a culprit... In comparing logs, I see that since adding the PI, I've been adding to the E92 MAF, in these areas of the curve, all this time. In fact - I was up to 20% fueling in the E92 than I was before adding the PI. I think I should have been adding to the REFLEX instead, and I'd been adding it to the E92 this entire time (I'm not sure what the rational was...). Maybe it was to keep IPWs in the range I was shooting for? I forget now because it's been so long, but I'm going back to where my E92 MAF started, and am just going to add fuel to the REFLEX instead - which is what I probably should have been doing.

I'm going to find out soon enough, LOL!

[Joshinator99]

FWIW it’s very easy to strip out the rail pressure at mid range, as a matter of fact I’d say it’s easier than high RPM! The cam is spinning less RPM leading to slower stroking of the HPFP coupled with peak torque can be tough to fuel DI only, and if you overspin your blower (not happening in your case Rad) it makes it even worse. It’s common to see rail pressure drop on the hit and then recover as RPMs increase.

[radz28]

Ah! Interesting. Thank you Josh!

[KingLT1]

Torque requires more fuel than horsepower.

[cjperformance]

I know your method is different than mine, but my thought would be to continue to balance the E92/Reflex MAF at the same time to keep the 30%/70% split... and not just add to one or the other.

I would think changing only in E92 will affect torque model more than splitting the difference between the E92 and Reflex... or not at all if you only add to reflex... but then... I feel like it would just make things wonky for tuning if you only add to reflex. Then again... you already started with a valid torque model... and haven't changed that right? The E92 still thinks you are doing the exact same thing as before, it just thinks it needs to run the DI less because it thinks they flow more fuel...

I recombine the E92/Reflex curves to a total value in a spreadsheet... do my fuel adjustments to the combined number and then split back out 30/70 (actually 20/70 because of the 10% PE ->MAF, lol)... confusing to explain.

I haven't gotten to the point yet where I need to go above 30% in the reflex, but I decided that I would probably recombine the curves and do a 35/65 split or whatever I need instead of just increasing the Reflex. Although effectively that's what would happen right

I guess my point is that in my completely uneducated opinion... I'd keep splitting the same % across the entire range and not unbalance by adding more to one or the other unequally.

Good times indeed. I have no basis for my opinion, lol. Other than it makes me feel better. Jump then look right