IFR table for 28# injectors
06-12-2005, 04:15 PM
#1
IFR table for 28# injectors Who has stock IFR table values for either 98 or 01-02 cars that came with 28.8# injectors? I searched and found one person that listed theirs for an 01 but they were a lot smaller than my table values for 26.6# injectors (I'd expect them to be larger not smaller). I'm scaling my table for changing to the 28's, so I want to see how the scaled values compare to tables where the 28's came stock.
06-12-2005, 04:31 PM
#2
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the #s will come out nearly exact with a couple hundreths being off. There are variance patterns b/w the 99-00 and 01-02 IFR tables for each respective cell, but in the grand scope of things it won't make a lick of difference... If you want a techinical breakdown of it all then PM me
06-12-2005, 05:38 PM
#3
OK well still would like to see the IFR numbers from a 98. From an older post I found one number: 28.89 @ 50 MAP (unfortunately they didn't post the whole table) - this is lower than my scaled value, which is (28.8/26.6)*28.024 = 30.342. So, at 50 MAP my IFR table will show higher fuel rate than a 98 IFR table, for the same injector, so mine will run leaner right? This doesn't seem right, I think they should be the same value.
06-12-2005, 06:46 PM
#4
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by patSS/00
OK well still would like to see the IFR numbers from a 98. From an older post I found one number: 28.89 @ 50 MAP (unfortunately they didn't post the whole table) - this is lower than my scaled value, which is (28.8/26.6)*28.024 = 30.342. So, at 50 MAP my IFR table will show higher fuel rate than a 98 IFR table, for the same injector, so mine will run leaner right? This doesn't seem right, I think they should be the same value.
If you want to get real technical, the #s you should be using from stock IFRs to derive your scalar are:
28.71/26.41 = 1.08708
If you have a stock 99-00 IFR table then just apply that through and you'll be setup for the 28#ers
06-12-2005, 08:11 PM
#5
I'm not talking about a few hundredth's, like I said the difference is more like 1.5 (for that one entry, 98 vs. 00 table). That's a big difference.
I can't look at stock tune files from hptuners/ls1edit since I use tunercat. I have scaled my table using that ratio (approx). But still want to know why a 98 table would have lower numbers. The table for 98 has lower numbers than any later years (99-00 scaled, 01-02 not scaled), for the same injectors? Did they use lower fuel pressure in 98? Anyone have these actual table values?
I can't look at stock tune files from hptuners/ls1edit since I use tunercat. I have scaled my table using that ratio (approx). But still want to know why a 98 table would have lower numbers. The table for 98 has lower numbers than any later years (99-00 scaled, 01-02 not scaled), for the same injectors? Did they use lower fuel pressure in 98? Anyone have these actual table values?
Last edited by patSS/00; 06-12-2005 at 08:24 PM.
06-12-2005, 08:26 PM
#6
12 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S.FL
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
98 table 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.69 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.77 3.80 3.81 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.90 3.92 3.95 3.96
00 table 3.33 3.35 3.38 3.39 3.41 3.44 3.45 3.48 3.49 3.52 3.53 3.55 3.57 3.59 3.61 3.63 3.65
02 table 3.13 3.15 3.17 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.26 3.29 3.30 3.33 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.42 3.43
00 table 3.33 3.35 3.38 3.39 3.41 3.44 3.45 3.48 3.49 3.52 3.53 3.55 3.57 3.59 3.61 3.63 3.65
02 table 3.13 3.15 3.17 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.26 3.29 3.30 3.33 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.42 3.43
06-12-2005, 08:32 PM
#7
Originally Posted by AnthonyR
98 table 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.69 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.77 3.80 3.81 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.90 3.92 3.95 3.96
00 table 3.33 3.35 3.38 3.39 3.41 3.44 3.45 3.48 3.49 3.52 3.53 3.55 3.57 3.59 3.61 3.63 3.65
02 table 3.13 3.15 3.17 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.26 3.29 3.30 3.33 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.42 3.43
00 table 3.33 3.35 3.38 3.39 3.41 3.44 3.45 3.48 3.49 3.52 3.53 3.55 3.57 3.59 3.61 3.63 3.65
02 table 3.13 3.15 3.17 3.20 3.22 3.24 3.24 3.26 3.29 3.30 3.33 3.34 3.36 3.38 3.39 3.42 3.43
Trending Topics
06-12-2005, 10:19 PM
#8
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by patSS/00
I'm not talking about a few hundredth's, like I said the difference is more like 1.5 (for that one entry, 98 vs. 00 table). That's a big difference.
I can't look at stock tune files from hptuners/ls1edit since I use tunercat. I have scaled my table using that ratio (approx). But still want to know why a 98 table would have lower numbers. The table for 98 has lower numbers than any later years (99-00 scaled, 01-02 not scaled), for the same injectors? Did they use lower fuel pressure in 98? Anyone have these actual table values?
I can't look at stock tune files from hptuners/ls1edit since I use tunercat. I have scaled my table using that ratio (approx). But still want to know why a 98 table would have lower numbers. The table for 98 has lower numbers than any later years (99-00 scaled, 01-02 not scaled), for the same injectors? Did they use lower fuel pressure in 98? Anyone have these actual table values?
In HP Tiners the 98s and 01-02 have the exact same IFRs. So perhaps one of the tables you are using have been previously modified. It looks like the 02 IFRs you got here were set for 24.8#ers which doesnt look/sound right at all
06-12-2005, 11:09 PM
#9
12 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: S.FL
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just double checked and I posted the wrong table for 01-02 
The correct table is...
01-02 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.69 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.77 3.80 3.81 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.90 3.92 3.95 3.96
The correct table is...
01-02 3.62 3.64 3.66 3.69 3.71 3.73 3.75 3.77 3.80 3.81 3.84 3.86 3.88 3.90 3.92 3.95 3.96
06-13-2005, 01:23 AM
#11
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by patSS/00
OK thanks, now it all makes sense and txhorns is right the 98, 01, 02 are all the same, and my scaled values are pretty close to those. Those numbers I found from doing a search were just bogus.
You got a PM!