Installed 60# mototrons, Fuel Trims are way off
02-10-2006, 07:30 PM
#22
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canton GA
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedHardSupra - will 1.0 be enough for a 60# ? I mean I was thinking of half the whole table, but dont know if Im going to be hurting something.
SmokingWS6 - I will try dropping the short pulse adder by say 20%, but I think the key is dropping the minimum pulse width and default down to at least 1.0 or even below that.
Am I wrong in my math to assume on the decel (going from stock z06 injectors to 60#) that I should be close to almost 0.8 msec? If Im right then Id have to definetely half the min pulse width table and default cause the short pulse adder will bring it close to 0.8 msec when its done.
Dixit
SmokingWS6 - I will try dropping the short pulse adder by say 20%, but I think the key is dropping the minimum pulse width and default down to at least 1.0 or even below that.
Am I wrong in my math to assume on the decel (going from stock z06 injectors to 60#) that I should be close to almost 0.8 msec? If Im right then Id have to definetely half the min pulse width table and default cause the short pulse adder will bring it close to 0.8 msec when its done.
Dixit
02-10-2006, 07:40 PM
#23
scientific principles: go in small systematic steps, change one thing a time.
i have practical experience where this approach made 60# injectors made not dip deep into rich territory on decel with 1.0 we haven't tried any lower, but that brought it back to acceptable range. i know SVO's can go down to 0.9ms, i can't find any hard data on mototrons tho.
i have practical experience where this approach made 60# injectors made not dip deep into rich territory on decel with 1.0 we haven't tried any lower, but that brought it back to acceptable range. i know SVO's can go down to 0.9ms, i can't find any hard data on mototrons tho.
02-10-2006, 07:46 PM
#24
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canton GA
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedHardSupra - I agree with you on changing it little till I get it right. So when you worked on them did you just change the Minimum to 1.0 and it solved it? Did you have to drop the default as well? Seems like you would. Any other changes you made, or just the min. pulse width? Thanks for you help.
Dixit
Dixit
02-11-2006, 02:09 AM
#26
I had to lower the Default on this particular fbody ls1. I would predict the c5 would respond in the same manor. I set the min to 1.05 if I remember right.
I strongly agree with one step at a time. If you dont know what each change effects you can quicly become burried in problems.
I strongly agree with one step at a time. If you dont know what each change effects you can quicly become burried in problems.
02-11-2006, 01:20 PM
#27
Originally Posted by Dixit
Yeap that is the only thing I changed. I remember seeing a post of "gameover" who said that he went from stock injectors to 60#s and his fuel trim didnt change.
Im not sure now if I should use the first set of values and basically have to redo my entire VE and MAF table or should I just scale the Injector table till the trims get back inline. Before I did the swap the Ltrims were between 0 and -4, idle was normally around -2, after the injector swap it was sitting around +18. These are rated at 43.5psi.
Dixit
Im not sure now if I should use the first set of values and basically have to redo my entire VE and MAF table or should I just scale the Injector table till the trims get back inline. Before I did the swap the Ltrims were between 0 and -4, idle was normally around -2, after the injector swap it was sitting around +18. These are rated at 43.5psi.
Dixit
Good luck, Ed
02-11-2006, 01:55 PM
#29
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canton GA
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed, I agree with you on not needed to change the MAF or VE table at all. However, I have no clue what to set the injector offset to, ive searched and read some of Jimmyblue's posts, but his posts are so indepth that I think I come out more confused than before 
hahah, he writes alot of detail. I need a dummies version of his posts.
Dixit
hahah, he writes alot of detail. I need a dummies version of his posts.Dixit
02-11-2006, 03:47 PM
#30
Originally Posted by hc_performance
I'm familiar with the injector offset tables but I'm not sure which tables involve the injector slope???? Can anyone elaborate on this???Ed
02-11-2006, 03:51 PM
#31
Originally Posted by Dixit
Ed, I agree with you on not needed to change the MAF or VE table at all. However, I have no clue what to set the injector offset to, ive searched and read some of Jimmyblue's posts, but his posts are so indepth that I think I come out more confused than before hahah, he writes alot of detail. I need a dummies version of his posts.
Dixit
hahah, he writes alot of detail. I need a dummies version of his posts.Dixit
Good luck, Ed
02-11-2006, 10:10 PM
#32
Originally Posted by Ed Wright
Scale the table by percent. System voltage vs MAP. Large injectors are typically lazy, needing more offset.
Good luck, Ed
Good luck, Ed
Regardless, Let us know how it turns out for you and your method
. 