Originally Posted by LS1curious

Very interesting you think I am bitching some one out.I am bitching at no one. I am making a statement about how the OS works and everybody gets alarmist. Maybe folks here are a bit to touchy.

I did catch your posts on the EFI Live forums however. the point of my post is to say that the original IAT ECT calculations stay intact if you don't run SD. Alot of the Calculations you are reffering to are humidity corrections which are rough to say the least. If you want the entire fueling algorythm in its entirety I will see If i can paste the whole thing together for you with the Math. warning even if you have it most likely it'll be fiarly confusing without all of the various adders and scalars.

How are you with C code ?

Originally Posted by RedHardSupra

i define bitching as complaining without providing solutions.

and as for C, i'm getting my masters in computer science this friday. so yes, i'm down with the C-kness

Originally Posted by LS1curious

As for the smart *** on the EFi live forums saying his Ve values were gonna be over 100%. Your gonna find out that the VE values aren't in percentages. They are Scalar Values

Originally Posted by RedHardSupra

well i just spent four months reading through experimental code that doesn't quite do what it was supposed to, so i don't think you're gonna phase me much please send the code to marcinpohl at gmail dot com

Originally Posted by 5.7 ute

In what way was he being a smartass? In efilive you can have the vetable displayed as a % unit. He was not saying that this meant 100% efficiency just that he had to scale his Vetable that high to bring his trims into line, something he has never had to do with the normal way he tunes.
Whether this is because other tables are out of wack or his maf calibration is wrong is something that this discussion could bring a definative answer for.

Originally Posted by RedHardSupra

code yes, but the ideas no. i wanna figure out the modeling for it, and make better tools with better understanding. i think i know how it works, but it'd be nice to have farther verification of the process, and be aware of more minute details.

Originally Posted by RedHardSupra

yup, i can do that. now let's see the code

Originally Posted by LS1curious

rated flow pressure on those is 37.5psi @ 30pph. they are very non linear with pressure rates. Id advise figuring them at almost a 44pph injector @60 psi pressure. I don't have the flow data on those. I will ask around and see if anyone has it.

Originally Posted by SSpdDmon

Any luck on finding that injector data?

BTW, this is where I got my numbers from...

https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=326601

Originally Posted by LS1curious

Well yes and no. the flow data for those injector is only done at 45psi where they are 36pph at 14.0v. with a lag of .002 seconds. they are non linear in their response curve.

I would assume they actually act like 42-44pph injectors at 60psi

Originally Posted by SSpdDmon

So, you're saying they actually operate faster than the stock injectors at 14v, which have an offset of .003 seconds? I thought the SVO's were slower???

Originally Posted by SSpdDmon

Cool...cause I increased my injector offset (Volts vs MAP) 20% across the board thinking that would be safe.

Originally Posted by LS1curious

Well that could cuase the richness you said you couldn't understand when you were experimenting with OP MAF tunning. 20% is going to make the injector act 20% larger. I would think a small 2-3% increase in that table would be more then fine.


this should be the rough math

Original value x .70 + orignial value equals new value. a 30% increase was alot more then you thought it was.

Originally Posted by 405HP_Z06

Am I looking at this incorrectly or would that be a 70% increase?

Example:

100 x .7 = 70
70 + 100 = 170
Increase = 70%

Originally Posted by LS1curious

no 100 x .70 = 30 + 100 + 130 although when dealing with precision numbers one should actually do the math correctly. However those injectors shouldn;t need that much extra time.