DFORESI

Has anyone found that they need to modify the transient parameters after installing a supercharger or ID1000? I have an LS3 with an ECS1500 kit and ID1000 injectors. I find that the system tends to go really lean on quick tip ins even when the steadystate is spot on. I realize the spray pattern on an ID1000 is very different than that of a stock LS3 injector. I can't imagine the supercharger is at play here because none of these issue are in boost, they're mostly low speed cruising type tip ins.

Do you all find that you typically have to modify the EVAP Factor or any other transient fueling table when installing ID1000s? I suppose it would make sense. I want to get out an play with it but it's been raining here all week.

truckdoug

iTrader: (25)

i usually turn the min fuel mg's down when using pencil pattern injectors

not sure what the ID1000's like but their 2000's seemed to like .016-ish

DFORESI

I'm not sure if we get the "min fuel milligrams" adjustment for gen4. The behavior I'm seeing is as follows:



My wideband shows fueling going as rich as 0.57 eq ratio on tip in, with the same behavior happening on tip out.

I feel like this is something to do with fuel puddling on the walls that is evaporating off, perhaps my car is not expecting as large of a puddle as the injectors are creating?

turbolx

First things first: did you put the ID injector data into the calibration? Is it scaled (since you have a 2008 with the older, limited OS)? Did you scaled EVERYTHING correctly? Have you done a proper STEADY STATE calibration of the virtual VE table/coefficients?

Getting all this right is a prerequisite to doing transient fuel work.

DFORESI

You are correct, the injectors did require scaling. The method that I opted for was to double stoich and half the IFR table. I imagine that the scaling was correct as the VE table wasn't WAY off (I would have expected it to change a bit with the supercharger and headers anyway). Although I do feel as though the table could still use some work, I think its most of the way there.

I will say that I noticed the transients felt much better once the MAF and MAP were working together (as opposed to just running in SD)

smokeshow

iTrader: (17)

I don't see any problem keeping DFCO enabled. I never disable it to be honest. Not because I prefer to have it on, but because it really makes no difference in terms of fuel trim feedback. When you're in an area where DFCO should be active, it's because the combustion is garbage and fueling predictability and controllability are out the window. So DFCO on or off, the trim data should be ignored. But you do this with scanner filters and/or a keen eye. One potential downside to keeping DFCO enabled though, is it will let you know if your transient fueling needs work. Quick tip-ins that result in a torque dip or bog on a DFCO exit probably means it went lean for longer than it should have without the necessary transient fuel added.

Food for thought. Don't fear the DFCO.