Injector Timing? Reference Periods? refereencing what?

[Google]

But now we are in a system that little oxygen is present. If you run a motor at 5000 RPM (by driving it with another motor) and simply inject fuel but do not burn it, I would imagine it show oxygen as a percentage rather than AFR because it would be high. I think the added vapor that is unburnt will still show up lean.

understand what your saying.. might have to setup an exp.

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

Ol Maf

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

Someone who is seeing some results from this, can you test various values at idle and see if it changes anything? My STIT, MAP, AFR....nothing really changed. If anything, it may be a tad leaner with the larger values in there. Then again, there is a bit of variability with intake temps at idle i would not consider it true.

[Google]

I have a 6.0 L92
@ .006 274 280 .610 .613
@ .050 int 5- btdc 49 abdc
exh 52 bbdc 2- atdc

icl is installed @117

I have right at 18% added to my makeup and normal tables for a even gain of 28.6 +or-.5 ftlbs from 1000rpm to 3400rpm. I have not done that math on this but this is intresting. I adjust the tables in OLSD with no trims and see the fueling or afr changes. unsure if maf would effect the out come or not as I have not tryed adjusting the tables with the maf in play.

with the tables adjusted I do see .5 or so afr changes.. most of which is at idle.. when subtracting from the tables Idle tends to be rougher. but depending on the cam has made 5hp more.. not worth it imho when fuel smell and idle quality suffers more.


..

[Google]

would you like a log of stock and tables added and subtracted, with my normal pids? I will make some logs in a bit if needed..

what rpm are you idling at?

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

Idling at 1150 RPM

The logs are attached. Stock is stock and 3 is with EOIT of 400*. This was the 3rd startup log with each (went up in #, down, then back up, then back to stock)

[Google]

give me a few.. need to install 2.23 on this pc..

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

#3 log looks lean at the end, not sure we can say that is actual or just heat soak. I want to take some driving logs to see for sure. Right now I think from what I see #2 (with 0.020" EVC cam numbers use to figure out the EOIT) looks the best. The idle airflow is actually a tad higher. The thing is I don't know if these numbers are reliable and repeatable. I just need more data. I appears my MAF Hz was slightly lower with #3, telling me it was no good. With that and it being a little leaner, maybe it has gone past the point we are looking for.

[Google]

ok I ran both of the logs to the very end and did a side by side as pictured.. this would give a better compair as it has had time to stablize a bit more.. not a huge change but there is change.. look at this clip and see rpm is darn close to the same and inj pulse is diff as well as map stit and afr is about 4% off.. this should hold true at that rpm through out the log after stablized..

3 is lean and stock is richer..

[Google]

stit is on the decline in your last.. 2 again log file.. that would make me think fuel has changed or heat soak is lowering the desired airflow.

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

STIT was actually adding air back.

[Google]

ok, on the decline from a larger neg number.. yes, adding air back in is what I ment. sorry for miss stating that.

when stit stablizes.. then take afr and rpm and compair to other logs at a stable point for your data..

[Google]

you using LTIT? if yes might want to look at it and see if it is absorbing the stit or not..

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

Nope, that is why it is not in there. I only use STIT.

I will try to take a little better log of each at temp, driving the same roads and see how it looks. May just be a few days.

[Google]

one other thought to test your raw fuel wb 02 rich / lean question....

kill a coil or two and see if your wb goes rich or lean.. this would still have injector fire but no spark and would pump raw fuel into the exhaust with 02 unused as well...




..

[Wnts2Go10O]

I have a 6.0 L92
@ .006 274 280 .610 .613
@ .050 int 5- btdc 49 abdc
exh 52 bbdc 2- atdc

icl is installed @117

I have right at 18% added to my makeup and normal tables for a even gain of 28.6 +or-.5 ftlbs from 1000rpm to 3400rpm. I have not done that math on this but this is intresting. I adjust the tables in OLSD with no trims and see the fueling or afr changes. unsure if maf would effect the out come or not as I have not tryed adjusting the tables with the maf in play.

with the tables adjusted I do see .5 or so afr changes.. most of which is at idle.. when subtracting from the tables Idle tends to be rougher. but depending on the cam has made 5hp more.. not worth it imho when fuel smell and idle quality suffers more.


..

almost 30 ft/lbs from just an injector timing change? jeez.. wasnt expecting that. granted YMMV but that makes it even more interesting. i dont see earlier injection being beneficial unless the cam was smaller duration wise than the stock cam..

on top of that, you gained 5hp from the timing change as well? or was that from making the injector firing earlier?

[Google]

on top of that, you gained 5hp from the timing change as well? or was that from making the injector firing earlier?

mine lost power when firing the injector sooner.. or lower numbers.. some of my customers wanted the extra 5hp so I lowered thiers to gain it.. some cams respond better then others do. just using mine as an example kinda thing. few forum members I have helped have been on a dyno and seen the same results + or -, 5 -10ftlbs.. to many factors including intake valve size and port flow as well as cam and stroke as to what the end results are..

[Wnts2Go10O]

mine lost power when firing the injector sooner.. or lower numbers.. some of my customers wanted the extra 5hp so I lowered thiers to gain it.. some cams respond better then others do. just using mine as an example kinda thing. few forum members I have helped have been on a dyno and seen the same results + or -, 5 -10ftlbs.. to many factors including intake valve size and port flow as well as cam and stroke as to what the end results are..

i was trying to get an idea of what you were going for with the sooner injection and was surprised you gained so much torque from that little change. i wouldnt and dont expect that sort of gain at all. just find it very interesting. its got to be because the better atomization but that would mean its literally multitudes better. this would point to GM's "back of the valve evaporation" theory is debunked as well.

in terms of why.. i dont see anything but the cam events and the velocities created to be the reasons for gains seen. one could argue its not even optimized in a stock car. like earlier in the thread... if you were able to inject fuel from just before the peak velocity and stop it before the intake valve closes ,you would see the best gains.

[WS6FirebirdTA00]

Sooner injection tables, stock cam or not, will inject to a closed valve all the time, should it not? At 60* BTDC as a finish point, that was my thinking. So making it even sooner shouldn't make anything better since the valve is already closed.

Are you saying that lower numbers than stock in the injection tables helped some cars out?

[Wnts2Go10O]

Sooner injection tables, stock cam or not, will inject to a closed valve all the time, should it not? At 60* BTDC as a finish point, that was my thinking. So making it even sooner shouldn't make anything better since the valve is already closed.

exactly. the whole idea is to A) keep fuel from pooling B) mix it with the air as best is possible and C) get as much of the fuel called for into the chamber as efficiently as possible.

on a different note.. why are we leaving out the FI boundary value? the boundary is 6.5 reference points or 585* after TDC or 0* i believe. then we say the injection will be finished by ( a stock) 5.55 reference points or 499.5* AFTER that boundary. that means injection is finished by 364* after TDC? i did this: (720-(Boundary(90))-(Normal(90)). if thats the case.. why is the stock value for the boundary 6.5? why not just put the boundary at 1 or 0 and plug in the value needed to get the injection timing more exact?