LSA 6.0 Torque values high

[Burntendzz]

Currently learning on my LSA G8. Car runs great, still dialing in fueling, but after entering the manufacture supplied data for the injectors, I've noticed I had to add way more fuel via MAF and now my torque values are about 200-250ftlbs too high for my setup @WOT, its fine during part throttle acceleration. My cylinder airmass also is much higher than before, so i suspect they are related. I've attached the current tune and log. Its hard to get any traction below 60mph right now, but i did do a short wot pull. The base tune is not mine, but one that i'm working off of. Any help is appreciated. Thanks

[5FDP]

Data is going to be skewed if you are indeed running such massive injectors. This tune has the stoich already doubled and the flow rate is still maxed at 63.5 lb/hr, so these must be some giant fuel injectors.

What injectors are these??

[Burntendzz]

Data is going to be skewed if you are indeed running such massive injectors. This tune has the stoich already doubled and the flow rate is still maxed at 63.5 lb/hr, so these must be some giant fuel injectors.

What injectors are these??

They are 1300cc injectors. Its around 50% ethanol as well.

[Burntendzz]

I also noticed that the Command EQ was around .83 @ WOT. I would like it to be a little richer. Is adjusting PE the correct way to do this?

[andrewquant]

Your injector flow rate is off. I had the same problem with my 120lb ones. If you know your tune was solid on fueling before the swap, then you can calculate your proper injector flow rates based on your EQ error. Set up a chart with columns for pressure delta and log your EQ error in the cells to correct your flow rate.

[Burntendzz]

Andrew,

Thanks for the advice. I'm not sure the fueling was super solid before hand, it could have been. There was some issues with the going lean/rich depending on the ethanol content, that was one of the reasons I wanted to get the correct data from the manufacture. Do you happen to have a screen shot of the Pressure delta/EQ error histogram? I'm a little unclear on what pressure delta I should use. Thanks.

[cmitchell17]

What did your airmass look like before the supercharger? I ask because it looks like you have the same issue I am having. Right before you get into positive boost you are already at 0.9 grams of airmass. I put a turbo on my 6.2 L9H 100% stock engine stock injectors and fuel system, but it is doing the same thing and reading way to high of airmass that dosen't make sense. It will also scew a bunch of other stuff including torque model calcs.

Before my turbo I would reach peak airmass at full manifold pressure of about .65-.7 grams which should be about normal for 6.2 liters of displacement at or around sea level. When I added the turbo it then jumped up magically to 0.9 grams at the same manifold pressure. Yours is doing the exact same thing and hitting over 0.9 grams of airmass before you even get into boost, I mean I don't think a 6.0 at sea level can get that much airmass into the cylinders with no boost?

[Burntendzz]

What did your airmass look like before the supercharger? I ask because it looks like you have the same issue I am having. Right before you get into positive boost you are already at 0.9 grams of airmass. I put a turbo on my 6.2 L9H 100% stock engine stock injectors and fuel system, but it is doing the same thing and reading way to high of airmass that dosen't make sense. It will also scew a bunch of other stuff including torque model calcs.

Before my turbo I would reach peak airmass at full manifold pressure of about .65-.7 grams which should be about normal for 6.2 liters of displacement at or around sea level. When I added the turbo it then jumped up magically to 0.9 grams at the same manifold pressure. Yours is doing the exact same thing and hitting over 0.9 grams of airmass before you even get into boost, I mean I don't think a 6.0 at sea level can get that much airmass into the cylinders with no boost?

Airmass was normal until scaling for the larger injectors, and then it shot up. From what I'm gathering the higher torque/airmass readings are not detrimental to transmission health or performance, it would be more concerning if the torque readings were low. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but this is what i've been told by a few people.

[blindsquirrel]

How sure are you that the injectors are actually what they're supposed to be? Hate to be the one to bring it up but, you know...

[07GTS]

shouldnt need to scale for 1300cc on a LSA ecu or at worst scaling just doing the stoich/IFR/IVT scaling dosnt affect the air model, usually scaling airmass for larger injectors shifts airmass lower not higher

[Burntendzz]

shouldnt need to scale for 1300cc on a LSA ecu or at worst scaling just doing the stoich/IFR/IVT scaling dosnt affect the air model, usually scaling airmass for larger injectors shifts airmass lower not higher

Yeah that was confusing to me as well....why the airmass went higher.

[Burntendzz]

How sure are you that the injectors are actually what they're supposed to be? Hate to be the one to bring it up but, you know...

Trust me, Its crossed my mind. I'm thinking maybe something in the injector data is a little off from the manufacturer.

[cmitchell17]

Yeah that was confusing to me as well....why the airmass went higher.

I think me and you have the exact same problem. Either we are missing something obvious we need to change for boost, or its some weird GEN IV ECM quirk.

So the most baffling thing to me is I can reflash back to the 100% stock tune and lock it in low gear and give it enough throttle to get manifold pressure close to atmosphere but no boost and the airmass is the same, almost exceeding 0.9 grams of air. I am pretty sure you would have to have like 8 or 9 or 10 liters of displacement before you could pull 0.9 grams of air at full load.

Maybe you could try reflash back the stock tune and see what the airmass does, of course you don't have to go WOT just enough gas to hit peak load.

I think it may also be some quirk with flex fuel/ethanol since me and you both run ethanol or a blend. I did also set up my VVE and MAF with E85 and a varying blend, but I have since went to straight 93 with some octane booster since I am trying to get my injector duty cycle under control and it was going over 100% with E85.

In theory though ethanol or no ethanol shouldn't matter, especially given that we are using EQ, but unfortunately my wideband lambda reports air fuel ratio lambda and of course the PE tables in the calibration are fuel air ratio lambda (equivalence ratio) so it gets even more confusing.

Do you have a sensor, or are you using the stock virtual calculation? I have no yet got a flex fuel sensor, so I am using the stock virtual sensor which of course can be tricked sometimes if you don't fill up enough or you make short trips after filling up and stuff.

[Burntendzz]

I think me and you have the exact same problem. Either we are missing something obvious we need to change for boost, or its some weird GEN IV ECM quirk.

So the most baffling thing to me is I can reflash back to the 100% stock tune and lock it in low gear and give it enough throttle to get manifold pressure close to atmosphere but no boost and the airmass is the same, almost exceeding 0.9 grams of air. I am pretty sure you would have to have like 8 or 9 or 10 liters of displacement before you could pull 0.9 grams of air at full load.

Maybe you could try reflash back the stock tune and see what the airmass does, of course you don't have to go WOT just enough gas to hit peak load.

I think it may also be some quirk with flex fuel/ethanol since me and you both run ethanol or a blend. I did also set up my VVE and MAF with E85 and a varying blend, but I have since went to straight 93 with some octane booster since I am trying to get my injector duty cycle under control and it was going over 100% with E85.

In theory though ethanol or no ethanol shouldn't matter, especially given that we are using EQ, but unfortunately my wideband lambda reports air fuel ratio lambda and of course the PE tables in the calibration are fuel air ratio lambda (equivalence ratio) so it gets even more confusing.

Do you have a sensor, or are you using the stock virtual calculation? I have no yet got a flex fuel sensor, so I am using the stock virtual sensor which of course can be tricked sometimes if you don't fill up enough or you make short trips after filling up and stuff.

I have a flex fuel sensor that I'm using. That's an interesting point about ethanol content. It confuses me why it shot up after scaling the injectors correctly, but to be honest the car is running great, and shifting well. So I'm not sure how concerned I should be?

[cmitchell17]

I have a flex fuel sensor that I'm using. That's an interesting point about ethanol content. It confuses me why it shot up after scaling the injectors correctly, but to be honest the car is running great, and shifting well. So I'm not sure how concerned I should be?

Yeah that's the weird part, even though it shows artificially high airmass, the wideband and stock narrowbands still show everything is good and fine and trims are good and wideband error is well within +/-3%. I can't think of any explanation for that. Especially when all the tables dealing with fuel injection are 100% stock. Really the only things that have been changed is PE AFR, VVE coefficients/MAF calibration, spark timing, and the usual diagnostic things you have to do for FI (disable airflow tests, MAP/MAF correlation, etc.)

So since its reading high, its referencing wrong areas of a lot of different look up tables and maps and values and a lot we don't know about. At cruising speed of 45-55 in 6th with the TC locked since airmass is reading artificially high at around 0.8-0.9 grams, it is only running with about 5 degrees of timing and you can feel it start to buck and shake because timing isn't high enough. It's probably a lot better for it to read artificially high airmass than to read artificially low airmass, especially for torque reporting and lookup for the TCM and shifting, but I still think there will be a lot of hidden problems and things it will throw off.

I noticed today after going back to straight 93 with some boostane, timing is going to about -5 degrees at 45-55 cruise in 6th with TC locked after knock retard is pulling timing. I know a 100% stock engine minus the turbo, shouldn't knock as bad as it is on 93 octane. I would hope a 100% stock engine minus a turbo/supercharger would act very similar to stock as long as its not under boost, so maybe we are missing something here.

Knock retard is even triggering up to 5 degrees at idle and coastdown, I know that can't be right haha

Does anyone think anything like desired throttle area or anything like that need to be changed with forced induction on GEN IV systems? I know with GEN V stuff you would have to raise driver demanded torque, which appears to be the successor to desired throttle area, in order to not hit any torque limiting.

[cmitchell17]

Looking at your log it seems yours doesn't do this but you only have one WOT run though.

It appears once the airflow calc mode hits hi speed and cuts of VVE, the airmass magically shoots way up even though boost and throttle position is still basically the same:
Capture.JPG

There is nothing I know of that could make airmass just magically increase without something major happening, just makes zero sense.
I would just take the LS7 MAF I have in my intercooler tube out and just run SD if it weren't for the SD issues with GEN IV ECMs.

[Burntendzz]

Looking at your log it seems yours doesn't do this but you only have one WOT run though.

It appears once the airflow calc mode hits hi speed and cuts of VVE, the airmass magically shoots way up even though boost and throttle position is still basically the same:
Capture.JPG

There is nothing I know of that could make airmass just magically increase without something major happening, just makes zero sense.
I would just take the LS7 MAF I have in my intercooler tube out and just run SD if it weren't for the SD issues with GEN IV ECMs.

Yeah the only thing I changed was the injector data. I don't have any issues with knock,yet, and it seems to cruise fine on the highway, although admittedly i havent done much highway "cruising" with it. It would be nice to know what made it shoot up like it did.

[blindsquirrel]

Have you verified, like with real-world eyeballs, that the injectors are what they are supposed to be? I'm still really suspicious, since this started when the injectors were supposedly swapped, and none of the injector data was changed at time of install and also not much really changed in the tune file. One thing that would explain all the weirdness then and since then is that the injectors never actually got changed.

[Burntendzz]

Have you verified, like with real-world eyeballs, that the injectors are what they are supposed to be? I'm still really suspicious, since this started when the injectors were supposedly swapped, and none of the injector data was changed at time of install and also not much really changed in the tune file. One thing that would explain all the weirdness then and since then is that the injectors never actually got changed.

I'll verify. I'm fairly certain they are the right ones.

[smokeshow]

In theory though ethanol or no ethanol shouldn't matter, especially given that we are using EQ, but unfortunately my wideband lambda reports air fuel ratio lambda and of course the PE tables in the calibration are fuel air ratio lambda (equivalence ratio) so it gets even more confusing.

It does though, because the concentration is falsely changing under your nose and affecting everything else you're doing.

https://forum.hptuners.com/showthrea...l=1#post680239