560cc EVO injectors vs ECUFlash

[Hotwire]

STFT Varied between 0 and 6-8+ but rarely negative, however. At cruise mid trim was 0.1 so i was very reluctant to change scaling, thus my thoughts it came to latency. Guess it'll be more trial and error then

[Hotwire]

OK major WTF moment now...
following on from looking at the injector latency I presumed this was causing the rough idle, i adjusted the injector latency and got the low trim to be 2.062 and when in light cruise, there seemed to be +16% correction added consistently, so it was definitely lean on light cruise. Again though, under WOT, it was hitting the target on the map.

I took numerous logs of idle to try and determine what was going on, and it was clear that there is something going on with regards to timing. The timing was jumping form 0 to 20ºbtdc when the timing map clearly shows 8-10ºbtdc. Here is an example of the idle:


and when coming off throttle onto idle.


As you can see, the timing drops away to 0 then the car seems to catch itself adding 20 then jumping around again.
Does anyone have any idea WTF is going on with idle? Also the load at idle is in the range of 50!!! on my car it sits around 25, as with most other cars i've seen.

If i understand the evom supermerge thread on scaling properly (and this post in particular http://forums.evolutionm.net/7704682-post8.html - "If your trims are negative that means you are rich, adding to the latency makes it more rich"). I have the opposite of this, therefore i'm too lean, and to richen I need to reduce the latency further, which means adding time to the 14V value??

BUT in relation to this, when looking back at logs from the original latency values, I also see the same +16% values for STFT and a LTFT LOW of 4.8%....




Now Im confused as to why it was suggested to reduce the latency values now, as surely they should be increased to richen the mix to minimise the +ve correction that was being added??

Please help! :confused:

[Davezj]

i was thinking of adding a second set of standard injectors. to use the extra boost i have aquired.

if i wanted to just add the injectors and keep the boost standard to stat with to test the theory, would it be a case of only changing the injector scaling to 618cc/min (2x309/min standard)
should i expect to see the duty cycle of the injector half assuming a linear response.
i am assuming also i would not have to mess with injector latency or anything like that as i am using the 2 sets of standard injectors
but i wold have to add a resistor per injector pair (1 new, 1 standard) as i would have halved the resistance seen by the ecu drive circuit if i connect the injectors in parallel (or double if connect in series).

is my thinking ok or will i have to change lots of other stuff as well.

[Davezj]

Anyone got any thought on my suggestion or am i going to have to start a new thread on the subject.

[Nutter_John]

I have lots of thoughts on it like why do you need fuel flow on stock tubs ?

[Davezj]

I hear what you are saying john,
My boost control pipe to the wastegates came off the other day and i found myself looking at a recorded max boost of 28psi which is quite a lot and i assume the standard injector can not reliably fuel to that sort of level. I know that will be a boost spike but something around that sort of pressure should be achievable 20psi.
Just suppose i wanted to turn the boost up to some silly level, i would need fuel to go with it, and it seemed like the easiest way to do it. The fuel/boost cut can be moved/removed to allow it to happen so why not, hypertheticly.
I don't want to kill me engine just yet.
I can reflash the ecu whenever i like so it would be an experiment to run 2 sets of injectos running at half the duty cycle of a single set, to give the same fuel flow to the engine. Well that is the theory.

I was also going to bid on a Rotrex supercharger, a c38-81 which is supossed to be in the 400-650bhp range. Unfortunately it sold for £770 which is not a bad price for one of those they usually go for £2500
But still out of my price range

[Shtiv]

I don't think you can get the turbos to flow more air than the injectors can keep up with no matter what you do, 28psi would be at lower RPM when injector flow isn't a problem. I can run 18psi boost to redline but it makes no more power (flows no more air and therefore fuel) than at 14psi so.... Also running the injectors in series would give you half the voltage over the injector, running them in parrallel will halve the resistance so you add another resistor in series? Again halving the voltage over the injector.... You need to either amplify the signal or whatever the correct electrical term is or live with 7V. (Or put bigger injectors in)

Lee, did you get my emails from yesterday?

[Davezj]

Cheers steve, that sounds like solid information there.

Electrical side of it is not a problem for me i am a PCB designeer by trade, how ever i am not up to speed with the ecu firmware.

I will have a re think and consider my options as did not get the supercharger i saw.

[phosty]

I took numerous logs of idle to try and determine what was going on, and it was clear that there is something going on with regards to timing. The timing was jumping form 0 to 20ºbtdc when the timing map clearly shows 8-10ºbtdc. Here is an example of the idle:


and when coming off throttle onto idle.


As you can see, the timing drops away to 0 then the car seems to catch itself adding 20 then jumping around again.
Does anyone have any idea WTF is going on with idle? Also the load at idle is in the range of 50!!! on my car it sits around 25, as with most other cars i've seen.

Not sure but it might be something similar to the way Mitsi uses timing adjustments to control idle on the Mitsubishi 3000GT and Dodge Stealth cars as described on Jeff Lucious's very informative website Stealth316 ( http://www.stealth316.com/2-ignitionsystem.htm#j2g )?

[Hotwire]

Steve just got back from Bali (9 days of relaxing which I really needed!) so will be responding shortly
Phosty thanks for the link will have a read

[kochajj]

Hi.
One more remark on my part that can help all the holders of evo injectors. in addition to changes Injector scale (# 00 306 365.51 in stock) and shutter (# 015A9), change the minimum injection time of the address: (# 0303) for serial injectors it is 1.28 ms - for the evo within 0,5-0,8ms
it will help maintain the ideal mixture at idle.
information from : http://www.vr-4.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=3717&page=6

[Eurospec]

Injector latency will defo be different between the 2 sets of injectors, nor will the evo injectors behave as intended with a greater current flowing.

The erratic timing would seem to indicate that the ecu is attempting to calm an unruly idle, maybe even prevent a stall. Id try this:- Deliberately take the idle to like 12.5:1 Force open loop. You are showing high engine load as the engine is trying to stall. At stall the load would be at or approach atmospheric. Your commanded pulse width on the bigger injectors is goint to be very short- possibly too short given the latency and resistor factors to maintain a stable actual pulse width. Mean time the O2 sensor is going to try and move the trims to find stoich. Much pain.

Force open loop and try to get 12.5 and see if you can get a stable idle then.

For Dave- i doubt that C38-81 will support 650bhp- i know they say they do, we sell em, but i normally see about 400 on 2.0 engines with a C38-91 (bigger) and a bit more if rinsed!

As regards secondary injectors, thats a lot of physical modification- i would try to do it with bigger injectors first if poss.

Cheers,

Ben.

[swinks]

Ben, I think Tomek had something different in mind.
It down to building ecu image.
INJECTOR TIME address in ecu.
In Kenneth's image there's no such address. But there is one referred on few Russian forums, address : 10303.
And values: stock VR4 Injector Time = 1,28ms; Evo has got: 0,5-0,8ms
Was this somehow missed or doesn't exist in vr4 image, or other reason? If it's only Evo ecu feature then can it be added to vr4 rom image?

Reason for enquiry, because Russians refers this address to adjust idle and low load performance in closed loop, it cures issues experienced by many others fitting big injectors and had rough ride on idle etc. AFR in range 9.5 to 10.5. So instead drastic measures proposed by you, it can be quite subtle solution.

[Eurospec]

Ahh i see, you mean there is no dead time compensation available in the VR4 Rom image?

Cheers,
Ben.

[swinks]

Seems like there is no such thing.
Look:
seg002:0002AD17 1D F0 B0 80 mov:g.w @Engine_RPM:16, r0
seg002:0002AD1B 1D 03 04 70 cmp:g.w @Max_Engine_RPM_for_Inj_Delay:16, r0
seg002:0002AD1F 22 0C bhi loc_2AD2D:8
seg002:0002AD21 1D 03 02 85 mov:g.w @Crank_Inj_Loop_Delay:16, r5
seg002:0002AD25 58 00 05 mov:i.w #5:16, r0
seg002:0002AD28
seg002:0002AD28 loc_2AD28:
seg002:0002AD28 AD 1A shll.w r5
seg002:0002AD2A 07 B8 FB scb/eq r0, loc_2AD28:8
seg002:0002AD2D
seg002:0002AD2D loc_2AD2D:
seg002:0002AD2D BF 95 mov:g.w r5, @-sp

screen2sj.jpg

Ken, or anyone else skilled... can you add 10303 to vr4 image?

[zdenekserac]

I just took quick pick at KS ModsV1.02 from Kenneth and there is absolutely no change whatsoever, in this subroutine of code; regarding mentioned 10303byte or being exact 10302word, it is still being executed no mater what has been changed further in main engine loop. The subroutines are exactly the same or better to say they are mitsu EM2003 thru EM2006 - first 2 being a pair for JDM and second pair is unreleased version for EUSpec where each pair varies by ASC/TCL presence. As presented on screen shot, quite well forward disassembly (ask the one who gave you that info about the problem, he surely knows)- there is no doubt that it is ignored (10302word) after engine RPM exceeds stall level judging scaling ~200-300RPM so changing it by the means of altering a map without changing the code itself will have absolutely no effect at all at idle. Saying that no wonder that poor get-out-old-come-new technique does not meat satisfaction as few clever guys before wrote something about in-circuit current flow forces by injectors resistance, guys come on!

@Kenneth
try to move your maps to area lower that 4000h referencing image or the actual flow 'cause it causes some problems finally. its a good programming habit to follow environmental rules

[Eurospec]

Dude, I may not be a dissasembler, but I do know enough about cars to know that injector resistance very clearly affects current flow at a given voltage, and that attempting to drive a low impedance injector with a high impedance driver designed for less current will result in at least unexpected results if not ecu damage. If it were other there would be no resistor packs in the Mitsubishi cars
With low impedance injectors.

If I am understanding correctly you are saying that in the vr4 code there is a part that constrains injector pulse width to a minimum and only by changing this code can this be changed but conversely the Evo rom has a table the tuner can edit? If that is true then is it not possible to change the code to reference a definable table? I've no idea how you'd program that though.

Cheers,

Ben.

[zdenekserac]

you might misunderstood me, it is not my primary language thou, so. i agreed with current flow and so on following it.

I did not mean that any changes on original sub are needed, on contrary they ain't gonna be needed here. It was reference to previous post where end-user change was suggested or supposedly taking place, what for obvious reasons doesn't seem to be happening, yet.

Best to my knowledge problem that occurs by idling/lowload has not that much to do with porting evo table values into vr4 or any other car for sake of comparison nor it has to do with mi****ting correct scalings between two platforms. Only difference due to bigger inj. unit (try doing the same using 3.0 V6 DOHC stock injector parameters, they might be the same HARDWARE/FLOW but why ffs is the result so self explanatory and both firmware dedicated parameters vary). Folks tend to change i.e. latency and try to proof its gonna solve it all, but guess what, it wont unfortunately
There is still few, yet to be known for most, compensation methods already implemented within the firmware, however they ain't what has been so far publicized here, where the hardware side is being obviously ignored and foreign minded hints are being lifted uphill.
And yes. We tend to search for problem-solution cases as we were forced by crisis to occupy our own 4 walls for to long to cope with it lol.

[Davezj]

anyone used the IDA disassembler software featured in the picture i have just downloaded the 5.0 version but haven't a clue how to start using it.
oh well wishful thinking i suppose.

[Kenneth]

@Kenneth
try to move your maps to area lower that 4000h referencing image or the actual flow 'cause it causes some problems finally. its a good programming habit to follow environmental rules

Please don't @Kenneth, the polite thing to do is to PM me and explain where I have erred. In this instance I don't even understand what you are trying to say. I do acknowledge that English is not your first language though.

As for environmental rules, you also need to explain which rules you are referring to. I should point out that I have no previous experience with assembler or this level of hardware control. I had to learn both with my primary reference being the H8 programming reference, seeing as no one was willing to help me. As such, I would appreciate that you want to comment on programming practice, that you do so constructively and give details as WHY it is required or recommended.

Also, please keep in mind that I didn't want to do these mods, I did them because other people who DO know what they are doing have been selfish and not released their work to the public. As such the community at large is well behind where it should be.