Tuning Injector Latency and ID1000 Questions

Edit, I uploaded my spreadsheet.

 

Can someone please explain how to best dial in Injector Latency and Scalar?

 

Since the car is always producing almost 14V through a pull, how do you figure out these other latency voltages? When would you ever even hit these lower or higher voltages? If you are bumping up or down the whole set of latencies, do you do it by %? Different formula perhaps?

 

If say actual AFR is leaner down low and richer up top, it stands to reason that you should increase the latencies. By how much mathematically, or are people just guessing and checking?

 

I'm trying to dial in a set of ID1000s. Anyone have any latencies and a scalar that works well?

 

I used Excel to determine a power function trendline based off the T1 published latencies. Then I used the formula to spit out the latency for each of the 5 voltages the LGT ECU has, since the T1/ID1000 voltages were somewhat different. I have been using these T1 latencies and a 920 scalar most recently, and I ended up .75 AFR low in the middle of the RPM range, and .5 AFR low up at the higher RPMs. I don't want to waste hours guessing and checking. Most importantly, I want to really understand this!

 

Seems like it would be easiest to convert the scalar to injector pulsewidth milliseconds, and then model the ideal scalar + latency to hit the targets. Can anyone help me/the forum learn this?

ID1000 Injector Latency Formulas CSV.csv

I'm pretty sure my friend contacted T1Racing to get the latencies that match the scaling of the Subaru ECU. When he gets done with work I can ask him if he can share the info

I can ask Tony myself if your friend for some reason does not. I would also love to get a look at the final values your friend determined. The Subaru injector driver(s) should be different from the next ECU one might use.

You might also want to try PMing Andy (elevenpoint7five) on NASIOC. He is the tuner for DS1 in Schaumburg, IL, and he tunes a lot of setups with ID1000's. He will be doing mine in the coming week (ID1000's, TD06-20G, E85 and stuff).

Here's the info my friend gave me for the Bosch 1000cc injectors

 

Latencies

volts     ms 
06.5     3.16 
09.0     2.02 
11.5     1.29
14.0     0.97
16.5     0.76

 

Flow scaling factor (ballpark #'s):

flow scaling     fuel type 
665.00          e-85
980.00          gasoline (100%)

per tony @ t1 race development the numbers franz posted are correct for the id 1000's and a base fuel pressure of approximately 40psi. your stock rom will have 6 for the lowest voltage point so just change that to 6.5

 

also imo you should zero out the per-injector compensation tables. it may also be necessary to re-calibrate the maf scaling a bit but it shouldn't take much. these are by far the easiest injectors i've ever tuned with.

 

i'd also suggest to stay away from using the romraider injector scaling tool. just put in the values we provided and tinker with maf scaling a bit till it's perfect. it only took me about 45 minutes on my first set.

I agree that RR's scaling tool is not good. The theory behind it makes perfect sense, but the numbers that come out of it never did.

 

I'm running T1's numbers with an extra 10% added to all latencies. In retrospect I probably should put that back and tweak the MAF scaling instead, but I was impatient at the time, and that was easier.

Franz's numbers don't look like they would get me closer. Actually might get me further away. I uploaded my spreadsheet and graph to the first post. The interactive graph could not be saved in a CSV.

I guess I don't understand what you are doing so I guess I can't help you. On my car those numbers work extremely well. I generally see +/- 1% af correction (both real time and learned). Fwiw here is the injector spec sheet I received from T1.

 

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv19/levenussupremus/Subarubreakpoints.jpg

should I provide my tuner with this info? car gets tuned monday. Or should a good tuner be able to figure this all out on his/her own?

if he hasn't tuned the ID injectors before, the info will make his life easier

 

Also, ClimberD, why not just use an open loop MAF scaling tool to fine-tune for the injectors and hit the targets in your fuel map? Latencies and pulse width are two different things

http://www.romraider.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=5321

I guess I don't understand what you are doing so I guess I can't help you. On my car those numbers work extremely well. I generally see +/- 1% af correction (both real time and learned). Fwiw here is the injector spec sheet I received from T1.

 

It's good that it worked for you, but I may or may not be so fortunate

 

Basically I have an Open Loop AFR error that is leaner at the lower RPMs, and climbs almost linearly to be richer at higher RPMs. This indicates to me my latency could stand to be a little higher, yes? I don't know, I'm not very experienced with injector tuning. I will try lots of injector values tonight to see what gets closest.

 

Separately, with my spreadsheet:

I took different injector latencies including T1s, and did the following:

Plotted them in Excel and graphed them.

Used trendline feature to apply a power function to each.

Lopped off the latency value of the lowest voltage point or two (may be a good thing).

Used the trendline to produce an equation.

Use the equation to determine what latencies would be like both according to my Rom's scaling, and to smooth out the latencies in general.

 

It may be flawed, I don't know.

Latency adjustments make a noticeable difference at idle, but they're negligible in the open-loop range.

 

Also note that MAF scaling and injector settings (latency and scaling) interact. The key thing is the balance between them. It's possible that your MAF scaling was slightly off, in a way that balanced a small error in your injector settings, and if that is the case then no amount of injector adjustment will get your AFRs perfect. In that case you will need to tweak the MAF scaling as well.

 

It's also possible to just enter T1's values, and then use MAF scaling alone to get your AFRs dialed in. I used a mix of both approaches.

 

Note that if you make big changes to your MAF scaling (e.g. 10% higher everywhere, it would make sense to make corresponding changes to the Load axis headers in all of the other tables, to keep them accurate.

 

Realistically though it probably makes the most sense to start with the current MAF scaling and T1s injector settings, then tweak the injector settings to get as close as you can, then tweak the MAF scaling if you still need to fine-tune.

 

Also, there are a couple of threads about MAF and injector tuning in RomRaider's how-to subforum. Also take a look at the thread I started in that forum about understanding Learning View's AF Learning values.

Latency adjustments make a noticeable difference at idle, but they're negligible in the open-loop range.

 

Also note that MAF scaling and injector settings (latency and scaling) interact. The key thing is the balance between them. It's possible that your MAF scaling was slightly off, in a way that balanced a small error in your injector settings, and if that is the case then no amount of injector adjustment will get your AFRs perfect. In that case you will need to tweak the MAF scaling as well.

 

It's also possible to just enter T1's values, and then use MAF scaling alone to get your AFRs dialed in. I used a mix of both approaches.

 

Note that if you make big changes to your MAF scaling (e.g. 10% higher everywhere, it would make sense to make corresponding changes to the Load axis headers in all of the other tables, to keep them accurate.

 

Realistically though it probably makes the most sense to start with the current MAF scaling and T1s injector settings, then tweak the injector settings to get as close as you can, then tweak the MAF scaling if you still need to fine-tune.

 

Also, there are a couple of threads about MAF and injector tuning in RomRaider's how-to subforum. Also take a look at the thread I started in that forum about understanding Learning View's AF Learning values.

 

The good news is the upper half of my MAF range is getting OL AFR Errors in the +/- 0.5 AFR range. So load scaling can stay where it is AFAIK.

 

This post was a lot more what I was looking for, as I was foggy on the generalities. Thank you!

 

My MAF scaling is pretty good in so far as it has been used successfully by a lot of people. It was never dialed in on my car with stock injectors though. That's all I can or need to say about that.

 

Specific to latency and scaling, I'm wondering what the hell to actually do... I think I will eventually send them out to get flow tested with Industry Standard fluid, then use those values and ID latencies (my own converted formula version since I truly believe it will be more accurate over the range of voltages than other Subaru converted values I have seen that produce a lower r^2 when graphed. I have no hard facts to back that up any of this, I'm just a tuning noob still . This approach will of course waste money, but I'm the kind of guy who really lines things that don't matter to be 'right.'

 

In the mean time, I just want to get as close as possible to the base MAF scaling I have. I guess it doesn't actually matter at all, does it? Tuning latency is really kind of pointless on a MAF that was never previously dialed in in the first place, or so I'm finding.

 

Well thank you all for your numbers and information! I am grateful for your posts!

 

I see here 980cc has worked really well, and I also see 908cc and other ~900cc scalars gave worked perfectly elsewhere. Was kind of expecting one common scalar to be best, plus or minus 10cc. Not the case with these.

If you're getting really good AFRs in the OL range, I'd leave the injector scaling right where it is, used ID's latency or something slightly higher, and tweak the low end of the MAF scaling to get the CL trims dialed in.

 

If the latency settings are slightly higher than the true latency, it's easy to compensate with MAF scaling.

If you're getting really good AFRs in the OL range, I'd leave the injector scaling right where it is, used ID's latency or something slightly higher, and tweak the low end of the MAF scaling to get the CL trims dialed in.

 

If the latency settings are slightly higher than the true latency, it's easy to compensate with MAF scaling.

 

That is the way I see it as well. Can't wait to one day find out what these actually flow via Witchhunter

Keep in mind our stock injectors (assuming sidefeed) have different scalars based on car (05 sti has it at about 500 cc/min, but LGT is higher, even though same part number).

 

What I am doing and recommend:

 

-just put in the latencies (see my post below) from Bosch, and use a scalar like about 930-980

-then just re-do the MAF

 

There are too many variables to make this technically perfect, and even the guys that should really know what they are doing (Subaru) don't get it perfect.

 

Your end result wil be just fine, I am sure.

per tony @ t1 race development the numbers franz posted are correct for the id 1000's and a base fuel pressure of approximately 40psi. your stock rom will have 6 for the lowest voltage point so just change that to 6.5

 

Our car runs at 43.5 psi, not 40.

 

The below values (what you posted earlier) are for 40 psi, and I would not use them.

 

volts ms

06.5 3.16

09.0 2.02

11.5 1.29

14.0 0.97

16.5 0.76

He has a Fuelab regulator, so his base pressure is set at 40. It's good to point that out.

 

I am considering running a higher base pressure, like 45 or 50, since I read it's better for atomization. Then, if I run a max of 25 PSI peak it would top out at 75 PSI. The Walbro 255 l/hr is 50 gal/hr at 70 PSI

cc/min = gal/hr / .015873

 

45 Base pressure

25 PSI boost: 70 PSI: 50 gal/hr from pump = 3150cc/min total

15 PSI boost: 60 PSI: 58 gal/hr from pump = 3654cc/min total

 

Interpolating:

22 PSI boost: 67 PSI: 55.6 gal/hr from pump = 3502 cc/min total = 875 cc/min

you guys are a little too hardcore with the MAF and fuel injector scaling. the fuel trims don't have to be anywhere near as close as you are trying to get them (+/- 1% ?). That's the point of fuel trims. And the target AFR table does not have to closely matched the measured AFR.

 

the key thing is getting the car to drive well and to have a safe and consistent AFR for open and closed loop driving. you don't necessarily have to spend hours and hours on it. I don't like to fiddle with MAF scaling any more than I have to because then the load calculation changes which leads to even more work.

 

The other day I was scaling some DW740's on an 05 STi. I used the injector scalar that Cobb recommended and then took the stock lag values and multiplied them by .75 . The latency values that DW supplied with the injectors did not work well at all, but then again those are side feeds not Bosch EV14 top feeds like what ID sells. I used the AFR target table to adjust open loop fuel. Car runs great.

He has a Fuelab regulator, so his base pressure is set at 40. It's good to point that out.

 

I am considering running a higher base pressure, like 45 or 50, since I read it's better for atomization. Then, if I run a max of 25 PSI peak it would top out at 75 PSI. The Walbro 255 l/hr is 50 gal/hr at 70 PSI

cc/min = gal/hr / .015873

 

45 Base pressure

25 PSI boost: 70 PSI: 50 gal/hr from pump = 3150cc/min total

15 PSI boost: 60 PSI: 58 gal/hr from pump = 3654cc/min total

 

Interpolating:

22 PSI boost: 67 PSI: 55.6 gal/hr from pump = 3502 cc/min total = 875 cc/min

 

 

I missed that, thanks.

http://www.bosch-motorsport.com/pdf/components/injection_valves/EV_14.pdf

 

Bosch offers so many different injectors, it's Impossible to say whether they bought the 980cc versions, but it would not be a surprise given the scalar Tony stated in an above post. But then it's a gamble what YOUR actual matched set will flow, since the whole point is that Bosch doesn't have perfect flow matching to begin with, or ID would be out of a job.

According to some quick iPhone math, that should make the calculated E10 scalar = 943cc

That works for my current findings very well, even if none of this matters

 

I also don't take into account here any skewed LGT ECU interpretation of RR's scalar conversion vs MAF. Completely over my head and shouldn't matter anyways. Hopefully

Also for Clint's gas map he was running 100% gasoline at the time. Rare now, I know

E10 is all I can find for 93

I created a spreadsheet that takes the ID Scalars and adjusts it for major blends of Ethanol/Gasoline.

PM me with your email address for an Excel version with formulas.

 

Base PSI	40	43.5	50	55	55	60	65	70	75	80	85	90	95	100	PSI
cc Increase Over -5psi value	55	50	50	45	45	40	40	40	45	45	50	45	Delta
100% Gas	980	1015	1035	1085	1135	1180	1225	1265	1305	1345	1390	1435	1485	1530	cc/min
90% Gas		942	975	994	1042	1091	1134	1177	1215	1254	1292	1336	1379	1427	1470	cc/min
30% Gas		711	737	751	787	824	856	889	918	947	976	1009	1041	1078	1110	cc/min
22.5% Gas	682	707	721	756	790	822	853	881	909	937	968	999	1034	1065	cc/min
15% Gas		654	677	690	724	757	787	817	844	870	897	927	957	990	1021	cc/min
0% Gas		596	617	630	660	690	718	745	769	794	818	845	873	903	931	cc/min

0.667	Percentile of E85 vs 100% Gasoline to achieve same AFRs														

 

It appears that 975cc is the scalar I should go with IF my logic is finally on the right track. Interestingly, a value of 975cc and standard T1 Latencies should get me hitting OL AFRs right where I want them. The value 975cc would have worked anyways, but now I have a quantitative metric to apply as I eventually increase fuel pressure as high as my pumps will handle. However, looking at the deltas in scalar per each increase in PSI, it doesn't look promising that this alone is enough to go by. Obviously I know flow sheets are just the ballpark, but I was expecting a more tested and linear increase in scalar. Wonder if latency will behave in the same way...

ID1000 Injector Scalar for Ethanol Blends CSV.csv