Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok, lets see if I can explain this cleary :) I have just recently upgraded my fuel system again, and since putting in the powerfc injector settings the car wont start. ( R32 GTR RB26 )

The car was running nismo 600cc injectors and now I am running the Sard 800cc twin sprays.

Using the properties for the injectors:

Stock Injectors are 444cc/0.77msec latency

Old Injectors are: 600cc/0.81msec latency

New Injectors are: 800cc/1.10msec latency

The oringinal settings for the 600cc's on the powerfc were:

Injector- 74% (444/600) Latency- +0.04 (0.81-0.77)

that obviosly ran fine....

soooo, first try I put in the settings for the new injectors

Injector- 55% (444/800) and Lantency- +0.33 (1.10-0.77)

...........doesn't start :P

so I thought.... well its tuned for the 600s, so maybe I'll do the injectors corrections for them?

Injector- 75% (600/800) and Latency- +0.29 (1.10-0.81)

...........doesn't start :)

so now I've checked fuel pressure in the rail and going by the manual of 42psi, its all there, holds pressure on purge and cranking...

am I doing the injector corrections right??? The battery is now being recharged from been drained flat from cranking and purging pumps, so I'm trying to find if I'm missing something. :kiss:

Edited by CameronBNR32
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/157522-powerfc-new-injector-settings/
Share on other sites

anything odd in SENSOR SW CHECK ?

engine check light come on ?

does the engine start and then stall or wont start?

I did check all the sensors and they were all registering

The engine will sometimes 'puff' but wont get anywhere near idling/starting so all the dash lights are still on.

At the moment I'm pulling out the plugs to see if they are wet and see if any fuel is actually getting in there.

logic says to me it should be;

Old Injectors are: 444cc/0.77msec latency

New Injectors are: 800cc/1.10msec latency

and then do it based on that, forget that you have 600cs previously

I pulled the plugs out, the injectors were damp, but not as wet as I would expect them to be..

Does anyone know the exact Latency for the Sard 800cc Twin Sprays? I only found one resource that said 1.10msec... couldnt find much info at all. :(

The oringinal settings for the 600cc's on the powerfc were:

Injector- 74% (444/600) Latency- +0.4 (0.81-0.77)

don't u mean .81-.77=.04 .............maybe double check your input for the 800's

It was 0.04 in the powerfc, just a typo by me :laugh:

thanks

Outta interest, do you guys change your values and the tune is still perfect with the bigger injectors...so WOT whenever or do you take it easy and just use it as a bandaid type fix....ie enough to get you to a tuner to get it sorted properly?

When you change injector sizing, for what ever reason, you will need to have the map touched up to suit as the change in size can affect the fuel delivery slightly at certain loads and RPM. The touch up is a quick affair that would only take an hour at the most. BUT, if you're not fussy, you can get away with no changes whatsoever. Its up to you.

In other areas such as startup fuel and accel pump fuel, these settings are in injector ms times and ARE NOT CHANGED WHEN YOU RESCALE THE INJECTORS !!!!.

That lovely puff of black smoke, even on light throttle changes is the accel pump fuel and with larger injectors like 700CC can be a cloud of black smoke at the lights. The PFC settings for accel pump fuel are around 4.5 to 5ms standard and with larger injectors I have reduced these times to about 1.2 to 1.5ms with no black smoke and perfect throttle response (actually got better the more I reduced it) . Fuel usage also reduced dramatically.

Hope this helps,

Mike

The oringinal settings for the 600cc's on the powerfc were:

Injector- 74% (444/600) Latency- +0.4 (0.81-0.77)

don't u mean .81-.77=.04 .............maybe double check your input for the 800's

I set my PFC to these settings after installing 600cc injectors and had no luck getting my car to idle at all. Had to take it in for a retune in the end :)

  • 1 month later...

Cameron,

A mate recently dropped a set of Sard 800cc twinsprays in to his setup.

He runs the rb20det pfc on his rb30det and using the technically correct values the thing just would not run.

I played with the values (what they are; I can't remember) until it ran and got the o2 sensor swinging.

The only thing I could think of is the twinsprays some how throw everything out, we didn't check fuel pressure all though once on the dyno all appeared to be good. Perfect cold/warm starts, no drivability issues, excellent fuel economy and expected duty cycle for the power being made.

To this day it still won't run with the technically correct injector size and lag trim.

He also runs a Z32 afm.

I've seen the rb20t pfc do funky things previously when running a non-std afm.

Your problem isn't related but for others in the future. :O

I've just done a basic road tune. injector lag is set to +32, and correction 55%. AFM correction however has been changed so at idle is 50% which quickly changes to 115% after 1.5v on the AFM's.....very strange. I also changed the correction values for voltage standard injectors are .772 @ 14v so I calculated the % change at each voltage and input the values for 1.10msec injectors. I've also halved the accel enrichment which seems to run well. Car runs 1.8bar nicely with very stable AFR and very low knock.....just have to get some more spark...I think my plugs are already at .6mm ...damn it, lol

Quote

"SARD 800cc twin hole

Injector- 55% (444/800) and Lantency- +0.33 (1.10-0.77)"

Are these the correct settings, I have just installed some.

going by the PFC FAQ .77-1.10 = minus .33 ?????

PFC FAQ is wrong,

its definately

New lag time - old lag time. so +.33 for my 800cc 1.10msec

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry BOOSTD, I havn't been checking back with this thread as I thought it had died.

The injector lag and size value caculation I worked off was in my powerfc user manual.

The settings I have in my car at the moment are:

Injector- 55% (444/800)

Lantency- +0.33 (1.10-0.77

it starts and runs, but runs rich (I'm not sure the reason to running rich is the setting on the new fuel regulator).

Cubes- RB20 powerfc on a RB30? wouldn't that be the problem :D

I've got to get my tuned asap, hasnt moved since the thread has been made! I need to stop modifing the dam thing!

Edited by CameronBNR32

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...