Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Good morning, gents, 

I recently bought and installed the Bosch EV14 1000cc injectors from NZEFI and it included a paper with injector data for tuning, but the nearest tuner is nearly three hours away, and I just need the car to drive normally until I can make time for the trip. I will attach the picture. I have ap Power FC and was wondering if it was possible to input any data through the FC controller to improve its performance, for the time being. DDD0F5C0-7221-4B28-AC58-E1A87FF96504.thumb.jpeg.85b1dd3d1a1afb96fe7a816397418674.jpeg

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/482715-r32-gtr-1000cc-injector-data-help/
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2021 at 4:10 PM, Murray_Calavera said:

What injectors did you have before you installed the EV14's?

I had the Nismo 555cc injectors. The injector data on my PFC showed 82% at 0.06ms.  
 

 

 

 F8D5A44E-8A53-445C-B0EE-CDB58F116B91.thumb.jpeg.efc1fe4307c2e292d57045ca52d171d9.jpeg

Edited by BourneToLive

Before you start changing anything, do you have a wideband o2 gauge installed? 

Are you just trying to safely limp the car to the tuner or are you planning to drive the car around normally and eventually take the car to the tuner? 

On 8/8/2021 at 9:46 PM, Murray_Calavera said:

Before you start changing anything, do you have a wideband o2 gauge installed? 

Are you just trying to safely limp the car to the tuner or are you planning to drive the car around normally and eventually take the car to the tuner? 

I don’t have a wideband. 
I intend on driving it normally until I get it to the tuner in a few days. As of now, it idles fine and cruises fine. I just don’t want to risk breaking anything. 

  • 2 weeks later...

This, while disappointing isn't entirely inaccurate.

There's only so accurate you can get when you have larger injectors and a certain 'step' you have to use to drive them. The minimum adjustment the powerFC can make results in it being too rich on one setting, and too lean on the other.

Newer ECU's allow for finer 'steps' which means these can be dialled in more.

That said, you'd think the tuner would at least be able to get it running with the whole '1 step too rich' being the norm. Especially after a 3 hour drive..

  • Like 1
On 19/08/2021 at 7:21 PM, BourneToLive said:

I took my car to a tuner today and he said the injectors are too big for the PowerFC to handle. Told me to get a better ECU. 

Complete bullshit, power fc handles them fine 

Isn't the whole point of any standalone ECU to be able to put in injector characterization data and just have everything work unlike a Nissan ECU where prior to Nistune FP you had change MAF + injector together to keep load scales roughly in the right place? Searching around online it looks pretty simple to change injector settings while keeping the rest of the map the same, just write down the old settings for injector flow/latency before you start changing things.

The problem with older/cruder standalones is not that you can't set the ECU to know what their flow data is, it is that they struggle to control the injectors to really short pulsewidths, which is what is required to idle (and possibly even light cruise/trasnsient) on very big injectors.

The PowerFC is old and crude. So it's not ideal for large injectors. But the evidence does show that plenty of people have successfully run ~1000cc injectors on FCs. They just probably have fat idle mixtures (because the alternative is lean idle, which is terrible).

The tuner I took my car to is famous in Japan, and I assume he doesn’t want to taint his reputation by cutting corners and doing a risky tune. From just installing the injectors and without making changes, the car was able to start and idled better than most eco cars that tremble like crazy. It cruises fine, but runs very rich. I can tell from the popcorn in the rear from just lightly letting off the gas pedal and the smell (no leaks). I was able to drive it for a six hour round trip without any issue, other than what seemed like misfires at fifth gear below 2500rpm. This is my daily at the moment, and I know it’s risky to drive it without a tune, but four of my six cylinders were running very lean and two of them were very rich with the old injectors. I can’t extract my current map and send it to a tuner either because I don’t have a Hako or Datalogit to do so. Unless someone has one they want to sell. 

Of course it's rich if it was set to 550cc injectors and you threw 1000cc in there without changes... it's injecting at least 35% more fuel than it should be everywhere !

The way it works is your power fc is factory calibrated to the standard factory injectors, so GTR 440cc low impedance injectors by default. The method to change to 550cc is 440/550 = 0.8 or 80%, hence why your injector settings were at 82%.

On 08/08/2021 at 8:59 PM, BourneToLive said:


F5C821C7-F0C3-4B06-88D1-EC30C79AEE96.thumb.jpeg.4aa0e824b525589fe5ceaf3a30b6c3b0.jpeg

To set your injectors for the 1000cc ones is the same. As your data says they are 906cc at 3bar, it is 440cc/906cc = 0.4856, so you set your injectors to 48.5 - 49% - job done. If your tune was any good in the first place it will be a least 95%+ the same.

Also to note as the factory fitted injectors are low impedance as are the Nismos, so you need to delete the injector resistor ballast to run high impedance injectors. They are Bosch units they supply and should have come with one of these which I hope you are using:

image.png.46e5ac17b079a28457e12c13be318a4d.png

On 8/20/2021 at 9:00 PM, BK said:

Of course it's rich if it was set to 550cc injectors and you threw 1000cc in there without changes... it's injecting at least 35% more fuel than it should be everywhere !

The way it works is your power fc is factory calibrated to the standard factory injectors, so GTR 440cc low impedance injectors by default. The method to change to 550cc is 440/550 = 0.8 or 80%, hence why your injector settings were at 82%.

To set your injectors for the 1000cc ones is the same. As your data says they are 906cc at 3bar, it is 440cc/906cc = 0.4856, so you set your injectors to 48.5 - 49% - job done. If your tune was any good in the first place it will be a least 95%+ the same.

Also to note as the factory fitted injectors are low impedance as are the Nismos, so you need to delete the injector resistor ballast to run high impedance injectors. They are Bosch units they supply and should have come with one of these which I hope you are using:

image.png.46e5ac17b079a28457e12c13be318a4d.png

I had already installed the ballast delete with the injectors. And I did research on the changes to Injector duty to compensate for the bigger injectors yesterday and gave it a shot. I set it to 52.1% at 0.06 and it stalled out any time I came to a stop, so I set it to 74.1% instead and it fixed that issue. Although, since my last tuner tuned the ECU to work with the 555cc injectors, I based my calculations on the previous injectors and came to ~64%. 48% turns the car and then shuts off immediately. 

Edited by BourneToLive
Typo
On 8/20/2021 at 10:24 PM, BourneToLive said:

48% turns the car and then shuts off immediately. 

That would likely be a dead time issue and also related to the very short pulse widths required to idle it. The short pulse width will be badly affected by the dead time. Effectively you need "less scaling" at the low end (effectively giving you the ~75% that's working for you) and "more scaling" (which is actually "correct scaling") at larger loads.

I know this sounds like it contradicts what my first post said, but it doesn't really. The problem of older slower ECUs managing short pulsewidths is still a thing.

I assume that can’t be adjusted without accessing the current map with an FC Hako or Datalogit, correct? 
 

Are the digits on the right (+0.06) the dead time? 
I calculated:

1000cc injectors -> 0.989 @ 14V

555cc injectors -> 0.6

0.989-0.6= 0.389 dead time

Or at least the nearest value I can get it to. 
 

and the injectors (based on last tune):

555/906= 0.612 or 61.2%

Is this correct? 

 

 

Edited by BourneToLive

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

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...