So i'm not sure how many of you have tuned a turbo eco using the portfueler, but i figure i'd share and get some feedback/suggestions/criticism. This is kinda long and complicated, and if it helps anyone PM me and i'll send the spreadsheet referenced.
Qwibby is running an off the shelf portfueler (PF) set up with stock injectors in the primary rail, and the 550cc/min RCs in the PF rail. The portfueler uses the R4 splitsecond software, which is bacially a glorified extra injector controler. It has a high resolution RPM vs MAP fueling map in 500 rpm increments from 0-8000rpm and 0.5psi increments from -4 to 26 psig. The software fuels by injector pulsewidth and inputs are to a precision of 0.1ms pulsewidth.
I suppose you could log the PF's built in map sensor, but we used HPT to set up a histogram that matches the PF map using a AEM wideband and digital boost gauge. The histogram logged AFR % error. The hard part is getting that data to the R4 software on the PF. It is quite primative and doesn't even use ctrl c/v/x/a window commands - rather it has select all, copy and paste buttons. It has an "autofill" function that is basically the same as HPT's interpolate between corners function. NO smoothing, NO paste special. So we used an excel spreadsheet that takes the current PF map and modifies it by the HPT histogram data and spits out a new map. Now, typically we use paste special and some smoothing in HPT, so the smoothing has to be done manually and can be tedious. In the end it worked out with the following caveats:
Setting a boost friendly commanded AFR in HPT's power enrichment settings results in beyond maxing out the stock injectors when stock-ish high rpm VE tables are used. We cut back big time in the high rpm/high load region to attain less than 80% IDC. In the back of my mind i had a problem with this because the VE doesn't at all match what the engine is really doing; but it realy can't right? It's a turbocharged engine using stock injectors as far as HPT is concerned, so it is a necessity the way we did things. We ended up pulling about 25% total.
The other problem is tuning via injector pulsewidth. 0.1 miliseconds might sound like a fine enough increment, but when you have 1.0ms in a cell, and your log shows the need for a 5% change, you really can't do much with the PF. This problem kind of ironed itself out when we pulled enough fuel in HPT to bring the stock injectors to 80%IDC, however it's an issue in general, mostly at low to mid rpm and low boost.
Now, the next idea to try is using the excel sheet to command AFR instead of HPT. Keep boost friendly PE engagement thresholds in HPT, but command 13.0:1 or so, and leave the stock VE tables be with the exception of some fine tuning and smoothing. This will keep the stock injectors in check. Then take the sheet i described and set up commanded AFRs based on the PF map - which means you can vary the AFR by RPM and boost to an extent - something we cannot do in HPT per say. Then log raw AFRs vs the PF map and have the spreadsheet spit out a new map based on logged vs commnaded in the sheet. It sounds more complicated than it is.
So feel free to post up feedback and suggestions towards making more effecient use of the system and more effectively tuning two systems in tandem
on this page is a nice spreadsheet designed for hptuners and the 05+ eco guys. They supposedly have a really nice excel smoothing function.
Your text to link here...
1994 Saturn SL2 Home Coming Edition: backup car
2002 Chevy Cavalier LS Sport Coupe: In a Junk Yard
1995 Mazda Miata R-package Class=STR
Sponsored by:
Kronos Performance
WPI Class of '12 Mechanical Engineering
WPI SAE Risk and Sustainability Management Officer
for some reason i find myself reading these tuning threads...
FAWK! I has no idea what your talking about...
I respect the fact that you posted your findings to help others....cause we all need help tuning....shoot I need help tuning speed density on my LD9
GMR has got nothing on this
Awesome! I had wondered how those worked with one another. Im no tuner but I have learned a lot about tuning this year and enjoy reading these threads.
I have never tuned a car using the PF, but using this idea
"
Now, the next idea to try is using the excel sheet to command AFR instead of HPT. Keep boost friendly PE engagement thresholds in HPT, but command 13.0:1 or so, and leave the stock VE tables be with the exception of some fine tuning and smoothing. This will keep the stock injectors in check. Then take the sheet i described and set up commanded AFRs based on the PF map - which means you can vary the AFR by RPM and boost to an extent - something we cannot do in HPT per say. Then log raw AFRs vs the PF map and have the spreadsheet spit out a new map based on logged vs commnaded in the sheet. It sounds more complicated than it is."
I think would be best. Seeing the PF was intended to be used on a stock car, injectors, ECU etc... Just use the VE fields for fine tuning.
FU Tuning
I tend to agree, John. Unfortunately i thought of the idea driving home after tuning the car with the first method lol
I don't mean to oversimplify, but we always leave the stock PCM tuning alone when using PortFueler. Have you tried this? Of course, on 2004-2005 cars, one should change out the long PE delay to the 2003 and earlier setting. Other than that, the stock tuning and injectors are well suited to the car's normally aspirated needs.
I also note you're using 550 cc injectors for enrichment. That's rather large, quite a bit larger than we recommend, and could make low-speed tuning tricky,
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, December 06, 2010 5:24 AM
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
I boost, therefore I am wrote:I don't mean to oversimplify, but we always leave the stock PCM tuning alone when using PortFueler. Have you tried this? Of course, on 2004-2005 cars, one should change out the long PE delay to the 2003 and earlier setting. Other than that, the stock tuning and injectors are well suited to the car's normally aspirated needs.
I also note you're using 550 cc injectors for enrichment. That's rather large, quite a bit larger than we recommend, and could make low-speed tuning tricky,
For off the shelf HRC kit installs, that may be fine, but this is an LE5 bottom end swapped, comp stage 3 cammed car. Adjustments need to be made in HPT regardless of how the portfueler is tuned. I appreciate the feedback anyways, but i was not so much looking for "should i tune HPT", so much as how others have interfaced the two systems. After all, even on a stock L61 with off the shelf installs, there are improvements to be made beyond adjusting just the PE delay.
Your point is well taken on the 550 cc injectors. Low rpm/low boost areas are around 1.0ms pulsewidth and really can't be fine tuned with this system. On the other hand, on 11psi and 7000rpm we are using over a third of those injectors, and the ultimate goal is more ambitions than 11psi.
oldskool (eco meatcake) wrote:I boost, therefore I am wrote:I don't mean to oversimplify, but we always leave the stock PCM tuning alone when using PortFueler. Have you tried this? Of course, on 2004-2005 cars, one should change out the long PE delay to the 2003 and earlier setting. Other than that, the stock tuning and injectors are well suited to the car's normally aspirated needs.
I also note you're using 550 cc injectors for enrichment. That's rather large, quite a bit larger than we recommend, and could make low-speed tuning tricky,
For off the shelf HRC kit installs, that may be fine, but this is an LE5 bottom end swapped, comp stage 3 cammed car. Adjustments need to be made in HPT regardless of how the portfueler is tuned. I appreciate the feedback anyways, but i was not so much looking for "should i tune HPT", so much as how others have interfaced the two systems. After all, even on a stock L61 with off the shelf installs, there are improvements to be made beyond adjusting just the PE delay.
Your point is well taken on the 550 cc injectors. Low rpm/low boost areas are around 1.0ms pulsewidth and really can't be fine tuned with this system. On the other hand, on 11psi and 7000rpm we are using over a third of those injectors, and the ultimate goal is more ambitions than 11psi.
Ah yes, you have much work to do in the N/A range with this applicaiton then; please forgive me for not having noticed the LE5 aspect.
And you are also correct in that HPT can be used for more than just PE delay, even with an otherwise stock airflow L61 2.2 engine with PortFueler. Nonetheless, what I was addressing was the "need" for such tuning on an otherwise stock airflow engine. Now, defining this "need" is as subjective a debate as it gets, no doubt, and could fill pages! However, as even a completely stock car can benefit somewhat, from further tuning, this point is not completely relevant to the convo at hand.
So, back to what you are trying to accomplish. Here are some considerations:
1. Have you calculated the total fuel requirement for the projected max power of this combo, and compared it to the total fuel injector capacity onboard? You may be in excess of the need, which could suggest an option of smaller PortFueler injectors. For comparison's sake, we put down 406 WHP with S20G, stock injectors and the standard PF injectors (415cc).
2. If you feel the total fuel capacity is not in excess of your max target, consider larger main injectors, and smaller PF injectors. Since you are needing to completely re-map the NA sectors for the LE5 anyway, this should not complicate matters too much.
3. Is the fuel pressure referenced to boost pressure in a 1:1 ratio? If not, consider doing so, whcih may allow smaller PF injectors to be sufficient.
4. Some combination of the above.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, December 06, 2010 8:26 AM
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Haha portf@cker
z28guy(KGM BEOTCH)
Thanks Bill. The system in question does not have a boost referenced FPR, it uses a stock L61 FPR.
We toyed with the idea of larger injectors in the primary rail, but it seemed like given the final (to date) results we achieved did not warrent the extra expense and time to tweak largrer primary rail injectors. As far as the PF rail injectors, switching to 415cc/min is very roughly a 25% decrease in flow from what's in there now, so in cells where we have 1.0ms we would now have approximately 1.3ms. This is not a drastic enough change to handle the fine tuning I was talking about above, a 5% AFR error would still be difficult to correct in that cell. I generally like to keep the AFR errors under 3% especially on boosted apps where weather changes can cause a bigger swing. IDK, maybe i am overcomplicating it a bit, but i think good results are achievable on the existing hardware, it's just a matter of more tedious fine tuning. Phil could drop another 500+ dollars on switching around injectors and upgrading the FPR, but that money is better spent elsewhere; i "think" he's happy with the tune as it sits now until moar power is upon us
So what is the norm for customers who purchase the standard fare of products - do they upgrade both primary injectors and the FPR? And is this in addition to upgrading the main rail injectors?
oldskool (eco meatcake) wrote:Thanks Bill. The system in question does not have a boost referenced FPR, it uses a stock L61 FPR.
We toyed with the idea of larger injectors in the primary rail, but it seemed like given the final (to date) results we achieved did not warrent the extra expense and time to tweak largrer primary rail injectors. As far as the PF rail injectors, switching to 415cc/min is very roughly a 25% decrease in flow from what's in there now, so in cells where we have 1.0ms we would now have approximately 1.3ms. This is not a drastic enough change to handle the fine tuning I was talking about above, a 5% AFR error would still be difficult to correct in that cell. I generally like to keep the AFR errors under 3% especially on boosted apps where weather changes can cause a bigger swing. IDK, maybe i am overcomplicating it a bit, but i think good results are achievable on the existing hardware, it's just a matter of more tedious fine tuning. Phil could drop another 500+ dollars on switching around injectors and upgrading the FPR, but that money is better spent elsewhere; i "think" he's happy with the tune as it sits now until moar power is upon us
So what is the norm for customers who purchase the standard fare of products - do they upgrade both primary injectors and the FPR? And is this in addition to upgrading the main rail injectors?
For what it's worth, I think you're splitting hairs on the low-speed boosted tuning, as a window of anything from 11.0 to 13.0:1 will work fine there, and that's nearly a 20% spread. You should be able to hit that. Toss the histograms and perfectionism aside, and tune it until it runs well. You know, the "old-skool" way
On a standard PortFueler installation, we retain the stock FPR and just reference the pressure signal to the compressor housing so we get a 1:1 fuel pressure rise with boost. That helps the 415cc injectors along nicely. Not to pick on your math, but the difference between a 415 and a 750 is more than 25%. 415 is 55% of 750, so the 750 is 45% larger. Additionally, the ultra low performance of most 750cc injectors is...to put it lightly...horrid. The Bosch and ACCEL 415's we use are much more controllable at small PW's, with much more uniform, repeatable perfomance, and superior atomization.
That is the standard fare, actually...stock injectors with the 415cc PF injectors and stock FPR. The only time we see people venturing into larger-than-stock primary injectros is, well...in cases such as this, where they are also playing about with the N/A side of the equation. The possibilities are nigh limitless once you start working with both the stock and PF injector sizes!
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
First of all the car is @!#$ awesome the way it is, I loveit, drives amazing and has rock solid afr's in boost right where I want it. Ryan is an awesome tuner who is a perfectionist because he wants it right, not some ass backwards way of tuning. Tune both the stock ECU AND PF to gain the best daily driving and best boost driving. No arguing about it, secondly, my injectors are fine the way they are, 550cc RC Injectors are just as good as accel or bosch.
Third, who said I had 750cc? I have 550cc injectors Bill.
LE61T PTE6262 Powered
Glad you love it! There's no better way to go. As I mentioned, the proof is in the way it runs, not in the histograms showing small percentage shifts. Ryan's done a good job with it, Iam certain!
Woops! Sorry on the 750 error. But nonetheless, the larger injectors, and in particular the custom RC-built ones, do suffer from poor low-speed characteristics, especially when used as a secondary injector. This is not meant to disparage them; it is simply an aspect of known injector characteristics. The ACCEL and Bosch units we specify, on the other hand, are prized for their low-speed characteristics, as they are much more of an OEM-spec nozzle. That they are also of a smaller flow range is another huge factor.
Folks tend to focus on the wide-open aspects of a fuel injector, and that's typically the most important feature in determining their suitability for a given application...their max flow. However, every injector also has a minimum pulse width rating, under which its performance will suffer. It's not unlike what big cams do to the idle quality of a car. Big pintiles and orifices in an injector simply cannot perform well at very low flows.
Why is this a factor with secondary injector systems like PortFueler? When a large injector is used as the primary injector, it typically will not be asked to provide performance in the less than 1.5 ms range. It takes that much fuel to support idle requirements, so that's the least it will ever be asked to flow. However, in a secondary injector system, we phase in the injectors from zero PW, and can ask for performance below 1.5 MS. This is where the larger (and/or custom-built) injectors can come up short, as they tend to be sputtering and inconsistent in their fuel volume at such low flows/pulsewidths. It may, or may not, affect the way the car feels. Typically, it would be a nuance only discovered by someone as careful as Ryan.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Point taken, Bill. We started with the stock injectors at 108% IDC, in boost AFRs were pegged rich on the WBO2, and launching the car was a chore. The car runs ~11.2: +/- 0.3 afr in boost as it is, and the transition is silky smooth without running the stock injectors over 80% IDC. The thing is, as long as i'm working on someone else's car (which is their pride and joy, their paycheck, ect all of the above), I want it perfect. I've seen what a lousy tune does - it may not be immediate in every situation but it's a matter of time. So if something on Phil's car would break I want him to be able to look me in the eye and say "well it wasn't the tune!" Or anyone's that i touch for that matter. A perfect tune yields the best/safest power and maximizes economy. The only way to improve beyond that is hop on a dyno and start trying different combos of conditions to squeeze that little extra out of it.
Perfectionism aside, understand that it takes more work than changing an RPM PE delay to get the car where we wanted it. The more time and care you put into the tune, the better results you get
This thread was really directed at how others strive towards their goals on this combo - so thank you for sharing your methods. I guess what i was really loooking for in this thread was if others found a more efficient way to the results that we were looking for.
But yeah Phil's car has 550s in the PF rail - my math is correct lol.
Oh, of course it takes more than PE delay...it's not a stock L61, lol! Far from it, from what I can see.
The perfectionism I was referring to primarily was that PortFueler transition and the desire to hit the AFR within a couple percent in that region. My advice is not to sweat that portion to that degree. All the rest of what you say regarding doing a good job is spot on, and I'd never advise otherwise. Please pardon if you got any other impression
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Quote:
the proof is in the way it runs, not in the histograms showing small percentage
Sorry I know my comment is not directly related to this post, but the above comment. I have found that the way the car runs is directly related to the percentages in the histograms, STFT's, and LTFT's.
FU Tuning
Screaming for Mercy!! wrote:Quote:
the proof is in the way it runs, not in the histograms showing small percentage
Sorry I know my comment is not directly related to this post, but the above comment. I have found that the way the car runs is directly related to the percentages in the histograms, STFT's, and LTFT's.
Without a doubt, a true statement from you. I fear you may take what I said too literally, and too generally. Bear in mind, my statement was made regarding Ryan's attempt to closely control transitional fueling at onset of PortFueler operation, using histograms to target a very specific AFR, more specific than needed to achieve good driveability or a safe tune in that region. He didn't know it at the time, but being saddled with secondary injectors that have poor performance in that region of small PW opening left him trying to achieve a degree of AFR control that is simply not necessary. In this case, not only is the histogram being used outside its intended parameters, but the margin of AFR error attempted is beyond what the equipment can readily achieve, or what is necessary for the task at hand.
Of course, my statement was not a blanket dismissal of histograms. Nonetheless, this has been a textbook example of why they are not always the last word. Like any tuning tool, they have their place. And like any aspect of tuning, they are just that..,one aspect. My experience aside, Phil's testimony that the car runs wonderfully bears this out
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
Maybe it wasn't clear from the previous posts, be we
were able to tame the transition only through careful manipulation of both systems in tandem. The combination of pulling back the stock injectors to maintain under 80% IDC, as well as adjusting the TPS vs RPM enable settings and RPM multiplier, and fine tuning the PF allowed a nice steady transition from cruising to part throttle/part boost to all in. It should be clear w/o saying, but this is not something we could do with the PF software alone - it took about 3-4 cycles through the spreadsheet . The split second software has no concept of commanded AFR, which we worked around using hpt, and will work in the future using the second spreadsheet described earlier.
oldskool (eco meatcake) wrote:Maybe it wasn't clear from the previous posts, be we were able to tame the transition only through careful manipulation of both systems in tandem. The combination of pulling back the stock injectors to maintain under 80% IDC, as well as adjusting the TPS vs RPM enable settings and RPM multiplier, and fine tuning the PF allowed a nice steady transition from cruising to part throttle/part boost to all in. It should be clear w/o saying, but this is not something we could do with the PF software alone - it took about 3-4 cycles through the spreadsheet . The split second software has no concept of commanded AFR, which we worked around using hpt, and will work in the future using the second spreadsheet described earlier.
Ah, so you DID nail itl! I was of the (apparently mistaken) impression that you were looking for ideas to help overcome issues you were having. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification, and thanks for doing such a good job with Qwibby's LE5 monster! I'll bet it's one torquey motha. I'd love to get a ride in it, as I have had a blast with LE5 in the cars it comes in stock.
Bill Hahn Jr.
Hahn RaceCraft
World's Quickest and Fastest Street J-Bodies
Turbocharging GM FWD's since 1988
www.turbosystem.com
