testing the new FIC 1100 cc/min saturated injectors
#106
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Big city, Bright lights
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
so a set of these just popped up in the for sale section, but im wondering what everyones thoughts are on these vs the 1050 sp's i was going to buy. right now my car is a stock turbo bolt ons track car with maxxed out stock injectors.
#108
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys
what do you think about my fic 1100 scalings? mrfred's fic 1100 linearization scaling applied.
ron93
idle and cruise looks good
LTFTLow: -1.75781
LTFTMid: -.390625
but i have big difference in map and afr.
in map 12 afr 10.8
thanks
ps: i haven't front o2. zt-2 simulate signal for it with 15.6 afr
what do you think about my fic 1100 scalings? mrfred's fic 1100 linearization scaling applied.
ron93
idle and cruise looks good
LTFTLow: -1.75781
LTFTMid: -.390625
but i have big difference in map and afr.
in map 12 afr 10.8
thanks
ps: i haven't front o2. zt-2 simulate signal for it with 15.6 afr
Last edited by memphis69; Mar 12, 2015 at 04:07 PM.
#109
14 V latency and injector scaling are both lower than I would expect. I've found it necessary to rescale the MAF table to get a good match between requested AFR and actual AFR. My thought would be to raise injector scaling to 1008 cc/min and then fix the mid trim using the MAF scaling table.
#110
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
14 V latency and injector scaling are both lower than I would expect. I've found it necessary to rescale the MAF table to get a good match between requested AFR and actual AFR. My thought would be to raise injector scaling to 1008 cc/min and then fix the mid trim using the MAF scaling table.
As mentioned in the linearization discussion thread, there is a matched injector latency that should be used along with the linearization value. For the FIC1650s, the 14 V latency should be 1.02 ms, and for the FIC1100s, is should be about 1.13 ms.
scaling: 1008 cc/min
volts latency (ms)
4.69 5.650
7.04 3.552
9.39 2.136
11.73 1.488
14.08 1.128
16.43 0.912
18.70 0.816
and tweak maf compensation table if i need?
#112
Evolving Member
guys
what do you think about my fic 1100 scalings? mrfred's fic 1100 linearization scaling applied.
ron93
idle and cruise looks good
LTFTLow: -1.75781
LTFTMid: -.390625
but i have big difference in map and afr.
in map 12 afr 10.8
thanks
ps: i haven't front o2. zt-2 simulate signal for it with 15.6 afr
what do you think about my fic 1100 scalings? mrfred's fic 1100 linearization scaling applied.
ron93
idle and cruise looks good
LTFTLow: -1.75781
LTFTMid: -.390625
but i have big difference in map and afr.
in map 12 afr 10.8
thanks
ps: i haven't front o2. zt-2 simulate signal for it with 15.6 afr
Scaling 1044
4.69 5.16
7.03 2.616
9.38 1.992
11.72 1.272
14.06 0.936
16.41 0.792
18.68 0.624
Maf tables are almost stock, no global changes, fuel map (see below)is smooth and even somewhere close (+\-0.5afr) to actual AFR in most areas.
The whole concept sounds reasonable to me, so I decided to mess with linearization table, hoping that it could make some things better than they are. So I've played with suggested scaling and latencies, tried to find my own numbers, but no luck. In most cases that just totally screwed up the fuel map without any benefits to any aspect of fueling... Gave up for now, went back to my original proven settings.
Last edited by Biggy VIII; Mar 15, 2015 at 05:40 PM.
#113
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Big city, Bright lights
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
so just in case anyone finds this thread by searching. mrfred's scaling/latency on the first page is almost dead on for the 1050sp's also (JohnBradley was nice enough to tell me to use the 1100 settings).
after a short drive ive got -3 and -5 for trims. will drive more and see if they settle tomorrow.
if everything is still a tad negative id want to lower the latency a little more correct? it doesnt seem like my ecu flash wants to increment the latency value using the bracket keys (makes a huge jump), so how do i determine how much to reduce the latency?
after a short drive ive got -3 and -5 for trims. will drive more and see if they settle tomorrow.
if everything is still a tad negative id want to lower the latency a little more correct? it doesnt seem like my ecu flash wants to increment the latency value using the bracket keys (makes a huge jump), so how do i determine how much to reduce the latency?
#114
so just in case anyone finds this thread by searching. mrfred's scaling/latency on the first page is almost dead on for the 1050sp's also (JohnBradley was nice enough to tell me to use the 1100 settings).
after a short drive ive got -3 and -5 for trims. will drive more and see if they settle tomorrow.
if everything is still a tad negative id want to lower the latency a little more correct? it doesnt seem like my ecu flash wants to increment the latency value using the bracket keys (makes a huge jump), so how do i determine how much to reduce the latency?
after a short drive ive got -3 and -5 for trims. will drive more and see if they settle tomorrow.
if everything is still a tad negative id want to lower the latency a little more correct? it doesnt seem like my ecu flash wants to increment the latency value using the bracket keys (makes a huge jump), so how do i determine how much to reduce the latency?
#115
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrfred, do you have stock 8859 maf compensation table?
found that i have fq360 maf smooting table
want fully copy you injectors size and scalings. and maf compensation.
i have stock intake box and pipe
ps: alreadi found other tread (fic2150) where you show maf smooting filled with 128 and tweaked other maf table
thank you!
found that i have fq360 maf smooting table
want fully copy you injectors size and scalings. and maf compensation.
i have stock intake box and pipe
ps: alreadi found other tread (fic2150) where you show maf smooting filled with 128 and tweaked other maf table
thank you!
Last edited by memphis69; Mar 20, 2015 at 05:01 PM.
#116
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Big city, Bright lights
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
10 Posts
If both trims are negative, I suggest starting first by increasing injector scaling by one step, especially if cruise trim is more negative than idle trim. If you find there is a need to decrease the injector latency, the minimum step size is ~0.025 ms. If your ECUFlash def has a large step size programmed into the bracket setting, then use the "add to" option to add "-0.025 ms".
#117
Here are all my modified settings for FIC1100s. A few notes:
The injector scaling listed there is for when I was running 58 psi base fuel pressure. For standard 43.5 psi base pressure, 680 cc/min should be used:
These settings were determined from a tuning session before I started using the pulsewidth linearization table. I have not tried FIC1100s with the pulsewidth linearization. If you want to use the FIC1100 pulsewidth linearization values that I posted in the other thread, then use the latency values from the first post in this thread, and then you'll likely need to retune the MAF scaling table somewhat.
The injector scaling listed there is for when I was running 58 psi base fuel pressure. For standard 43.5 psi base pressure, 680 cc/min should be used:
These settings were determined from a tuning session before I started using the pulsewidth linearization table. I have not tried FIC1100s with the pulsewidth linearization. If you want to use the FIC1100 pulsewidth linearization values that I posted in the other thread, then use the latency values from the first post in this thread, and then you'll likely need to retune the MAF scaling table somewhat.
Last edited by mrfred; Mar 23, 2015 at 04:48 PM.
#118
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
latency on last pic bit higher than in 1st post
i'm not sure that i can copy your maf comp and maf scaling tables, cause you have bbk-3b- so not stock intake.
do you recommend tweak this tables like you? maf comp filled by 128 and tune maf scaling or i can tune only my maf comp table? what a reason, it's easier?
thank you!
i'm not sure that i can copy your maf comp and maf scaling tables, cause you have bbk-3b- so not stock intake.
do you recommend tweak this tables like you? maf comp filled by 128 and tune maf scaling or i can tune only my maf comp table? what a reason, it's easier?
thank you!
#119
latency on last pic bit higher than in 1st post
i'm not sure that i can copy your maf comp and maf scaling tables, cause you have bbk-3b- so not stock intake.
do you recommend tweak this tables like you? maf comp filled by 128 and tune maf scaling or i can tune only my maf comp table? what a reason, it's easier?
thank you!
i'm not sure that i can copy your maf comp and maf scaling tables, cause you have bbk-3b- so not stock intake.
do you recommend tweak this tables like you? maf comp filled by 128 and tune maf scaling or i can tune only my maf comp table? what a reason, it's easier?
thank you!
#120
Newbie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: earth
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrfred, can you explain your latency on last pic?
in 1st post you put scaling which corresponds with fic1100 linearization thread:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...0-fic1650.html
but in your last pic latency bit higher, why?
#109
ps: sync accel enrichment is the same "Sync Load Accel Compensation vs RPM"? address 3278
tank you!
in 1st post you put scaling which corresponds with fic1100 linearization thread:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...0-fic1650.html
As mentioned in the linearization discussion thread, there is a matched injector latency that should be used along with the linearization value. For the FIC1650s, the 14 V latency should be 1.02 ms, and for the FIC1100s, is should be about 1.13 ms.
#109
14 V latency and injector scaling are both lower than I would expect. I've found it necessary to rescale the MAF table to get a good match between requested AFR and actual AFR. My thought would be to raise injector scaling to 1008 cc/min and then fix the mid trim using the MAF scaling table.
tank you!