Mislabeling: IFR & IPVA Row Labels

[RWTD]

Sorry, didn't know where to post this, but I felt inclined to help out the community.

I came across a mislabeling in EFIL. Basically, on the Gen 4 vehicles with the double range IFR (127 lb/hr versus 63.5), on the "Injector Flow Rate" and "Injector Pulsewidth Voltage Adjustment" tables, GM went to a 20 kPa per row label versus a 16 kPa per row label. EFIL uses in increments of 16 kPa on these vehicles.

I was working online with Christian from Auto X Dyno tonight, setting up some injector data for a twin-turbo 2010 Camaro he's tuning tomorrow, when I noticed the error. I saw it instantly, since an unnamed competitor of EFIL (I'm considering switching over :)) also had this issue back late last year (which they corrected in Oct. 2009).

Hopefully Paul will read this and get it corrected ASAP. For those of you who have aftermarket injectors and have been tuning (or had been tuned) with what you thought was proper injector data (i.e. those who are using Greg Banish's [eficalibrator] calibration data for them), you may want to revisit your injector tables once you get the corrected database, as your inputted calibration data can be way off, especially in the higher kPa/psi. If this is the case, you'll need to input the correct data, and then revisit your MAF and/or VE tables (hopefully you use these, and not rape the PE table, right? ;)).

Here's what I'm describing ("Wrong" is how it is currently listed, but "Right" is how it should be listed):



kPa
Wrong Right
128 128
144 148
160 168
176 188
192 208
208 228
224 248
240 268
256 288
272 308
288 328
304 348
320 368
336 388
352 408
368 428
384 448
400 468
416 488
432 508
448 528
464 548
480 568
496 588
512 608
528 628
544 648
560 668
576 688
592 708
608 728
624 748
640 768

I hope this helps!

Very Sincerely,

James

[redhardsupra]

good catch, and major brownie points for making it public

[Tordne]

Seen this thread and passed on the details, thanks.

[joecar]

Hi James, thanks for taking the time to post this. :cheers:

So the step is 20kPa, and what is the starting value (is it still 128kPa)...? Edit: see my post below

[RWTD]

Hey Joe, no worries, and you're welcome, sir. I love helping others!

If you look up in my post above, I had a [code] tag that shows what is wrong and what is the correct labeling (yeup, 128 is still the starting point). Lemme know if you can't see it? Thanks!

[joecar]

Hey Joe, no worries, and you're welcome, sir. I love helping others!

If you look up in my post above, I had a [code] tag that shows what is wrong and what is the correct labeling (yeup, 128 is still the starting point). Lemme know if you can't see it? Thanks!lol, I saw it after I posted :doh2:

[GMPX]

I came across a mislabeling in EFIL. Basically, on the Gen 4 vehicles with the double range IFR (127 lb/hr versus 63.5), on the "Injector Flow Rate" and "Injector Pulsewidth Voltage Adjustment" tables, GM went to a 20 kPa per row label versus a 16 kPa per row label. EFIL uses in increments of 16 kPa on these vehicles.
Hi James, thanks for letting us know about this issue. It's certainly something I missed when they changed the table structure. The axis range is hard coded in the OS (easy to miss the change). Good timing as we were getting ready to do another update so I can include the fix.

Cheers,
Ross

[Redline Motorsports]

Banish and I where just talking about this and I pulled the following data for conversation;

STOCK 2006 ZO6

VAC Kpa of 0=5.1536 grams/sec

STOCK 2008 ZO6

400 Delta MAP Kpa (or 0 VAC Kpa)=5.2588 grams/sec

STOCK 2011 Camaro

400 Delta MAP Kpa (or 0 VAC Kpa)=5.6880 grams/sec

However at 336 Delta Kpa the grams/sec are 5.1790 which if the scale is wrong in the current configuration, there is quite a shift in values!

Hope we can get this figured out cause I HATE guessing over this stuff!

Howard

[RWTD]

Howard, here is what the factory 2010-2011 Camaro should be below. So, therefore, at 400 kPa, the flow rate is 5.2585449 (I accounted for precision).


Labels Flow Rate
128 2.974609
148 3.198486
168 3.407959
188 3.604981
208 3.791992
228 3.969971
248 4.140625
268 4.304199
288 4.461914
308 4.614258
328 4.761719
348 4.904785
368 5.043701
388 5.178955
408 5.310791
428 5.439453
448 5.564941
468 5.687988
488 5.808106
508 5.926025
528 6.041504
548 6.154785
568 6.266113
588 6.375488
608 6.483154
628 6.588867
648 6.692871
668 6.795410
688 6.896484
708 6.995850
728 7.093994
748 7.190918
768 7.286377

[Redline Motorsports]

Can we re-awake this issue??? To me its a big deal....haven't we been through enough trama in just getting the data let alone not placing it correctly!

Sounds like an easy fix but I don't know the behind the scene stuff!

HT

[GMPX]

It's been fixed and will be in the next beta release.

[Redline Motorsports]

Thanks Paul!

Let me be clear with respect to the statement of trauma;

It has to do with the trauma it took to obtain good injector data. Now that we have good data it is only fitting that we use it correctly now that we have gone so long with BS information.

The statements noted in this thread makes some of us anal calibrators wanting to input that data where the PCM understands it the best!

Hope this clarifies the usage of the word trauma. :good:

Howard

[joecar]

This means I'll have to correct the LS9->LS1 interpolated injector data files.

[RWTD]

This means I'll have to correct the LS9->LS1 interpolated injector data files.

I have it in HPT format, so I could easily transfer it into EFIL format, if you'd like? Or you can do the math if you'd like. Whatever would be best. I'm here to help!

[joecar]

I have it in HPT format, so I could easily transfer it into EFIL format, if you'd like? Or you can do the math if you'd like. Whatever would be best. I'm here to help!You can send it to me, I can use it to sanity check my method/tools, thanks appreciated.

[Redline Motorsports]

Joe,

I could use that conversion when you get it done! Doing a LS3/E Force in a 2002 C5 with those injectors.:good:

James, thanks for the assist.

HT

[joecar]

Tables B4001 and B1210...?

[Redline Motorsports]

I guess anything tied to Delta MAP Kpa is all we need!

[Redline Motorsports]

Its in the latest release! http://www.efilive.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=133 how do we correct the banish spreadsheet to allow for the shift?

Joe if you have it for the LS9 injectors I could use it!

Thanks
Howard

[eficalibrator]

how do we correct the banish spreadsheet to allow for the shift?
The 400kPa point should be right on the money. Calculating the remaining delta-pressure injector flow points should just be a matter of applying the Bernoulli equation.

Flow(@ new pressure) = (Flow @ 400kPa) * SQRT [ (new pressure) / (400) ]

[redhardsupra]

Its in the latest release! [URL]how do we correct the banish spreadsheet to allow for the shift?


Howard, which spreadsheet are you talking about? I've mangled enough IFR tables into different formats i could probably get it done easily...

[joecar]

...

I came across a mislabeling in EFIL. Basically, on the Gen 4 vehicles with the double range IFR (127 lb/hr versus 63.5), on the "Injector Flow Rate" and "Injector Pulsewidth Voltage Adjustment" tables, GM went to a 20 kPa per row label versus a 16 kPa per row label. EFIL uses in increments of 16 kPa on these vehicles.

...


Tables B4001 and B1210...?

Is this statement correct:


if B4001 has a cell max range of 127 lb/hr (16 g/s), then B4001 and B1210 should have a 20 kPa step on the DeltaMAP axis

[joecar]

Look at attached file, is it incorrect (B1210 steps by 16 kPa)...

[GMPX]

You are right Joe, B1210 should follow that step size too. That will have to be release as an auto update once Paul switches that on for the public release we just posted.

[Redline Motorsports]

Howard, which spreadsheet are you talking about? I've mangled enough IFR tables into different formats i could probably get it done easily...

Its the one that greg has put together...

[redhardsupra]

Its the one that greg has put together...
yes, but where is it? is that the thing on his dvd or something else?

[Redline Motorsports]

Follow up to this thread....

There is an axis error between KPA Delta 308 and 348......also if these are the correct break points shouldn't it also be corrected in the "Injector Flow Correction" table as well????

In addition if an older file that we started with has value based upon the old breakpoints; when that file is opened up with the software update will it normalize the new breakpoint values???

Howard

[joecar]

Hi Howard,


...
There is an axis error between KPA Delta 308 and 348......also if these are the correct break points shouldn't it also be corrected in the "Injector Flow Correction" table as well????This has been noted, the 228 should be 328, fixed in the next build.


In addition if an older file that we started with has value based upon the old breakpoints; when that file is opened up with the software update will it normalize the new breakpoint values???
...No... the new build will display the same cell values and the new axis step.

[joecar]

I redid the LS9->LS1 injector spreadsheet.

I also did the L92->LS1 spreadsheet while I was at it.

[joecar]

Note to anyone reading along:

if B4001 cell max range is 16 g/s (127 lb/hr) then the DeltaMAP axis steps by 20 kPa in tables B4001, B1210;
if B4001 cell max range is 8 g/s (63.5 lb/hr) then the DeltaMAP axis steps by 16 kPa in tables B4001, B1210;

if you see a calibration that does not conform to the above please post it here.

[Redline Motorsports]

2007 Corvette OS #12611833 still has old axis........

[Redline Motorsports]

Does it make sense that the LS9 injector is at 7.11 grams/sec at 400 (with old axis) and 7.11 grams/sec at 468 with new axis???

Trying to setup a 2007 file with 52#'ers and used the spreadsheet you made Joe and opened a 2010 file that I had 52's in and thats where the comparision is coming from....

[joecar]

2007 Corvette OS #12611833 still has old axis........Can you post the file.

[joecar]

Does it make sense that the LS9 injector is at 7.11 grams/sec at 400 (with old axis) and 7.11 grams/sec at 468 with new axis???
...The cell data remains the same; the axis changes, 400 kPa on the old axis is 468 kPa on then new axis.

Is 7.1 g/s incorrect for those injectors...?

[Redline Motorsports]

Joe here is the route file....as far as the 7.11 grams/sec.......your converstion spreadsheet shows it at 400 kpa on your original chart and that 7.11 is at 468 on the latest chart with the new break points..

[joecar]

Ok, on that file, the B4001 cell range goes upto 8 g/s so in this case B4001/B1210 DeltaMAP axis steps by 16 kPa, that is the correct stepping.

[joecar]

See attached spreadsheet, it shows the old B4001 table (stepping 16 kPa) next to the new B4001 table (stepping 20 kPa)...

the DeltaMAP axis was corrected, the table cell values remain the same;

i.e. the axis was incorrectly mapped for the given table, now the axis is corrected for the same given table.

[joecar]

Old Stepping: 7.11 g/s = 56.43 lb/hr at 400 kPa
New Stepping: 6.55 g/s = 51.98 lb/hr at 400 kPa (interpolating for 400 kPa)

[Redline Motorsports]

Old Stepping: 7.11 g/s = 56.43 lb/hr at 400 kPa
New Stepping: 6.55 g/s = 51.98 lb/hr at 400 kPa (interpolating for 400 kPa)

If thats the case then we have been off quite a bit with the old scaling! There injectors are noted as 52's!

Joe doesn't this mean the "old" scale is off???? If the injectors are 52 lb/hr, or 6.55 grams/sec, it should be referenced at 400 KPA.....how do you reconfigure that old scale to reflect the correct range?

[joecar]

Howard,

The old scale started at 128 kPa and stepped by 16 kPa, this is how Ross/GMPX defined it.

Then James/RWTD noted the error posted this thread;

the new scale starts at 128 kPa and steps by 20 kPa; this is how Ross edited it according to what James posted above.


If using a stock LS9 file (say in a ZR1), the even tho EFILive displayed the scale incorrectly (i.e. the old scale stepping), the PCM still used the correct scale stepping.

EFILive has been fixed to display the correct scale (i.e. the new scale stepping), the PCM still uses the correct scale stepping.


The problem with the old scale stepping arose when you change injectors and recalculate the IFR table, the cell data would align to the old scale and so the IFR would be wrong/off.

Same problem with the LS9->LS1 IFR interpolation.


So any injector calculations done with the old scale would have to be redone, and also any LS9->LS1 interpolations redone.

[Redline Motorsports]

I guess I'm trying to confirm that the IFR table we are using in the "older" scaled table is correct since that OS does not have the newer axis change. I went and opened a stock ZR1 file but all the axis are the new ones now! Just didn't make sense that at 400 KPA the value should be 7.11

[joecar]

If you previously did not change the IFR then it is still correct.

If you previously changed the IFR based on looking up the old axis, then it needs to be redone using the new axis.

What should the the 400 kPa value be...?