VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs RPM

Holden/Delco Tuning. ALDL, OBD 1.5. Circa 1989 to 2004.
VX L67 Getrag
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Bayside, Melbourne, Victoria

VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs RPM

Post by VX L67 Getrag »

Hey all,

I just realized I can't find the base injector rate...(as subject above) in the vs ecotec cal files!(unless I'm blind)(or stupid again!)

What did they use instead of this?

Cheers VX L67 Getrag
yoda69
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 12:20 am
cars: 2004 VYII Acclaim Wagon V6 Auto LPG/Petrol
2004 VYII Berlina sedan V6 Auto
2005 VZ Monaro CV8 manual
Location: Geelong, VIC

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by yoda69 »

VXL67,
Try the following:
For N/A $51 (Variants A-E) bins it is 2bytes at $42D1/2 and the value should be $1CE8, conversions is X/20.48 = 7400/20.48 = 361.3 msec/gram.
For N/A $51 (Variant F) bins it is 2bytes at $4425/6 and the value should be $1CE8, conversions is X/20.48 = 7400/20.48 = 361.3 msec/gram.
For S/C bins (Variants G&H) it is 2bytes at $44D7/8 and the value should be $111C, conversions is X/20.48 = 4380/20.48 = 213.9 msec/gram.

Note: The lower the value the higher the flowrate as it is measuring how long it takes 1 gram of fuel to flow through the injector.

Hope this helps,

yoda69
User avatar
Holden202T
Posts: 10435
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:05 am
Location: Tenambit, NSW

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by Holden202T »

Thanks Yoda, have added it to my $51E xdf, will be in the next release!
VX L67 Getrag
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Bayside, Melbourne, Victoria

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by VX L67 Getrag »

Thanks for that Yoda,

But I wasn't talking about the base injector rate, I was talking about the Injector rate Vs the mg per cyl Vs Rpm like in the $A5C at $4828 to $4937, which changes the flow rate at different air flow's & rpm point's.

But as I said I've had a good look & can't seem to find it in the VS ecotec cal's so maybe they didn't have it in the earlier cal's & thought they'd better add it for a more precise measurement in the VT's I guess?

I'm still looking though? LOL :study:
User avatar
The1
Posts: 4852
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:23 am

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by The1 »

did we have any luck with this? I guess it would be a similar looking table to $4337 if it did exist.
User avatar
Holden202T
Posts: 10435
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:05 am
Location: Tenambit, NSW

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by Holden202T »

i haven't been able to find anything yet that is what your after, but i have defined some of the crank fuel pulse width stuff in the v1.11 xdf i'm about to post in the xdf thread here.

it looks pretty cool in the equations the numbers reference the kinjflow so if you change the injector size it will offset the crank pw!
User avatar
The1
Posts: 4852
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:23 am

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by The1 »

nice! i havn't looked is that stuff defined in the S/C xdf? would help with people boosting caming there n/a's i guess
User avatar
The1
Posts: 4852
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:23 am

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by The1 »

The crank fuel pulse width vs cts is just X isn't it?
VX L67 Getrag
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Bayside, Melbourne, Victoria

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by VX L67 Getrag »

For that variable i have this equation?

E*(128/F64SCAL)*KINJFLOW
User avatar
Holden202T
Posts: 10435
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:05 am
Location: Tenambit, NSW

Re: VS V6 ecotec didn't use base injector rate vs mg/cyl vs

Post by Holden202T »

the equation i have in there now is

X / (128 / Y) * Z

where y = F64scalar and z = kinjflow

the problem is the numbers just don't look right .... 1600mgram at 116degc and nearly 18000 at -40degc ......

to me that just seems wrong ....