Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 99
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    404
    Rep Points
    419.1
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I have 1.2mm & 1mm aquamist jets mounted in the outlet of the IC..!
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    For Sale:

    - NX Express complete wet kit with Plug & Play fuel adapter for BMW 335i

    - FBO parts here LINK


  2. #52
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    2,927
    Rep Points
    2,820.9
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    29


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by boosted-M Click here to enlarge
    I have 1.2mm & 1mm aquamist jets mounted in the outlet of the IC..!
    What do your fuel trims look like under bewst?
    2011 E90 M3 \ Melbourne Rot Metallic

    Click here to enlarge

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    North East
    Posts
    404
    Rep Points
    419.1
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by lulz_m3 Click here to enlarge
    What do your fuel trims look like under bewst?

    I have the JB4 and haven't logged each bank, but I will get a log and post up in the next day or so.
    For Sale:

    - NX Express complete wet kit with Plug & Play fuel adapter for BMW 335i

    - FBO parts here LINK


  4. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    Tzu......what are your trims like off-meth?
    Posted a log earlier in the thread. Only 3-4% deviation.

    No real update today. If tomorrow gives me more time, I can borescope it. I also have the rear struts on my list and that gets priority though.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    So that points to your theory of uneven meth distribution then......but why so much ?

    I pulled a log a couple of days ago and with the higher ambients I saw about a 10% deviation which is down from the 15% I experience in colder weather.

    I still think you have either uneven carbon buildup on your valves or you have some strange turbulence going on in your up/charge pipe system.

    Gotta get that borescope in there.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Pulled off intake manifold sunday, cylinder 5 was gunked up real nice. Carbon blasted, and all clean now. I'm more surprised that it looked the way it did after only 20k, with an upgraded PCV valve.

    Anyway, trims are the same, but I pulled a non-meth pull afterward and the deviation is now there off meth. Suspect LTFT have adapted to meth per bank. Will reset LTFT again this weekend and give some more logs a go.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tzu Click here to enlarge
    Pulled off intake manifold sunday, cylinder 5 was gunked up real nice. Carbon blasted, and all clean now. I'm more surprised that it looked the way it did after only 20k, with an upgraded PCV valve.

    Anyway, trims are the same, but I pulled a non-meth pull afterward and the deviation is now there off meth. Suspect LTFT have adapted to meth per bank. Will reset LTFT again this weekend and give some more logs a go.
    That carbon is a $#@! and seems to come back so quickly.

    Are you running a catch can at all?

    Also sounds like you have the RB upgrade to the PCV valve?

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,676
    Rep Points
    3,291.4
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Pcv valve does nothing for 99% of driving (i.e. off boost)...pcv valve from RB is an upgrade over stock as it seals better than oem and prevents a slight boost leak and pressurization of the crankcase which are all good things but nothing to do with keeping intake valves clean

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    827
    Rep Points
    1,314.0
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Great thread! Subscribed
    JB4 G5, 455 LPFP, HFS-4 meth kit, BMS OCC, VM 6466 ST, RB valve, BMS DCI, 3" AR Dps, Custom OC W/ SS lines, ER FMIC, ER CP W/HKS BOV, M3 control arms, M3 guide rods, M3 upper links, M3 front & rear sway-bars, HPA rear toe arms, Wavetrac LSD, HPF Gen 2 exhaust DEFIV kit, KW clubsport, Delrin solid subframe bushings, stoptech rotors, Rogue Tranny Mounts, 1M bumper, M3 CF hood, MORR VS8.2 rims 245/295

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    That carbon is a $#@! and seems to come back so quickly.

    Are you running a catch can at all?

    Also sounds like you have the RB upgrade to the PCV valve?
    BMS OCC, RB PCV. The OCC catches a good amount of oil and was worth every penny.

    While the RB PCV is not a solution, merely a more stout replacement, my original PCV Valve was pretty weak, so I did expect some improvement on that front. I'd block off those $#@!ing ports anyday if a proven solution existed.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I think you can basically relate cc oil volume to what the valves are collecting through the VC ports as this would indicate the efficiency of your cyclone oil separators. My cc barely fills with oil after 10k miles and my valves are relatively clean to posted before pics. As DZ said the RB PCV just helps with crank case pressure on boost.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Can anyone confirm that I am resetting the correct value for LTFT in INPA? I pulled about two dozen logs last night trying to sort them out off meth, since the seperation now exists after valve cleaning. I'm getting closer to a solution but need help from the INPA gurus...

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Well here is a datalog I pulled today in 90F ambients.

    Only change was that I moved my dual meth nozzles from the vishnu chargepipe location over to the up pipe coming out of the cold side of the intercooler.

    It did squat to diminish my fuel trim variance.......but my timing curve looks very stable now......in fact this datalog looks better than ones I usually pull in 70F ambients.

    So I am disappointed that the fuel trims still deviate about 11% when meth is spraying, even with the nozzles being further upstream.

    Makes me think this divergence is fuel injector related rather than meth flow delivery issues.

    I copied Joshboody's methodology and he got his trims pretty even - figure that one out guys!
    .
    .
    .
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    I would reset LTFT and readapt off meth before ruling it ineffective. Given by your previous posts, the DME has adapted to the trim deviation and it's likely reflected in the LTFT now, both on and off meth.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tzu Click here to enlarge
    I would reset LTFT and readapt off meth before ruling it ineffective. Given by your previous posts, the DME has adapted to the trim deviation and it's likely reflected in the LTFT now, both on and off meth.
    I see what you mean.....the DME has to unlearn the old habits.

    Call me and lets book an appointment with INPA then Click here to enlarge

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    My testing wasn’t so thorough and as you can see in my earlier post, the LTFT have an impact on STFT, and probably my perception of cause at the time. I think LTFT and primarily injector discrepancy have the larger effect on trims.

    Very curious if you swapped your injector banks Tzu… but I’d hate for you to go through all that work with no clear conclusion.

    EDIT: but much can be concluded by off meth logs. @DCAFS how are your trims off meth?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    hey Tzu, this log (your from pg1) is really what I'm basing my theory off of in your case. The trims start to diverge off meth, lower boost, and the run was cut very short. The meth logs the diversion seems to start in a similar rpm range. Reviewing 2 back to back runs on/off meth from 3k to >6k would be telling I think.
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    I may have stated earlier in the thread that the non meth log may have had some residual LTFT adaptations on meth, since I was testing the day before on meth. Also, my injectors (now 2 months old) have the same seperation as my old injectors, which was leading me down the nozzle location or hardware route.

    The more I learn about LTFT, the more I am zeroing in on them as being a contributor. There is a great thread over on M5post about it but it doesn't clarify how to adapt them correctly. So I reset LTFT last sat, and tried to adapt the car to non-meth with about 20 WOTs, now the divergence off meth is worse than ever, and it USED to be within 5%.

    I havnt swapped injectors yet because I'm not convinced it's the issue. For both my old set and my new set to exhibit the same behavior is too conincidental. I'm actually thinking it may be in part due to my 130k km old O2 sensors, which have seen 8+ DP installations. May be a good idea just to change them.

    I havn't had too many updates recently because I've been busy as $#@!. Although I have figured out that the Lambda adaptaions are the LTFT, specificially the "Additive" and the "Multiplicative", but there are conflicting reports as to which is which. One is LTFT and other is STFT. If linear where Trim = Mx + A, then it stands to reason that M can react much faster, and is STFT. But I'll let the software/INPA gurus comment if they feel like it.

    As you've suggested, I'm already in this process. I havnt run meth since sat, and I'm trying to adapt fully to low boost, no meth tune. That way I can add meth, same boost, to virgin LTFT and see the true implication on LTFT. That's my current plan.

    Edit: I also cranked up the adjustment screw on the meth pump, saw flow jump from 22 to 40 on the AM sensor. Also, trims improved about 5%. Down to 17ish% seperation now. Atomization? Or flooding? Maybe both.
    Last edited by Tzu; 07-16-2013 at 03:38 PM.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    937
    Rep Points
    562.7
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    yeah, I think you have a good action. I mean to swap banks of injectors... put bank2 in bank 1 and then trims should switch assuming even LTFT (but more last resort). Interesting on the improvement with flow. Potentially you were under pressure... supposedly these pumps have different spring so even when cranked up they can't increase much more than 150ish psi. I remember your flow being considerably lower than mine (roughly 1,000cc/min). Unlike other systems, AM is designed to spray at Xpsi at all times so nozzles may not perform optimally under this.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JoshBoody Click here to enlarge
    My testing wasn’t so thorough and as you can see in my earlier post, the LTFT have an impact on STFT, and probably my perception of cause at the time. I think LTFT and primarily injector discrepancy have the larger effect on trims.

    Very curious if you swapped your injector banks Tzu… but I’d hate for you to go through all that work with no clear conclusion.

    EDIT: but much can be concluded by off meth logs. @DCAFS how are your trims off meth?
    Absolutely spot on to each other.......they only diverge when meth sprays and always around 5k rpm and upwards only.
    Last edited by DCAFS; 07-16-2013 at 09:11 PM.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JoshBoody Click here to enlarge
    yeah, I think you have a good action. I mean to swap banks of injectors... put bank2 in bank 1 and then trims should switch assuming even LTFT (but more last resort). Interesting on the improvement with flow. Potentially you were under pressure... supposedly these pumps have different spring so even when cranked up they can't increase much more than 150ish psi. I remember your flow being considerably lower than mine (roughly 1,000cc/min). Unlike other systems, AM is designed to spray at Xpsi at all times so nozzles may not perform optimally under this.
    I emailed Jeff Howerton on pump pressure issues and here is what he replied:

    The meth pumps are not a real precise beast, but since one usually tunes around them it's not that big a deal. That said they come from the factory at 16-psi dead head, sometimes this is 160 at flow, sometimes lower. If you turn the screw CW until it clicks, you will deadhead about 180 and are sure to flow 160. If you look at the jetting chart this is not a great deal difference in flow.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    Absolutely spot on to each other.......they only diverge when meth sprays and always around 5k rpm and upwards only.
    And another thing.......according to our meth datalog values, the supply of meth remains constant and static at WOT. My logged flow happens to be around 30 and Tzu is getting a flow value of 40 with increased pump pressure.

    But as rpms rise so does the airflow. The fuel injectors respond by cycling their fuel supply directly with rpm changes - but I dont see how the meth system would know how to do so since it is not connected to the injector duty cycles in any way.

    So what I am saying is that a constant flow of meth as rpms rise would by definition alter fueling as rpms rise since the meth flow is static, while the airflow is not.

    Am I off-base here in my thinking

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DCAFS Click here to enlarge
    So what I am saying is that a constant flow of meth as rpms rise would by definition alter fueling as rpms rise since the meth flow is static, while the airflow is not.
    This was the great arguement of PWM vs PPS. At WOT, doesn't matter.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    251
    Rep Points
    312.0
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Tzu Click here to enlarge
    This was the great arguement of PWM vs PPS. At WOT, doesn't matter.
    Are you talking about pulsing giving better atomization argument versus variable pump pressure?

    If so, then I agree that at WOT both systems are pretty much flowing similarly.

    No.....What I am saying is that at WOT = either type of system would be spraying a static amount of meth.

    When you and I look at the flow rate of methanol injection on our datalogs......it is a flat horizontal line. This tells me that the amount being flowed is constant at WOT across all rpms .

    The rpm line is sloped upwards = that tells me that the air being ingested by the engine rises as rpms do.

    Airflow is not constant but the amount of meth being sprayed into that airstream is........so why would that not matter?

    Won't the ratio of meth thin out as more air flows due to rising rpms?

    I am sure this gets handled by the closed loop trim system - but it only changes the amount of pump gas being sprayed via the injectors.....the amount of meth will still be static.

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Points
    1,149.5
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    12



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Yes, static fuel flow with increasing airflow will enlean the fuel mixture. On this platform, boost has to be considered and the implications of it, hence meth is moreso correlated to boost, then RPM. Whereas an NA engine would be correlated to RPM only, increasing meth flow proportionally to RPM (and therefore air), to keep octane as constant as possible.

    Not sure what that has to do with fuel corrections? At the end of the day, some people have divergence and others don't. This thread is attempting to find out why.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •