Evo 560 Latency Values

[HLxDrummer]

Anyone have these that they have personally run in their car? I am finding values similar to our stock values, and values way off and not sure which one to trust/use.

[J. Fast]

Latency for Evo 9 560CC injectors is:

4.7V/3.312mSec 7.0V/1.680mSec 9.4V/1.032mSec 11.7V/0.672mSec 14.0V/0.432mSec 16.4V/0.264mSec 18.6V/0.144mSec

[aaronatstate]

That's what I use for them.

[HLxDrummer]

Thanks guys!

[HLxDrummer]

Just wanted to mention I found a few sources giving these numbers (including the guys on EvoM):

16V - 0.628
14V - 0.748
12V - 0.928
10V - 1.208
8V - 1.688
6V - 1.900

Maybe there is a difference between Evo8/9 injectors? I doubt it though..

I am going to try to run this and possibly compare to the values listed above.

[sublime_whatigo]

I drove a few miles with stock latency values the other day (on evo injectors), it drove and made a pull just fine. Just check your trims after a bit.

[Unlogic]

I'm about to install a set of EVO 560 injectors in my car so I spent an hour tonight trying to figure out why there are two different sets of latency values available.

It seems like the answer is quite simple, there are two different versions of these injectors. The earlier MDL560 model (casting INP-020) and the later MDL560P model (INP-401).

The later MDL560P model has 4 spray nozzel and slightly lower latency values (see the values posted earlier in this thread by J.Fast) while the earlier model has a 2-spray nozzel and slightly higher latency values (see the values posted earlier in this thread by HLxDrummer).

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b111/GSRWRC/EvoI-IIIvsIXSpraynozzelsSmall.jpg

HKS ECU Hardware (http://1jzmerc.com/hks-faq/hardware/#injectors)

[striker2]

this is good to know as I have maxed out my DSM 450s and have been looking for some Evo 560s. so I will have to pay attention and make sure to get all the same style.

[Ray]

I'm about to install a set of EVO 560 injectors in my car so I spent an hour tonight trying to figure out why there are two different sets of latency values available.

It seems like the answer is quite simple, there are two different versions of these injectors. The earlier MDL560 model (casting INP-020) and the later MDL560P model (INP-401).

The later MDL560P model has 4 spray nozzel and slightly lower latency values (see the values posted earlier in this thread by J.Fast) while the earlier model has a 2-spray nozzel and slightly higher latency values (see the values posted earlier in this thread by HLxDrummer).

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b111/GSRWRC/EvoI-IIIvsIXSpraynozzelsSmall.jpg

HKS ECU Hardware (http://1jzmerc.com/hks-faq/hardware/#injectors)

You must have known that I needed this information right at this moment lol, great knowledge to have, thank you, Ray

[Ray]

Strange but it turns out, at least for me, having the MDL560P model (INP-401) injectors that the higher latency table worked extremely better than the supposedly correct lower latency table in my Chrome ECU ROM.
With J. Fast lower rpm bogged badly but with HLxDrummer it was way better with no bogging. Even the idle seemed improved. Go figure????????

Can anyone explain that contradiction?

[ChargerX3]

Interesting read. Might try changing mine up now.

[Jimvr4]

I have the 2 nozzle type and the HlxDrummer values so I'm good :)

[Unlogic]

Strange but it turns out, at least for me, having the MDL560P model (INP-401) injectors that the higher latency table worked extremely better than the supposedly correct lower latency table in my Chrome ECU ROM.
With J. Fast lower rpm bogged badly but with HLxDrummer it was way better with no bogging. Even the idle seemed improved. Go figure????????

Can anyone explain that contradiction?

This sounds very interesting. I also have the newer MDL560P model (INP-401) and the lower timings seem to work really well for me. I'll have to try the higher ones when I get a chance and see if I notice any difference.

[Ray]

This sounds very interesting. I also have the newer MDL560P model (INP-401) and the lower timings seem to work really well for me. I'll have to try the higher ones when I get a chance and see if I notice any difference.I

Let us know when you do and what your outcome is.
It is possible that I'm not the only one that may run better with those "inappropriate" settings LOL

[Unlogic]

I haven't had the time to try the higher delays yet but I did find an interesting forum post yesterday.

It mentions that DSM cars are were unable to use the delays straight from the EVO roms because the EVO ECU's use MOSFET transistors which are much quicker than the transistors used in the DSM ECU's.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/montero-482-maf-vs-399-evo8-maf.354811/page-2#post-152190341

Seems like EVO's from 98 and onwards use MOSFET transistors.

http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash/513662-mfg-injector-latency-vs-what-we-use.html#3

I wonder how the transistors in our flashable ECU's compare to the ones used in the 98+ EVO's.

[Ray]

I haven't had the time to try the higher delays yet but I did find an interesting forum post yesterday.

It mentions that DSM cars are were unable to use the delays straight from the EVO roms because the EVO ECU's use MOSFET transistors which are much quicker than the transistors used in the DSM ECU's.

Montero #482 Maf vs #399 Evo8 Maf? | Page 2 | DSMtuners (http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/montero-482-maf-vs-399-evo8-maf.354811/page-2#post-152190341)

Seems like EVO's from 98 and onwards use MOSFET transistors.

Mfg Injector Latency vs What we use - evolutionm.net (http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash/513662-mfg-injector-latency-vs-what-we-use.html#3)

I wonder how the transistors in our flashable ECU's compare to the ones used in the 98+ EVO's.

Interesting read! I am more confused now than ever lol

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

There's too many variables to not have to tweak the latencies, even known ones. It isn't like the car is not going to run if they are off a tiny bit. Tweak them based on the low fuel trim.
Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[Jimvr4]

I wonder how the transistors in our flashable ECU's compare to the ones used in the 98+ EVO's.

According to Brett we have mosfet solenoid drivers so I would assume the same for the injectors. The ON resistance for mosfets is very low which makes the injector impedance the dominant factor in the circuit.

[Unlogic]

I flashed the higher latency values for the injectors today and restored the stock VE table.

Within 40 minutes of driving my trims were almost perfect!

The higher latency values are definitely the way to go both even with the newer injector model.

I've been trying to get my trims within spec for days using the shorter latency values so this was a much welcome surprise.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

I flashed the higher latency values for the injectors today and restored the stock VE table.

Within 40 minutes of driving my trims were almost perfect!

The higher latency values are definitely the way to go both even with the newer injector model.

I've been trying to get my trims within spec for days using the shorter latency values so this was a much welcome surprise.

its going to depend on a lot of factors, including your idle fuel pressure. If your FPR is overrun your values will end up being different.

I was running .435 @ 14.06 volts, very closely matching the settings drmbldr posted, but I'm also probably close to 60 PSI base pressure at idle. At the end of the day you can start with a baseline, but you'll have to tweak it if you want the trims correct. As you have found the car is happier when they are correct. I just grab what merlin's guide or evom is using and start from there.

My 1050s actually ended up being pretty far off from what has been posted for others. I just grab the whole column and increment/decrement it by as much percent as my idle trim is off and usually can get it good in one or 2 adjustments.

[mjannusch]

My 1050s actually ended up being pretty far off from what has been posted for others. I just grab the whole column and increment/decrement it by as much percent as my idle trim is off and usually can get it good in one or 2 adjustments.
Where did you end up with the 1050s? I have the same injectors, and am looking to install them soon to try some E85.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Where did you end up with the 1050s? I have the same injectors, and am looking to install them soon to try some E85.

http://www.chrisbehnken.com/Images/photos/1050Kw.jpg?635417297688049966

This is on e85, I think my scaling on pump was ~1071

double checked, pump scaling was 1071

You know what you are doing, but I'd start the scaling about 10% less than that to start out rich.

[mjannusch]

Thank-you, sir. Much appreciated!

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Thank-you, sir. Much appreciated!

you are welcome! I'm not going to say they will work for you out of the box, but hopefully its a better place to start than where I did.

[mjannusch]

Hey, anything to reduce the number of flashes - I'm all for it. :)

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Hey, anything to reduce the number of flashes - I'm all for it. :)

I've never stressed too much about the number of flashes. There's over 100 on mine and I've never had an issue. It even started life as an sl ecu, so the cpu may be originally from 1999.

I did pickup a spare sl ecu just to keep with me if I go road tuning. I don't know if I have just been lucky or the bricked thing is user error most of the time.

[Ray]

I flashed the higher latency values for the injectors today and restored the stock VE table.

Within 40 minutes of driving my trims were almost perfect!

The higher latency values are definitely the way to go both even with the newer injector model.

I've been trying to get my trims within spec for days using the shorter latency values so this was a much welcome surprise.

Great to hear that it worked out better for you. Let us hope that it is this higher latency correction that is the best for these 560cc injectors. I'm still bogging down low rpms at load.

[Unlogic]

I'm still bogging down low rpms at load.

I'm actually seeing the same thing now. Right around 200-300 hz of airflow the car hesitates and bogs. I'm gonna do a pressure test tomorrow and if I don't find any leaks I'll try reverting to my stock MAF and see if it helps.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

You probably should lower the tps closed loop delta tps percents to start with. The stock map waits too long to go to open loop.
Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[Ray]

You probably should lower the tps closed loop delta tps percents to start with. The stock map waits too long to go to open loop.
Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

Originally flashed 560cc with low latency really bogging low and mid rpm ranges getting cel P0300 random cylinder misfires and running too lean 15-17 afr.
Then flashed 513cc with high latency no cels running 13-15 afr but low rpm load bogging
Today flashed 450cc with high latency ran way better at low and midrange rpms with just a very minor hint of bogging got cel P0170 and P0173 Fuel Trim Bank 1 and 2?
All trims ended up at 150 each
Car has started and idled well within reasonable limits in all the above conditions. BTW may not be relevant but the speedometer goes to 20 mph and then drops to zero and stays there. Do these functions depend on the speed sensor?

Forest, Jim, Alan, Greg or anyone that can help me figure this out. It made no sense that flashing 450cc runs better on 560cc injectors.

At least now I can drive the car to the store and back to feed myself lol

Forest, the reason I used your quote is that it is an example of some of the things I know nothing about or how to change them. Obviously, you guys know way more than I do.

I am continuing to educate myself in these matters, thanks for your opinions.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Something's making it run really lean. Have you done the basics? Pressure test? Verify fpr signal line. Check o2 sensors aren't reversed.



btw you should copy the chrome evoscan XML file if you are seeing trims scaled that way.

Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[Ray]

[QUOTE=btw you should copy the chrome evoscan XML file if you are seeing trims scaled that way.

Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

Oh, I meant the trims reading came from my Blackstealth LCDBC screen after driving it around this morning not that they were scaled that way in EcuFlash lol

My mechanic the "Famous 3000GT Guru", Chai of C&A Automotive Auto Center of Van Nuys pressure checked and also installed all 4 new o2's.
He also installed fresh stock heads, Tim15g billets, 560cc EVO injectors, new aluminum radiator and aluminum intercooler pipes.
It is possible that even a good mechanic may have missed something.
Chai also installed the Chrome computer but only the connections-even he does not know about Chrome ECU flashing enough to mess with it.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

post up a log

[Ray]

post up a log


Will post up a log next time I take her out, thank you

[Unlogic]

I'm getting quite rich low trims with the higher latency values. I'm gonna go back to the lower latency values and see if I can correct the mid and high trims using the VE table instead.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

you can fix the mid and high trims using the injector scaling. Latencies affect the low trims twice as much as the mids, so its a balancing act to get it right.

[Greg E]

Its better and easier to tune using the MAF smoothing table. If your low trims are +12%, adding 12% to the low range effectively does the same as the trim so it can slowly creep back to 0ish.

[Ray]

post up a log

Thank you Forest for your gracious offer to help. Was not able to post a log.
A very long story of errors plus the ECU was also the problem. Everything you mentioned earlier was present plus some lol lol
Getting back "new" ECU and having a great tuner finish the job. Will post the final outcome. Thanks again, Ray

[Ray]

I'm getting quite rich low trims with the higher latency values. I'm gonna go back to the lower latency values and see if I can correct the mid and high trims using the VE table instead.

The higher latency values may be wrong after all in that with all the unique problems I was having they seemed to work better but probably not correct. Will see what latency values are put in by my tuner in the near future.

[ilian51378]

Just wanted to mention I found a few sources giving these numbers (including the guys on EvoM):

16V - 0.628
14V - 0.748
12V - 0.928
10V - 1.208
8V - 1.688
6V - 1.900

Maybe there is a difference between Evo8/9 injectors? I doubt it though..

I am going to try to run this and possibly compare to the values listed above.

How come these values contain one value too few? The value for 18V seems to be missing... J.Fast posted seven values, while yours are six... I read that the values you supplied seem to work better, but what about the last value? What did you use for that?

By the way, Jester's website links to a table with the sizes and latencies of many cars, one of which is the Evo. These are the numbers listed there:


10V - 1.13

11V - 0.97

12V - 0.85

13V - 0.75

14V - 0.66

15V - 0.58

Again, only six values. They also seem to be at somewhat different voltages than the ones posted by you and J. Fast... The stock 3/S table has seven values, so what goes in the last one?

Lastly, is there any consensus on what values work best? I just installed a Chrome in my car and am about to do my first reflash... Thanks beforehand!

[ilian51378]

J. Fast's latency values definitely work better for my car! When I tried to use the higher values, the AFR was 12.2 at idle... Now, I need to figure out why I am getting misfire codes (P0300) and misfires. It must be the fact that I gapped my spark plugs at .022 and that is probably too low. They were fine with the stock ECU and the SAFC, but I probably need to go up to .032 with the Chrome. My car is a JDM GTO N/A which I converted to TT with 15Gs. I tried to tune it with SAFC, but the timing of the TT ECU does not agree with the 10:1 pistons at high RPMs so I had to get Chrome, in order to be able to correct it. I ran the car and logged it the other day, and I noticed that I got several instances of 1 count knock at 648rpm. I also noticed one instance of 4-5 counts of knock at about 1550rpm. I went WOT TO 4k rpm and did not see any knock in the logs. I am currently running at wastegate boost, until I tune everything correctly, before I raise the boost. My target is 15psi of boost on 93 pump. I am running Evo 560s and a Walbro (not hot wired).Any ideas or suggestions?

[ilian51378]

Wow, this forum seems to have died... Sad times!

[Dougal]

Hey man,

Yeah the forum is a bit hit and miss at times.

I experienced the same misfires as your mentioning and I had some blow out occur also.

Ended up with new pre gapped plugs at stock gap and car runs excellent.

What are your STFT - short term fuel trims like at idle and cruise?

[ilian51378]

I figured out the problem! The ECU was programmed to work with a car that has two o2 sensors and my car only has one... I re-programmed it and now it works as designed. My plugs are gapped at .032 as I will be tuning for 15psi of boost on 15Gs and 10:1 compression... I may even have to go lower on the gap if I experience problems with spark blowout.

[ilian51378]

Dougal,

I am resurrecting this thread as I have installed an LCDBC and I can monitor fuel trims’ values daily… The short term trim is positive by 17% and the mid shows 50 (50% negative?). The long term was at 92, but I discovered a vacuum leak that I fixed so that should improve it. Another problem I had was that the curb idle was set too low. I fixed that too. Before I fixed the curb idle, the short trim at idle was 150. At cruise it was better, but once the car started idling, the trim would go back up pretty quick. I am not sure why the mid is so much into the negative… At times it goes up to 69, but then it goes back down to 50. Any opinions?

[ilian51378]

Okay, I know the action has moved from here a long time ago, but let me leave this message for some lost soul that may stumble upon this thread in desperation, trying to figure out how to make the Evo 560 injectors work.

So, I have been using the latencies below with the later design Evo 560 injectors for several years now and I have noticed the following several things:

1) The “low” fuel trim is very lean at 150 and even 40% added fuel into the VE table has not been able to change that.
2) The “mid” fuel trim was rich as low as 50, when running the stock FPR. However, when running an adjustable FPR, it fluctuates around 100, depending on how you drive.
3) The “high” fuel trim settles around 87 and stays there.

In a next post, I am going to explain what happened when I used the higher latencies.


Latency for Evo 9 560CC injectors is:

4.7V/3.312mSec 7.0V/1.680mSec 9.4V/1.032mSec 11.7V/0.672mSec 14.0V/0.432mSec 16.4V/0.264mSec 18.6V/0.144mSec

[ilian51378]

Here is my experience, running the latencies below with the later design Evo 560 injectors:

1) The “low” fuel trim went down to 50 within 10 minutes of idling and stayed there.
2) The “mid” fuel trim dropped to 50 within 15 minutes of driving.
3) I did not drive long enough to observe the changes in the “high” fuel trim as the “low” and “mid” trims went all the way down to 50.
4) I was running the adjustable FPR when I ran this test so I assume that the “mid” fuel trim would have dropped even lower if I had used the stock FPR.

With that, I concluded that the latencies below are not as suitable for the later design of the injectors, as the lower latencies I tested and explained in my previous post. What I will do next is to tweak the low latencies a bit and see how the fuel trims will respond. I need to clarify that I did not zero out the trims before I tested the higher latencies.


Just wanted to mention I found a few sources giving these numbers (including the guys on EvoM):

16V - 0.628
14V - 0.748
12V - 0.928
10V - 1.208
8V - 1.688
6V - 1.900

Maybe there is a difference between Evo8/9 injectors? I doubt it though..

I am going to try to run this and possibly compare to the values listed above.