Evo 560 Latency Values

[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!