Evo 560 Latency Values

[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.