Discussion and questions related to the course Reflashing
Problem with Whipple Cal and 1050x injectors. Several of my friends have used HPT to read and modify their Whipple calibrations in order to change to better injectors and sometimes fuel systems.
Unfortunately I have tried this with two whipple cals, the original and a revised. Both run fat and show -20 fuel trims. I also noticed from the calibration that whipple was deviating from the posted characterizations for the stock DW 72lb injectors. Breakpoint, low, high slopes, and min PW are all different than DW data. All of the modifier tables are however properly populated with the 1-1 values being at the correct psi.
Why would whipple use the correct modifiers, but change the other values? I wonder if there isnt something going on with fuel pressure I am not smart enough to figure out yet.
ECU shows 64 psi at the rail, but seems to stay locked at 55 for differential pressure like its hard coded. gt350 has a pressure sensor in the rail with twin fuel pumps where the 5.0 infers the fuel pressure.
For those among us without access to GT350 HP Tuners, can you post screenshots of the most important tables you would like us to look at?
Are you saying that you got a canned calibration from Whipple (which goes into HP Tuners, all the various tables etc). Then you tried to change the injector characterization portion (slopes etc) only, based on data in the attached Excel file? However the fuel trims were way off? Did you ever run the canned tune as Whipple intended, with the exact parts they specify? Canned tunes are usually only decent if you follow all the specifications to the exact letter. If you have the wrong intake, exhaust, or fuel rail, or if you raise the boost, or whatever, it's not going to work right.
When was the last time your fuel trims were within an acceptable range? It sounds like you had a stock GT350, you bolted on a blower kit from Whipple but instead of using the parts they specify, you tried to go off on your own, with the assumption that inputting physical characteristics of new injectors you got from the supplier should be good enough to make everything else work out.
Without having more information, what I would recommend is that you do EXACTLY what Whipple said to do. Bolt on the exact parts they tell you to bolt on to make that tune work, using the exact fuel and boost levels they specify, and do not deviate at all from what they say. Then see if it behaves as expected.
Yes, pretty much. Unfortunately there is no way I would put DW injectors on the car. Not a fan and they will not flow enough when I convert to e85 later. The calibration is based on the Ford Performance FI OS. I was hoping to duplicate the success of many 5.0 users that have effectively done the same. In sharing calibration files with some friends with GT builds we have come to realize the calibrations are extremely close. Even in areas in which it doesn't make sense. Despite the engines being different both calibrations share the same air load calculation data. Perhaps that is why they hacked up the original DW characterizations? In either case it looks like I will first try tuning the airload data for my car and see if it cleans it up.
Whipple doesn't even use the same data for the same injectors used on the 5.0 kit. It all seems very sloppy to me and like the calibrator was hacking away. It also explains why so many 350 owners have scrapped the canned tune regardless of Injectors. I might piggy back with a friend going to CRT perfomance
I'm literally in the middle of filming a worked example right now on HPT using a 2014 F150 Raptor with the 6.2 L engine and a Rousch SC kit. While significantly simpler than the later quad cam engines with Ti-VCT, there are plenty of similarities. The problem comes down to having a sound starting point. If the injector data is off then you can bake in the error with the MAF translation and SD tuning to still get broadly acceptable results (don't get me wrong, you're not going to have the best driving experience but the engine can be made to run). Thus if that is the case then swapping to injectors with known good datas would show exactly what you're seeing. It's a tough one because when you change the intake system and the injectors together you've got two variables and it's impossible to say what's right or wrong.
The other aspect which Whipple may be on to is that there can be minor differences in injector characterisation data depending on how the data has been generated. For example ID use a MoTeC M800 for running their injector test bench and generating data, however MoTeC Australia have their own test bench and the data they generate for the ID injectors using their bench and an M1 ECU is different to ID's. I know this isn't specifically an answer to your question but hopefully gives you some insight into the situation you're facing.
I talked to a couple guys closer to the situation and Whipple purposely scales the MAF so they can use the data across several configurations and different pulley sizes. They then depending on the OS work out fuel pressure and Injector data to make it work. I must say I'm pretty disappointed in their cal but considering I will only be worried about my application I intend to run the core "Published" ID values. I will get the car on a dyno to properly scale the MAF for this car then steady state the Virtual VE tables. Car runs and idles better now with just some rough MAF transfer tweaks but the transient is jacked becuase the virtual VE tables are still relatively "rich".
Great to hear you're making some headway. The Ford F150 worked example should be released around the end of this week and I think there will be a lot in that which you'll find helpful.