The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support ExtremePSI
Please Support STM Tuned

ECMlink Very high VE table values under boost. Running lean.

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

I agree that shouldn't be the problem, but it's an easy check to do. Although, if there's a restriction somewhere, it won't do much.

At this point, it's probably a good idea to send the injectors out, and get them looked at.

BTW, Kenny is a boss at tuning, so I'd trust his advice.

Well I got the injectors cleaned, fuel pump rewired, and the toyota seal in the fuel pump just for good measure. Still having the same issue. I need more ideas. Because I'm fresh out. Kenny is going to check the tune again Thursday to rule out the possibility of that. Anything else?
 
How new is that pump? Unless there's a restriction you haven't found somewhere, I'd lean toward the pump possibly being the issue.

What AFPR are you running?

What's your fuel line setup like?
 
How new is that pump? Unless there's a restriction you haven't found somewhere, I'd lean toward the pump possibly being the issue.

What AFPR are you running?

What's your fuel line setup like?

The pump has about 4k miles on it at most.

FPR is a fuelab.

Fuel lines are stock.

I doubt a fuel line is clogged. I run seafoam through the tank a few times a year to get the E85 goo out off the injectors. I mean its possible, but I feel very slim. Is there some settings in ECMlink that could have possibly got changed somehow to cause this?

I had the car running 11.5 afr on my mass air flow sensor at 30psi right before I installed the speed density kit. I switched to speed density, attempted to tune it myself and failed, then hit up kenny to tune and he said its broken.

So I know the car can flow the fuel I need on maf. Just the VE table is out of whack. Or its not making changes to my car for some reason when we up the number. Is it possible that I didnt tell the car to use the table or something? Maybe I didnt set up speed density properly?
 
Last edited:
The pump has about 4k miles on it at most.

FPR is a fuelab.

Fuel lines are stock.

I doubt a fuel line is clogged. I run seafoam through the tank a few times a year to get the E85 goo out off the injectors. I mean its possible, but I feel very slim. Is there some settings in ECMlink that could have possibly got changed somehow to cause this?

I had the car running 11.5 afr on my mass air flow sensor at 30psi right before I installed the speed density kit. I switched to speed density, attempted to tune it myself and failed, then hit up kenny to tune and he said its broken.

So I know the car can flow the fuel I need on maf. Just the VE table is out of whack. Or its not making changes to my car for some reason when we up the number. Is it possible that I didnt tell the car to use the table or something? Maybe I didnt set up speed density properly?
Can you post the latest log ? Since getting everything in order.
Im sure we can check the data of the log and settings to see.
 
Can you post the latest log ? Since getting everything in order.
Im sure we can check the data of the log and settings to see.

I wont be able to until Wednesday. But the settings are the same as they were in the last one I posted.
 
I really have a strong feeling that there is something with the settings that is messed up. It doesn't make sense that the problem arose right when I moved to speed density. Anyone have any areas that I could check? My IAT is hooked up with the MAF cable and my MAP sensor is the factory style in place of the MDP sensor.
 
Maybe I'm seeing the info incorrectly..
(***)


The screen shot shows A linear wideband of 12.6 and your est: 11.5.
At 5k , 100% throttle .

I also opened your logs

Now i may have different raw values for my linear than you .

Maybe that's why what I'm seeing, may be different from you .

Also using the stoichiometric ratio of e85 of 9.85... With 1450's at base pressure of 47 .

Link calculated -55.7% global .


Your fuel logged values look good on link.wideband

For the most part it looks good at around 12.0 at wot...
Are you aiming for 11.5?

(***)
Fyi just because the wideband looks good at cruise means nothing.

I had to recalibrate my WB it didn't Match at wot only.
Once i got the raw values to match what i was seeing on the gauge

it turned out i can significantly lower the VE numbers and now my logged AF matches my gauge.

I hope any of this can help..


Edit, i removed some stuff....i realized i was making it complicated
 
Last edited:
Maybe I'm seeing the info incorrectly..
(***)


The screen shot shows A linear wideband of 12.6 and your est: 11.5.
At 5k , 100% throttle .

I also opened your logs

Now i may have different raw values for my linear than you .

Maybe that's why what I'm seeing, may be different from you .

Also using the stoichiometric ratio of e85 of 9.85... With 1450's at base pressure of 47 .

Link calculated -55.7% global .


Your fuel logged values look good on link.wideband

For the most part it looks good at around 12.0 at wot...
Are you aiming for 11.5?

(***)
Fyi just because the wideband looks good at cruise means nothing.

I had to recalibrate my WB it didn't Match at wot only.
Once i got the raw values to match what i was seeing on the gauge

it turned out i can significantly lower the VE numbers and now my logged AF matches my gauge.

I hope any of this can help..


Edit, i removed some stuff....i realized i was making it complicated


My wideband and my guage are within .1 of matching each other from what I have noticed. The actual guage is reading 12.2 - 12.8 during a third gear pull which is what the logs show as well.

The target is 11.5. With the VE tables jacked up as much as they are, I should be running a 10.0 AFR under boost and im not.
 
For anyone joining the thread, here is what has been tested all in one post:

1. Seal from pump to hanger on walboro 450

2. Injectors sent to FIC and were cleaned and flow tested

3. New fuel filter. Old one was cut open and was clean.

4. Fuel pressure is logged on ECMlink and rises 1:1 with boost.

5. Fuel pump was rewired with STM kit.

6. No fuel leaks

7. Vaccumm line to FPR is good.

I will be posing another log here shortly of a third gear pull and a little cruise log. Any input is appreciated.
 
Considered changing the global settings ?

Yeah but there already scaled way down to 880's which is not right. I just took the fuel sliders and jacked them way up and the car went to a 10.0 AFR. So it is completely capable of getting the fuel there, just not within reason on the VE table.

Attached I have a new log after all the changes as well as a settings file.
 

Attachments

  • 3rd gear pull for thread.elg
    22.4 KB · Views: 45
  • Settings for thread.ecm
    5.2 KB · Views: 34
Possibly a dying fuel pump. I've heard of knock-off 450s accidentally being sold to people. I'm sure somebody has an old fuel pump they can send you. Hell, I do.
 
Yeah but there already scaled way down to 880's which is not right. I just took the fuel sliders and jacked them way up and the car went to a 10.0 AFR. So it is completely capable of getting the fuel there, just not within reason on the VE table.

Attached I have a new log after all the changes as well as a settings file.
Yes 880's is correct.
That's the settings you have on the log with a 14.7 gas scale.
With 9.8 ethanol scale the global is different.
Which is what the wiki recommends.

So using them as 880 sets the global close to what it would be if you had used the ethanol stoichiometric ratio
 
Yes 880's is correct.
That's the settings you have on the log with a 14.7 gas scale.
With 9.8 ethanol scale the global is different.
Which is what the wiki recommends.

So using them as 880 sets the global close to what it would be if you had used the ethanol stoichiometric ratio

Maybe ill just have to try to scale them lower. Ill talk to Kenny about it. Thanks!

Possibly a dying fuel pump. I've heard of knock-off 450s accidentally being sold to people. I'm sure somebody has an old fuel pump they can send you. Hell, I do.

I bought the 450 from extreme psi which is pretty reputable from my experience. I do have my old 255 laying around srill. I could give it a try. Ill see what my tuner says tomorrow and if he thinks there is still a mechanical issue ill swap it out to eliminate the possibiltiy. Thanks for the offer and advice!
 
Ran across this picture from FIC in regards to my injectors and E85. It looks like they flow less volume of fluid with E85 by 11%. Which would mean 1450 * 11% = 159. So that would mean they are actually flowing about 1291 with E85. Then 1291*.67=864. So that would mean that I should have to scale them even lower than I have them right now. So is it possible that I just need to adjust my global lower?



You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Ran across this picture from FIC in regards to my injectors and E85. It looks like they flow less volume of fluid with E85 by 11%. Which would mean 1450 * 11% = 159. So that would mean they are actually flowing about 1291 with E85. Then 1291*.67=864. So that would mean that I should have to scale them even lower than I have them right now. So is it possible that I just need to adjust my global lower?



You must be logged in to view this image or video.
I think this is exactly what i was trying to convey....
Also the 11% difference is cited on the wiki that i mentioned before.

https://www.ecmtuning.com/wiki/e85fuel

https://www.ecmtuning.com/wiki/injdata-fueltype
 
I think this is exactly what i was trying to convey....
Also the 11% difference is cited on the wiki that i mentioned before.

https://www.ecmtuning.com/wiki/e85fuel

https://www.ecmtuning.com/wiki/injdata-fueltype

My apologies, I guess I wasn't sure what the WIKI was trying to say until I started actually looking into the equations. I will scale the injectors down to 850cc tomorrow and give it a go and see what happens. Is it possible that the global could need adjusted one way or the other just based off of different cars / builds? Because I think I may have to go down a bit further even after scaling to 850cc based on how off my VE table is.
 
Yeah, ECMlink says -55.7 should be your global value based on your current settings. So, you're already way off.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.


I was under the assumption global was already set rich because you were trying to sort out the lean condition. Setting it even more rich than it currently is doesn't seem like a great idea. If you're not seeing a change in AFRs by adjusting VE richer, I doubt a bump in global will yield any better results.

Did you not have the injectors flow tested when you sent them out for cleaning?
 
Yeah, ECMlink says -55.7 should be your global value based on your current settings. So, you're already way off.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.


I was under the assumption global was already set rich because you were trying to sort out the lean condition. Setting it even more rich than it currently is doesn't seem like a great idea. If you're not seeing a change in AFRs by adjusting VE richer, I doubt a bump in global will yield any better results.

Did you not have the injectors flow tested when you sent them out for cleaning?

Yes I did get them flow tested. They were slightly low but nothing crazy. I will post a picture of the sheet when I get home.

I took the fuel sliders earlier and jacked them up to see what would happen and the car went to a 10.0 AFR. So the car is completely capable of getting the fuel there, it is just the VE numbers are out of spec. From what I can see now, the VE numbers going up does make the mixture more rich and so does changing the global. The VE table values are just out of the range that they should be.
 
This sounds like a tuning issue. I've been using SD the entire time I've owned my DSM and never tuned the MAF after getting rid of the safc-2 that the original owner had on the car he installed a TIAL BOV on. This was when people on this site were debating that SD wasn't a good way to tune your car and didn't understand anything outside of what they could read on the DSMLink forums. To put it simply I've been messing with the various SD offerings available since they were available as I got into it shortly after Nick Sanders stopped development on dsm ecu code. I'm sure many people are saying ??? who's Nick Sanders???

SD 100% can be affected by boost leaks and a tune that isn't on point. I would say even more so than a MAF car because if your MAF car doesn't have boost leaks then the air meter can make up for a lot of problems in the tune as long as a few things are correct. If you're running SD you have to have proper fueling in all the cells and proper timing. Any deviation from what is right for your setup will cause breaking up issues as I've learned from my own experience in tuning SD.
 
Post a good 3rd gear pull and I'll tweak your VE table, and set global where it should be. You can then do a pull on that tune and see where you're at. I also need a shot of your injecor flow rates, and the voltages if you have them.
 
Post a good 3rd gear pull and I'll tweak your VE table, and set global where it should be. You can then do a pull on that tune and see where you're at. I also need a shot of your injecor flow rates, and the voltages if you have them.

3rd gear pull coming right up. It will be posted here in about 30min along with the injector sheet.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top