Ease of Tuning evo3 16G with 550's vs 650's Using S-AFC2

[Ski Bum]

I have read many different oppinions on which injectors would better suit an evo3 16g. Some say 550's are plenty while others say that 650's will offer more room to maximize the potential of the turbo. Another point brought up was ease of tuning with the S-AFC2. I have heard that 550's are quite easy to tune while the 650's tend to be more difficult.

For background info the supporting mods will be: walbro 255 with FPR, evo3 16g, FMIC and the rest of the no-brainer supporting mods. As far as boost levels go I would like to run around 18psi daily on 91 octaine and occasionally hit 20-21 psi (or as high I can go) with 100 octane fuel. I will only be using a datalogger, AFR gauge, EGT and a S-AFC2 to tune (non-eprom ecu).

 

[JayRolla]

I would go with the 650's it will just take a little more patience but you can tune with them. Ive heard people saying you need even 750's for an evo16g, but shouldnt go higher than 680's with an safc2.

 

[Chaddycakes21]

With 20-21 psi you should run 660's, like stated above a little harder to tune but definetly managable.

 

[ericbev]

You can run 550s into the IDC red zone really quickly with the E316G. I would definitley suggest a little larger injector. Some people have even ran 660s near the edge, but we wont go there right now.

Have you considered getting at least an EPROM or even DSM-Link? The SAFC barley has enough adjustment range to properly compensate/control for 650s. Having no control over timing can also hold you back, especially when running just an AFC.

 

[CanadianTSi]

650's will be no harder to tune then 550's, there will still be plenty of room to go into the negative on the S-AFC.

 

[MyBeatGSX]

Why people will continue to recommend 650's with an E16G is beyond me.WTF Maybe because you're stuck with 91, it might be a good idea. But I've had ZERO problems with my PTE 550's. My high throttle AFC settings are -31% at 7,000rpm with boosting creeping to 22psi (93 octane). That puts me at 11.4-11.3:1 with base fuel pressure at an underwhelming 38psi. The headroom left on the 550's, EVEN AT THE LOW FUEL PRESSURE, is enormous (sp?). Not to mention the fact that Disc styles can be run at 90-95% IDC without a problem.

The amount of fuel I would have to take out with 650's would put timing through the roof. Not something I would want to do, and this is where you run into problems tuning with the 650's. 550's are also within the ECU's closed loop correction range, which makes finding perfect low throttle settings far less important.

 

[ericbev]

Why people will continue to recommend 650's with an E16G is beyond me.WTF Maybe because you're stuck with 91, it might be a good idea. But I've had ZERO problems with my PTE 550's. My high throttle AFC settings are -31% at 7,000rpm with boosting creeping to 22psi (93 octane). That puts me at 11.4-11.3:1 with base fuel pressure at an underwhelming 38psi. The headroom left on the 550's, EVEN AT THE LOW FUEL PRESSURE, is enormous (sp?). Not to mention the fact that Disc styles can be run at 90-95% IDC without a problem.

Running above 80% IDCs on any style injector is not a good idea at all. Most injectors max out past the 85% mark so its pretty much futile. Some cars, do in fact, run at 100% (or static) duty cycle but I do not encourage this practice. If an injector is static it has a hard time controling fuel delivery properly. A larger than necessary injector run at 70% duty cycle, will provide more controllable performance than an injector that is being pushed to 90%-95% limits. Lets not forget that this will also extend the lifespan of your investments indefinitely.

Countless people on this site have seen 100% IDCs with 550s when pushing the outer lmits of their E316Gs, even when running the normal base fuel pressure. Some have even claimed higher than desireable numbers on pumpgas running larger units.

Although its not common, pushing an injector this high can make it go "semi-static", half open-half closed, just before going full static. This time-out event occurs at different time/pulse width durations, in different injectors, but always produces a 50% or so duty cycle flow rate. This extremely dangerous situation will usually occur at the worst of times, full throttle-max boost-high RPM- just when you need 100% fuel delivery you get 50% and go dead lean. This is obviously bad.

Just because you are getting away with it like many people have, doesnt mean its the preferred way to do things. Target horsepower should be directly related to what size injector you choose, not what your compromised tuning device can handle. Knowing my IDCs gives me more than just piece of mind

The amount of fuel I would have to take out with 650's would put timing through the roof. Not something I would want to do, and this is where you run into problems tuning with the 650's. 550's are also within the ECU's closed loop correction range, which makes finding perfect low throttle settings far less important.

Are you running lower BFP to give yourself more desireable timing? How about the ECU doing its closedloop calculations with its lower than standard fuelpressure?

This is why I always try and suggest a different method of tuning. I personally view the SAFC (by itself) as a handicapped device and I think many people would benefit from having more control over their fuel delivery (among other things).

The only real problem is that these other options are damn expensive and can scare people away when they are spending on a budget like 99% of us DSMers are. This is especially true when someone is upgrading turbos and they need fuel control pronto to get their car moving.

I know people get excited when ordering parts for their car. I know I sure do. I would rather wait a little bit longer to get the part I desired the first time instead of running into problems later.

 

[iiiwildfireiii]

We all know that engine management solutions like DSMLink, etc. are superior tuning instruments and we would all love to be able to purchase them. I know I wish I could. However, that sadly isn't always the case. I'm also very interested in difficulties and problems that others have had tuning 650's with just dataloggers, EGT, and an SAFC-II since I will be doing the same. Any experiences and comments would be welcome I'm sure.

 

[dsm-onster]

I have read many different oppinions on which injectors would better suit an evo3 16g. Some say 550's are plenty while others say that 650's will offer more room to maximize the potential of the turbo. Another point brought up was ease of tuning with the S-AFC2. I have heard that 550's are quite easy to tune while the 650's tend to be more difficult.

For background info the supporting mods will be: walbro 255 with FPR, evo3 16g, FMIC and the rest of the no-brainer supporting mods. As far as boost levels go I would like to run around 18psi daily on 91 octaine and occasionally hit 20-21 psi (or as high I can go) with 100 octane fuel. I will only be using a datalogger, AFR gauge, EGT and a S-AFC2 to tune (non-eprom ecu).

You'll do fine w/ 550s and a stock long block. Why get the 650s that will just be harder to tune... 550s flow enough for 340 hp at 43 psi base fuel pressure and running at only 80% IDC. See DSM_Tuning_Sheet_v2.1.xls . . . there is no way that you can get an evo3 much above that w/ a stock longblock. Especially since you're planning on running 21 psi.

 

[dsm-onster]

Running above 80% IDCs on any style injector is not a good idea at all. Most injectors max out past the 85% mark so its pretty much futile. Some cars, do in fact, run at 100% (or static) duty cycle but I do not encourage this practice. If an injector is static it has a hard time controling fuel delivery properly. A larger than necessary injector run at 70% duty cycle, will provide more controllable performance than an injector that is being pushed to 90%-95% limits. Lets not forget that this will also extend the lifespan of your investments indefinitely.

Countless people on this site have seen 100% IDCs when pushing the outer lmits of their E316Gs, even when running the normal base fuel pressure. Some have even claimed higher than desireable numbers on pumpgas.

Although its not common, pushing an injector this high can make it go "semi-static", half open-half closed, just before going full static. This time-out event occurs at different time/pulse width durations, in different injectors, but always produces a 50% or so duty cycle flow rate. This extremely dangerous situation will usually occur at the worst of times, full throttle-max boost-high RPM- just when you need 100% fuel delivery you get 50% and go dead lean. This is obviously bad.

Just because you are getting away with it like many people have, doesnt mean its the preferred way to do things. Target horsepower should be directly related to what size injector you choose, not what your compromised tuning device can handle. Knowing my IDCs gives me more than just piece of mind




Are you running lower BFP to give yourself more desireable timing? How about the ECU doing its closedloop calculations with its lower than standard fuelpressure?

This is why I always try and suggest a different method of tuning. I personally view the SAFC (by itself) as a handicapped device and I think many people would benefit from having more control over their fuel delivery (among other things).

The only real problem is that these other options are damn expensive and can scare people away when they are spending on a budget like 99% of us DSMers are. This is especially true when someone is upgrading turbos and they need fuel control pronto to get their car moving.

I know people get excited when ordering parts for their car. I know I sure do. I would rather wait a little bit longer to get the part I desired the first time instead of running into problems later.

Nevertheless, This guy plans on running an EVO3 16G on a stock longblock and capping off at 21 psi... There's no way that he'll be making more power than it takes to get the 550s to over 80% idc... 80% idc is considered fine by the mainstream for injector longevity and accurate fuel delivery.

If he gets the "bigger" parts he'll only want to max them out too. Are you perhaps inadvertently trying to convince him to set a higher goal than he has already?

Ski Bum. . . buy right, buy once. Do you plan on going much farther with this car. If well over 300 hp will satisfy you then 550s will do that and still be in the green w/ IDCs.

 

[JayRolla]

You'll do fine w/ 550s and a stock long block. Why get the 650s that will just be harder to tune... 550s flow enough for 340 hp at 43 psi base fuel pressure and running at only 80% IDC. See DSM_Tuning_Sheet_v2.1.xls . . . there is no way that you can get an evo3 much above that w/ a stock longblock. Especially since you're planning on running 21 psi.

Ive heard you are right about this except if he decides to go with cams he will need 650's, is this true?

 

[dsm-onster]

Why people will continue to recommend 650's with an E16G is beyond me.WTF Maybe because you're stuck with 91, it might be a good idea. But I've had ZERO problems with my PTE 550's. My high throttle AFC settings are -31% at 7,000rpm with boosting creeping to 22psi (93 octane). That puts me at 11.4-11.3:1 with base fuel pressure at an underwhelming 38psi. The headroom left on the 550's, EVEN AT THE LOW FUEL PRESSURE, is enormous (sp?). Not to mention the fact that Disc styles can be run at 90-95% IDC without a problem.

The amount of fuel I would have to take out with 650's would put timing through the roof. Not something I would want to do, and this is where you run into problems tuning with the 650's. 550's are also within the ECU's closed loop correction range, which makes finding perfect low throttle settings far less important.

Stock cams stock rev limit 22 psi... raise your base fuel pressure. Something's wrong if you are getting 95% idc w/ 550s running stock cams at 22 psi... Have you verified your a/f ratio numbers w/ a wideband?

Running at 11.4:1 and at 95% IDC w/ 550s at 38 psi base fuel pressure yields enough fuel flow for 390 horsepower! Just not going to happen on an EVO3 w/ stock cams, stock bore/stroke, stock rev limit. Something's amiss here.

 

[dsm-onster]

Ive heard you are right about this except if he decides to go with cams he will need 650's, is this true?

He'll be running 11 psi over stock. 1psi=approx. 10hp.

110 hp + 190 hp (stock) = 300 hp

300 hp + 30 hp (exhaust upgrade) = 330 hp

He can probably get away w/ a little more boost. But if he upgrades cams he will run into nasty high IDCs.

After 25 psi or so he's done. That's why I asked if he plans on going much farther w/ this car.

 

[dsm-onster]

WAIT!WTF I can't believe no ones mentioned this!!! How do you think his 1G maf would take to 20+ psi. He will overrun his maf long before he would reach 80% IDC with the 550s. There goes his head gasket or worse...

Ski Bum, you need a maf upgrade to get good result from anything here.

 

[Ski Bum]

I'm a little overwhelmed here, hopefully I touch on everbodys comments.

Firstly, I do plan on upgrading to a 3" GM MAF with a translator eventually. I figure that will not limit me as far as the numbers I am planning on hitting. Number wise I am shooting for ~300whp+-, just somewhere in that range.

In regards to injectors, I'm really just trying to find out if 650's will hurt me in any way. Being that they cost the same as 550's I figure why not have the extra breathing room. At the same time if 650's wont be neccesary for my plans and will make tuning with the tools I will be using mor difficult then would 550's work instead?

I don't mind tackling a more challenging tune with the 650's, in fact after my days of modding Subarus using ECUTek, which for me offered zero hands-on time, I'm actually looking forward to a more basic, yet active tuning tool.

Someone mentioned cam upgrades. I would like to keep my options open for possibly a set of FP1 cams in the future. Now the real question arises; Is it possible and worth while to pursue an upgrade path by adding each supporting mod as (I can afford it) or should they all be implemented at the same time to complete the complimentary circle?

Lastly I want to reiterate that I will be doing the tuning with an EGT, AFR, Datalogger and S-AFC2. Is it reccomended to go much further than a turbo upgrade/inj/FP with just using the S-AFC2? i.e. are cams within the tuning capabilities of the tools I will be using? I suppose the answer to that question will ultimately decide my upgrade path, wont it?

 

[dsm-onster]

I'm a little overwhelmed here, hopefully I touch on everbodys comments.

Firstly, I do plan on upgrading to a 3" GM MAF with a translator eventually. I figure that will not limit me as far as the numbers I am planning on hitting. Number wise I am shooting for ~300whp+-, just somewhere in that range.

Someone mentioned cam upgrades. I would like to keep my options open for possibly a set of FP1 cams in the future.

Well you do not need a cam upgrade to reach this goal... But. I don't think that youreally want to limit yourself to 300 whp... . Get the bigger injectors.

In regards to injectors, I'm really just trying to find out if 650's will hurt me in any way. Being that they cost the same as 550's I figure why not have the extra breathing room. At the same time if 650's wont be neccesary for my plans and will make tuning with the tools I will be using mor difficult then would 550's work instead?

650s will NOT be needed to meet your goal of 300whp... But now you've mentioned that you don't want to limit yourself . I say ditch the safc and get dsmlink and go for 850s or more since you want to leave your options open... DSMLink is more expensive but your platform is wide open for ANY future upgrade... I hated that i got 650s because i didn't want to have injectors that were very difficult to tune w/ my MAFt piggy back. I should have waited and got dsmlink and spent the same money on bigger injectors.

I don't mind tackling a more challenging tune with the 650's, in fact after my days of modding Subarus using ECUTek, which for me offered zero hands-on time, I'm actually looking forward to a more basic, yet active tuning tool.

like i said if you really want your options open then go dsmlink... BUT what is your final goal? you you ever plan on going over 400 hp ever?

Now the real question arises; Is it possible and worth while to pursue an upgrade path by adding each supporting mod as (I can afford it) or should they all be implemented at the same time to complete the complimentary circle?

This is very very dificult and usually you end up w/ a redundant purchase that just doesn't cut it so you ahve to sell it and recoup some of the money. Buy in "bulk". It is always cheaper.

Lastly I want to reiterate that I will be doing the tuning with an EGT, AFR, Datalogger and S-AFC2. Is it reccomended to go much further than a turbo upgrade/inj/FP with just using the S-AFC2? i.e. are cams within the tuning capabilities of the tools I will be using? I suppose the answer to that question will ultimately decide my upgrade path, wont it?

You'll find that an EGT will not give you very much. If you already have it then fine... But don't go out and get it if you plan on buying an wideband.

A mild turbo upgrade and an safc wourk great. Making a streatable setup w/ a large turbo and safc is more dificult to me than the savings. What's recommended will differ among almost everyone as an individual... Look, you seam sharp. I think you will BENEFIT from and BE HAPPIER with a better engine control system and a higher horsepower goal.

 

[ericbev]

Are you perhaps inadvertently trying to convince him to set a higher goal than he has already?

Why would I do this? I was simply stating the facts. One of those being that once someone gets a little more power, they eventually want more and more. I know you agree that doing it right the first time makes things a ton easier (especially on the wallet) down the road. You know how the evil DSM wheel turns "Mr 10,000RPM on FP2s 60-1 man."

 

[dsm-onster]

Why would I do this? I was simply stating the facts. One of those being that once someone gets a little more power, they eventually want more and more. I know you agree that doing it right the first time makes things a ton easier (especially on the wallet) down the road. You know how the evil DSM wheel turns "Mr 10,000RPM on FP2s 60-1 man."

HAHAH!!! Yes. I know. I see where you were headed now. In the end here, I agreed w/ you because the original poster said that he wanted to "keep his options open". And bigger, though not always better, does keep them open.

 

[Ski Bum]

Originally I was planning to go with the S-AFC2 route becuase of the expense of DSMLink and the required laptop and having to replace my ECU with an EPROM equipped ECU.

So without spending the ~$2000 in order to use DSMLink how limited will I be using a S-AFC2? Are cams completely useless without DSMlink? Will the 650's be too difficult to tune with just a S-AFC2? What would be a conservative estimate on the potential power with just the S-AFC2? The car is my daily driver so streetability is an absolute must. Am I on the wrong path and should just save for a DSMLink setup?

 

[MyBeatGSX]

Stock cams stock rev limit 22 psi... raise your base fuel pressure. Something's wrong if you are getting 95% idc w/ 550s running stock cams at 22 psi... Have you verified your a/f ratio numbers w/ a wideband?

Running at 11.4:1 and at 95% IDC w/ 550s at 38 psi base fuel pressure yields enough fuel flow for 390 horsepower! Just not going to happen on an EVO3 w/ stock cams, stock bore/stroke, stock rev limit. Something's amiss here.

What exactly do you mean by something being amiss? With my setup? I was only saying Disc styles can be run at 95%, not that mine were at 95%.

Directed at ericbev... Disc styles have a much ligher moving assembly, which is why they can operate at 90%+ duty cycles. Call and ask some of their manufacturers. Its the same as using a light weight valvetrain to rev the engine higher. They don't overheat at high duty cylces because the solenoid has hardly any mass to lift.

Back to my setup again. I don't know my IDC, but I would assume its very low condering how lean I have the AFC set just to get reasonable AFR's. And yes, the fuel pressure is lower so that the timing doesn't become overly advanced by leaning out the AFC too much. With the AFC set at -25% across the board, AFR were off the chart rich (>10:1), I think that gives plenty of overhead for these 550's.

 

[dsm-onster]

What exactly do you mean by something being amiss? With my setup? I was only saying Disc styles can be run at 95%, not that mine were at 95%.

AH! Obviously I more skimmed your post than really studied it... If you are actually running that %IDC, I would be concerned. But since you're not, then disregard my concern for your setup

Directed at ericbev... Disc styles have a much ligher moving assembly, which is why they can operate at 90%+ duty cycles. Call and ask some of their manufacturers. Its the same as using a light weight valvetrain to rev the engine higher. They don't overheat at high duty cylces because the solenoid has hardly any mass to lift.

This is very interesting. I thought the solenoid overheated from having electrons flowing through the wire too long. Not neccesarily because the mass was lighter. Although, it would take less electromotive force to pick up a lighter mass and consequently open the injector. Perhaps this means less current draw, less electrons, and longer times at high %IDCs before overheating. This is interesting. I will research this further...

Back to my setup again. I don't know my IDC, but I would assume its very low condering how lean I have the AFC set just to get reasonable AFR's. And yes, the fuel pressure is lower so that the timing doesn't become overly advanced by leaning out the AFC too much. With the AFC set at -25% across the board, AFR were off the chart rich (>10:1), I think that gives plenty of overhead for these 550's.

Yup .

EDIT: after a little research. I didn't find anything but that, instead, pintle style seams to be more reliable.

Disc styles injectors still have the same resistance in the wire, thus the same current draw (see Ohms Law). If it has the same currend draw, it is using the same wattage since voltage is constant (if the deifferent style injector can be swapped instantaniously during an operating state).

But, I'm still not fully convinced you are wrong because of the laws of Conservation of Energy: if there is less mass being moved, then there is less energy being used to move the mass, and there is an energy loss from somewhere else or the energy is not used to heat up the injectors so much. Which manufaturer told you this? Perhaps there is an article you have somewhere that may shed more light on this?

 

[Brad_11]

SO how much wHP can i get with the evo turbo? And what is the max psi you should boost it at?

 

[dsm-onster]

SO how much wHP can i get with the evo turbo? And what is the max psi you should boost it at?

All is dependent on your setup. I suggest researching what others have run w/ the EVO3 then note their setups at that time. This will give you an idea of what any turbo can deliver.

 

[ericbev]

Minimum cycle time for most pintle types is 2.0 Ms. for P&H and 2.5 for saturated units. The Disc will cycle as low as 1.0 Ms., pulse width, in P&H and .2.0 Ms. for the sat. Unit. (The Lucas Disc weighs only .4 Grams. and the Bosch / Nippon -Denso pintle is at 3.9 to 4 Grams. --- Ten times heavier) The reduced inertial loading of the disc, allows the disc to overcome the hydro- static load at excitation quicker and return to it's seat faster, providing quicker response times and more consistent cycle-to-cycle values. Because disc injectors assemblies are soo much lighter (especially the Lucas), their standard service life is more than a pintle type.

IDCs are not always logged with 100% accuracy. Some injectors are actually flowing about 83% of rating when the actual duty-cycle (as seen by the ECU) is at 90%. Some people commonly report logged IDCs of over 100% but this is not possible. Most injectors go static (open all the time) around the 93-96% range, so figures can be skewed a little when comparing one setup to another.

Although, injector longevity is the smallest of the problems concerning extremely high duty cycles. Of course they can operate that high, but it is pointless to do so unless you are restricted by your fuel control system. This is why when you have the proper control, it is highly suggested to get a larger than necessary injector to provide some "breathing room" for future upgrades as well as keeping yourself out of trouble like stated above.

Do you have a wideband in your car MyBeatGSX? are you converting narrowband voltages? Im am just curious is all.

 

[ericbev]

So without spending the ~$2000 in order to use DSMLink how limited will I be using a S-AFC2?

Well this would depend on what you see as limited. Limited on getting the most power out of a 16G setup? Or limited to bigger options down the road?

DSM-Link will definitley allow you to make more power than the SAFC and will grant you infinite expandibility. The question is, how much power will you be satisfied with? Do you ever see yourself going bigger?

Are cams completely useless without DSMlink? Will the 650's be too difficult to tune with just a S-AFC2? What would be a conservative estimate on the potential power with just the S-AFC2?

No, cams are definitley not uselss without DSM-Link. No 650 will not be too dificult to tune with on the SAFC. You can expect around 300whp on good pumpgas tune.

Am I on the wrong path and should just save for a DSMLink setup?

Everyone that Ive read about on this site that has made the switch from the SAFC to DSM-Link has had nothing but wonderful things to say. It really has that much more to offer. Wether its worth the time and money to get all that it offers is really up to you.

I am not sure what year 1Gs came with an EPROM ECU. Did you check to see if your car has one? That saves alot of money right away. A laptop with minimun requirements to run DSM-Link can be bought for $150 on ebay.

$600 for DSM-Link
$150-300 for an EPROM (if you dont already have one)
$150-200 for a laptop to make it all work
Grand Total: $900-1200 depending on your shopper skills..