|
This is a little wierd. I just finished a whitepaper on extra injector control. The focus is a little heavy on tuning the 034 matrix, but I think you may benefit from some of this information.
The thing about it is that I dug pretty deep into Megasquirt and it does look like a pretty descent controller and its cheap to boot. If you do end up using an extra injector controler then this white paper should definately be usefull.
It is literally hot off the keyboard and so I hope it is correct. There are a couple things I still want to include and a couple of things that I want to test out to be sure. But what the hell. I think what I have now isn't all that bad. Anyways, I'm going to copy in the wp from here forward. It was written as a text file and there are a couple of tables in the document that are all tabe delimited which doesn't translate too well to html. I went through those particular areas and put a pipe character | between the feilds so it'll be easier to read. If it's really that difficult to read - just yank it into Excel or something.
---------------------------------
Most of you may know that I've built an 8-injector rig. Most of the components for it are built and already installed in the car. My 034 EFI supplimentary injector controller is installed and wired up. The fuel pressure regulator, fuel filter, and hard lines(main and return) to the tank are in. My manifold is built - as well as the fuel rails and braketry to hold the secondary rail on. Even the injector harness is built and ready to go. The reason I decided to go this route was mostly one of control, but being able to control extra injectors "just for boost" really appealed to me on several levels.
I recently submerged myself into studying the algorhythms for extra injector control. What is it that makes those extra injectors tick? or simply - How the eff do I tune them? Research on this topic was inevitable, but what really set it off for me was mention of a DIY fuel controller called Megasquirt. It is a complete EFI solution mostly appreciated by techies who want to upgrade ye olde carb engines to the futuristic world of electronic fuel injection. It's an fully programmable solution and it can be made to apply anything from simple standalone EFI to water injection, alcohol injection, dual fuel duty, EIC, nitrous, etc etc...the list goes on, but that's not really the reason for this post. I started looking into it before even turning on my 034, because I've got this crazy notion that I may somehow be able to use it as a dual purpose EIC/nitrous fuel controler. I know its crazy - maybe someday.
I went pretty deep on this "extra injector" research and came up with an interesting discovery. The 034 matrix is not exactly "extra injector" tuner friendly. I was a bit surprised about this because it is a purpose built EIC. The problem I found has to do with ease of using the tuning matrix - not with the actual workings of it or the tunability of the unit itself. From what I can see and the testimonies I've read, the 034 is a fine reliable unit that works awesome. The problem that I have has ONLY to do with the ease of using the matrix. Tuning the matrix along the MAP axis makes seemingly very little sense other then the fact that the pulsewidth is adjusted at that point by the percentage that you put in the matrix. Increasing two different MAP rungs by 5% does not eqate to the same increase in fuel output for both rungs, and it may or may not even equate to a 5% increase in fuel on either rung. The reason is because the 034 actually behaves very much like a standalone fuel system with regards to how it calculates the injector pulsewidth for a given MAP. Remember, the 034EFI Supplimental ECU does have a full blown EFI controller as a big brother - the 034EFI Stage2 ECU. So I guess it's not really surprising that it acts like a standalone in this regard.
I think the best way to show the important similarities to a standalone EFI system is to compare it to one, so I'll compare it to the Megasquirt controller. Megasquirt is for all intensive purposes a standalone EFI out of the box (or hot off the solder station), with tons of online documentation on building/programming/tuning it. Its open source too so you can even dig into the code.
Generally speaking, a MAP based EFI system needs to maintain an injector pulsewidth based on the amount of presure in the manifold. This may seem a little odd unless you've studied it, but as it turns out, at the MOST basic level the EFI controller needs to maintain an injector pulsewidth based on MAP. That is to say, if you are at a certain MAP value then the controlller will want to keep the injectors open for a certain pulsewidth regardless of RPM. The trick to getting enough fuel is that the pulse is generated per cycle(2 revs) or per revolution or some other tach based firing technique - so that, with no change in pulsewidth, as revs go up so does fuel usage. There are factors that come into play where you'll want to modify the pulsewidth - ie VE, cold engine enrichments, barometric corrections, accelerator/tps enrichments, and so on. But at the very core - for any given MAP we need a pulsewidth to work with. It's easy to see plotted against duty cycle, but its also obvious as you look at an 034 monitor. MAP goes up - so does pulsewidth. MAP stays steady - so does pulsewidth.
How does the 034 choose a pulsewidth? Well - it's based on the injector scaler. Here's a quote from the 034 standalone manual(as Javad doesn't really express it like this in the Supplimental ECU documentation - but it's the same algorhythm):
"This number equates to the basic “unmapped” pulse width that the controller would calculate at the maximum manifold pressure"
The 034 comes with a 2.5bar MAP sensor so 265kpa is the maximum manifold pressure. The tuning matrix has 8 MAP buckets which are interpolated between 9 MAP rungs with 10kpa on the bottom rung and 265kpa at the top. The other axis of the matrix is RPM and the matrix values are used to modify the pulsewidth by a percentage, but it is the 9 rung MAP ladder that dictates the base MAP pulsewidth. To make thing mathmatically simple lets number the rungs from 0-8 where 0 is the bottom rung. This actually makes some sense seing as the reference pulsewidth is placed at the top of the ladder and the bottom rung is simply a boundry. So the pulsewidth value for an exact match to a rung point would be equal to ((Inj_scaler/rung_count)*rung_number) * matrix_interp, but if it is not an exact match then the pulsewidth is interpolated between the 2 appropriate points. The ladder would look something like this.
rung 8: kpa 265.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 8) * matrix_interp ....or simply.... Inj_scaler * matrix_interp
rung 7: kpa 233.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 7) * matrix_interp
rung 6: kpa 201.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 6) * matrix_interp
rung 5: kpa 169.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 5) * matrix_interp
rung 4: kpa 137.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 4) * matrix_interp
rung 3: kpa 105.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 3) * matrix_interp
rung 2: kpa 73.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 2) * matrix_interp
rung 1: kpa 41.0, pw = ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 1) * matrix_interp
rung 0: kpa 10.0, pw = 0
So if all of your matrix entries are set to 1.0 - at 100kpa the pulsewidth is going to be somewhere toward the 105 kpa rung's pulsewidth value or ~ (Inj_Scaler / 8) * 3. To be more precice, the pulsewidth is interpolated between rung 2 and 3 as
73 + ( (100 - 73) * (105 - 73) ) * ( (((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 3) - ((Inj_Scaler / 8) * 2))) / (105 - 73) )
Don't get hung up in the math especially if it's wrong - its(supposed to) just(be) a linear interpolation 
The Megasquirt calculates pulsewidth a bit differently. Lets take a closer look. Megasquirt lets you specify a REQ_FUEL parameter which defines the pulsewidth in milliseconds that MegaSquirt should “squirt” to give the stoichiometric amount of fuel (14.7 Air/Fuel ratio for gasoline) at 100% VE, a manifold absolute pressure (MAP) of 100kPa, and an air temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit for a complete stroke cycle. In all fairness, Megasquirt is a complete EFI controller so the actual pulsewidth calculated by taking several inputes and engine states into consideration:
PW = REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP * E + accel + Injector_open_time
pulsewidth = REQ_FUEL parameter * Volumetric Efficiency table entry * Extra enrichments(warm-up, after-start, barometer and air temperature correction, closed-loop, etc.) + acceleration enrichments + Injector_open_time(very brief periods when they are opening and closing - generally about 1 millisecond)
I don't want to get too caught up in all of these parameters. The "accell" parameter can go directly out the window as far as controlling extra injectors under boost is concerned. "E" is interesting in so far as it can make barometric corrections - but that particular feature is not absolutely nessicary and it only goes to distract from the subject at hand. "Injector open time" is used in tuning injector latency which is why it is an additive constant. It also is not important to this discussion. "VE" is derived from Megasquirt's tuning matrix. It corresponds directly to the 034 matrix entries - it's how you tune the pulsewidth for a particular RPM/MAP intersection. One more thing about the MAP value - the way Megasquirt treats the value is as a percentage. In other words 100kpa = %100, 150kpa = %150, etc. For he remainder of this comparison the Megasquirt pulsewidth equation will be simplified to:
PW = REQ_FUEL * VE * MAP
So if all of the points in your VE table are set to %100 - at 100kpa the pulsewidth should be ~REQ_FUEL
This point is critical to the proving the comparison: these algorythms are ESSENTIALLY the same. Basically, you can reproduce a pulsewidth/MAP curve from 034 to MS and vice-versa. For simplicity's sake I'm going to keep the tunig matracies sett to "all 1s" for the 034 matrix and "all %100s" for the Megasquirt VE matrix. There are a couple of ways to transform an 034 pulse curve to a MS pulse curve and vice-versa. For example you could take the pulsewidth from the 265kpa point on a MS curve and use it as the Inj_scaler on 034(Inj_scaler = MS 265kpa pw). Going the other way you could take an interpolated 100kpa pulsewidth value from an 034 curve and use it as REQ_FUEL in MS(REQ_FUEL = 034 100kpa pw). Lets compare a real example. For this example the 034 Inj_scaler is set to 7.1 and I peg the MS 265kpa pulsewidth to 7.1ms by setting REQ_FUEL to 2.6794.
kpa |034 pw |ms pw |difference in ms
265.0 |7.100 |7.100 |0.00
233.0 |6.213 |6.243 |0.03
201.0 |5.325 |5.386 |0.06
169.0 |4.438 |4.528 |0.09
137.0 |3.550 |3.671 |0.12
105.0 |2.663 |2.813 |0.15
73.0 |1.775 |1.956 |0.18
41.0 |0.888 |1.099 |0.21
The 265kpa values are equal and the overall difference in pulsewidth is minimal. It's only off by .2 milliseconds toward idle/high vacuum. Lets go the other way with it. In this next example the REQ_FUEL is the interpolated 100kpa pulsewidth value from the 034 curve.
kpa |034 pw |ms pw |difference in ms
265.0 |7.100 |6.688 |-0.41
233.0 |6.213 |5.881 |-0.33
201.0 |5.325 |5.073 |-0.25
169.0 |4.438 |4.265 |-0.17
137.0 |3.550 |3.458 |-0.09
105.0 |2.663 |2.650 |-0.01
73.0 |1.775 |1.842 |0.07
41.0 |0.888 |1.035 |0.15
Here, the 100kpa values are equal and again the difference in pulsewith is a minimal ~%6 at 2.5 bar.
At this point it should be sufficient to say that both systems calculate pulsewidth following the same algorythm:
pulsewidth = (MAP * Reference pulsewidth) * tuning factor
With MS a VE table is used for tuning. For the 034 its the matrix. The VE table and matrix tuners are virtually identical in so far as they use a percentage to increase or decrease the pulsewidth values by a certain percentage. So the only real difference in the algorythm is (MAP * Reference pulsewidth) which for the sake of clarity can be reduced to MAP pulsewidth.
pulsewidth = MAP pulsewidth * tuning factor
Megasquirt's actual algorythm more directly fits into the previous definition - the referecne pulsewidth is located at 100kpa and the MAP value is used as a percentage.
MS MAP pulsewidth = (MAP in kpa / 100) * REQ_FUEL
For the 034, whatever pulsewidth you define for 265kpa is divided evenly amongst the 8 buckets on the pressure axis of the matrix. So instead of referencing a pulsewidth constant at run time, the 034 implicitly bounds the pulsewidth to the matrix so that
034 MAP pulsewidth = interpolated pulsewidth value
The important distinction to both of these methods is that they are linear and cover a broad MAP range. This is expected if you think about it because the engine needs twice as much fuel at 14.7psi boost as it would at 0. Actually the Megasquirt simulates a full coverage from 0-265kpa and the 034 limits the lower bound of coverage to 10kpa(~1.45psi), so its range is from 10-265kpa. This lower bound on the 034's MAP axis is the ONLY reason that the 2 systems don't produce the same exact MAP pulsewidth. Take a look at the basic(non VE/matrix modified) MAP pulsewidths from both systems at 0psi and at 14.7psi using the first example curves.
MS MAP pulse width
0 psi = 101.325 kpa = 2.71490205 ms
14.7 psi = 202.65 kpa = 5.4298041 ms = %100 more fuel
034 MAP pulse width
0 psi = 101.325 kpa = 2.472198853 ms
14.7 psi = 202.65 kpa = 5.365613525 ms = %117 more fuel
You can see that both systems will provide twice the fuel at 2bar. The Megasquirt system gives a dead on 100 percent increase because its MAP axis starts at 0 as opposed to the 034 which is a little different, because it's MAP axis starts at 10 kpa.
The 034 may be designed with a slightly different MAP pulsewidth curve, but is it specificaly a boost minded EIC curve? I would think that an EIC wouldn't start until boost. As a matter of fact I was genuinely surprised when I first fired up my 034. I was under the assumption that the MAP pulsewidth curve would start at the "Cut fuel below kpa" parameter - or something along those lines. Honestly - I was surprised. Why would an EIC give pulsewidth to 90kpa...or 70kpa...or even 20kpa? The problem that I have isn't the fact that you can't take that pulsewidth away - because you can. Set the "Cut fuel below kpa" and viola - no more fuel below a particular kpa. But once you get above the cut - BAM - pw as if the EIC pw curve started from 10kpa. Hmmmm. OK, lets tune it out all that extra fuel with the matrix, which you can do BUT the numbers in the matrix are not intuitive.
Maybe I'm gettting ahead of myself here. I mean, who is to say that those numbers NEED to make any intuitive sense at all right? They don't really NEED to but I do think it sure would be nice if they did. Regardless of my opinion, you can get the numbers to make some some sense but to do so you've got to take a look at the bigger picture.
On one hand we have the stock ECU, which provides all of the engine's non-turbo fueling requirements from idle to WOT(0 psi - 0 psig). It does this job well, but it doesn't calculate the fuel any differently at 0 psig then it would boosting at 14 psig. In fact, the newer ECUs(96+) will actually cut fuel altogether if it sees boost from the sensor. Remember, this is a non-turbo ECU so that is fine - it was not designed to ever see boost and it's understandable that it shuts down if it does. It is also the reason we need to modify the fuel system in the first place - so we CAN boost. There are MAP sensor voltage clamps, and MAP sensor check valves that ensure this does not happen if you do in fact put boost pressure on the MAP sensor. Using extra injectors to supply the fuel required under boost does not change the stock ECU's job. It will not stop supplying fuel as long as the MAP signal is clamped or checked appropriately. It will simply provide what it deems nessicary at the top of its MAP limit, which is around 0 psig. The extra injectors need to pick up from where the stock ECU slacks off. I think its easiest to think of it in terms of the atmospheric pressure being a boundry of operation between the two fuel systems.
Up to and including atmospheric pressure - the stock ECU provides all fuel requirements
Above atmoshperic pressure - the stock ECU maintains atmoshperic fuel requirements, while the EIC provides ONLY the boosted fuel requirements
So what are the boosted fuel requirements? To be sure, the best way to find out would be to see what the stock ECU thinks about it because it has all sorts of neet bells and whistles about maintaining the proper amount of fuel needed while operating up to and including atmospheric pressure. Unfortunately, there is no real interface to obtain pulsewidth/fuel usage figures from the stocker so we'll have to simulate it some other way. I turned to Megasquirt's algorythm for this job. It is after all designed as a full-on standalone EFI controller. The bench is a spreadsheet programmed with Megasquirt like inputs - not an actual Megasquirt unit. The algorythms are documented quite well and to the best of my knowledge the spreadsheed acurately depicts MS behavior properly. Part of the MS software helps you determine the REQ_FUEL parameter based on displacement, number of injectors, injector size, yada, yada. There is also a web page has an applet that lets you calculate it as well. MS allows you to set the kpa axis of the VE table to whatever values you want, but I kept them matched to the 034s hard coded rungs. I've also added one extra row to use as a base MAP reference. The base MAP is our atmospheric boundry - where we actually want the extra injector fuel curve to start at. I chose 100kpa as the base reference MAP value. The reference map is not exactly the point at which we want to start injecting fuel, that feature is input by the "cut fuel below" parameter on the actual 034. 100kpa seemed to be a good choice for a reference MAP though because it gets the juice flowing at just about 0 psig. Most of the columns in this chart are self explanitory - the pulsewidth, kpa, psig. The "Redline fuel usage" column is calculated at 7000RPM as duty cycle * Injector size. You can think of this column as the amount of fuel required if Megasquirt were running the whole dog and pony show using one set of injectors. The "EIC required fuel" column shows us what we really need to know to program the 034- the difference in fuel usage between the current row and the base reference MAP row. Fuel usages are all in lbs/hr. It is calculated by taking the fuel usage at redline and subtracting it from the fuel usage at redline for the reference map row. For example on the first row MAP=265kpa and EIC_fuel=(49.16 - 18.55)=30.61, on the second row MAP=233kpa and EIC_fuel=(43.22 - 18.55)=24.67, and so on.
*30lb/hr primary injector MS Simulation*
MAP pulsewidth |kpa |psig |Redline fuel usage |EIC required fuel
14.045 |265.0 |23.739 |49.16 |30.61
12.349 |233.0 |19.098 |43.22 |24.67
10.653 |201.0 |14.457 |37.29 |18.74
8.957 |169.0 |9.815 |31.35 |12.80
7.261 |137.0 |5.174 |25.41 |6.86
5.565 |105.0 |0.533 |19.48 |0.93
3.869 |73.0 |-4.108 |13.54 |-5.01
2.173 |41.0 |-8.749 |7.61 |-10.94
5.300 |Base Ref=100 |-0.192 |18.55
Now an extra injector curve can be built because we know how much fuel the EIC needs to provide. This curve will also be built using the MS spreadsheet. So back to the trusty 7.1 Inj_scaler conversion. I've chosen to extrapolate REQ_FUEL from a 7.1ms pulsewidth at 265kpa because the MS version of the 034 curve is more correlated in the higher boost region when you do it that way. Thats what we're interested in, control at higher boost. Its no mistake that I've been using 7.1 as a scaler all along either. In searching through the archives, I found this one thread where Matt, Jason, and Extreme97nt are all whippin out thier scalers. They were all around 6.5-7.1. Matt actually had the most info - he was using 30lb secondaries and tuned the AF to a reasonable 11.5:1 on the dyno with a 7.1 scaler. So anyway another chart, but this one is based on the extra injectors. This time the redline fuel usage is in terms of the extra injectors - that is how much they would be burning up at 7000 RPM. The "EIC required fuel" has not changed a bit because the requirements for fuel came from the first simulation but I'm including it for clarity. For seemingly no other reason then just to include it - the base MAP reference row is in there as well. The "MAP pw corrections" column is calculated by dividing the "EIC required fuel" column by the "Redline fuel usage" column. In laymans terms it is how far off the extra injector simulation fuel useage is from the precalculated EIC required fuel curve in percentage format. These percentage values can be placed in the VE matrix to hammer our "extra injectors" in line with the EIC required fuel column.
*30lb/hr secondary injector MS Simulation*
MAP pulsewidth |kpa |psig |Redline fuel usage |EIC required fuel |MAP pw corrections
7.100 |265.0 |23.739 |24.85 |30.61 |123.1619%
6.243 |233.0 |19.098 |21.85 |24.67 |112.9104%
5.386 |201.0 |14.457 |18.85 |18.74 |99.3948%
4.528 |169.0 |9.815 |15.85 |12.80 |80.7608%
3.671 |137.0 |5.174 |12.85 |6.86 |53.4219%
2.813 |105.0 |0.533 |9.85 |0.93 |9.4193%
1.956 |73.0 |-4.108 |6.85 |-5.01 |-73.1609%
1.099 |41.0 |-8.749 |3.84 |-10.94 |-284.6469%
2.679 |Base Ref=100 |-0.192 |9.38
So when you take the MAP pw corrections and place them into the VE table, our secondary injector simulation does in fact reflect the EIC required fuel. In this example the MAP pw correction figures correspond strongly to the correct 034 matrix entries. Although the documentation for 034 is a little vauge about how values are interpolated for any given point - the fact that the 034 MAP rungs are used in these MS simulations and the fact that the actual MAP range is very similar in both systems(0-265kpa for MS and 10-265kpa for 034) means that there would at the least be a very high correlation between MAP pulsewidth chosen on either system by applying the same MAP pw corrections. Furthermore, it is correct to use the same correction factors for every tach point in the matrix even though the calculations are based on the redline duty cycle. Only one point on the tach need be used to build the correction factor. I used the redline. It is probably the most interesting point because it shows maximum fuel flow, but any point on the tach could have been used to build the correction curve because RPM is simply a factor in calculating the duty cycle and fuel output. It has nothing to do with the actual pulsewidth calculation.
The reason for the MAP pw corrections is what I'm going to call the correction slope. The correction slope represents the difference in MAP pulsewidth growth of the primary injectors in relation to the MAP pulsewidth growth of the secondaries. The correction slope is calculated by dividing the MAP pw from a point on the secondary injector MAP pulsewidth curve and dividing it by the same MAP pw point on the primary injector MAP pulsewidth point. It actually doesn't matter which point you use, the slope is constant because the growth of both curves is linear(even though I've been referring to them as curves). For example - using the Base ref MAP point, correction slope=(2.679 / 5.300)= 0.50554717, or using the 169 kpa point, correction slope=(4.528 / 8.957)= 0.50554717.
Correction slope = Secondary MAP pw point @ n kpa / Primary MAP pw point @ n kpa
In the secondary injector example, the correction slope was accounted for in a different manor. The interestesting thing is that if you already know the correction slope then you can come up with the MAP pw corrections using ONLY the values from the primary injector simulation.
MAP pw correction = EIC required fuel / ( Primary injector fuel usage * Correction slope)
Of course, part of the correction slope still comes from the secondary injectors but it is an easy number to get. For example, current 034 users could simply use thier current Inj_scaler divided by the 265kpa MAP point for thier engine(hint: 420a owners can use the one from my example - 14.045 )
So there they are. Our elusive matrix entry values. These correction values need to be applied accross the entire matrix to "normalize" the curve so that it supplies the appropriate "EIC required fuel" amount for the entire RPM band. At this point it becomes a little more clear why the matrix numbers are a bit confusing. The fuel output from both fuel systems must be taken into consideration when adjusting the matrix. I think it gives a good explanation to why Matt's Inj_scaler ended up as 7.1 on the 034 with his 30 pounders - because the pw correction is 100%(a 1.0 in the 034 matrix) very close to where his car hits max boost of 17psig. Well, maybe not a convincing argument for Matt's scenario because there are other factors to consider - like what the pulsewidth curve would look like if the VE table were adjusted with appropriate values to his car on the primary injector simulation...but it has been more usefull to remain focused on the MAP pulsewidth curves and leave those types of adjustments alone to demonstrate a "normal" MAP pulsewidth curve.
Speaking of curves. It is much easier(and more apealing to some) to show the direct between the stock ECU MAP pw, the EIC MAP pw, MAP pw corrections, and correction slope by graphing them.
This first graph shows us what the Megasquirt MAP pw curve would look like for our engine.
It would be great if our ECU could do that, but it can't. As our ECU hits 0psig the ECU peters out and just maintains what it has. This next graph depicts what it would look like. To simplify the work, I just flattened the curve from the 105kpa point upwards. It may not be exact but you should be able to get the picture.
Here's what the EIC required fuel looks like. Notice that it has the same slope as the stock curve. This is because it is built from the stock curve.
Excel has this pretty cool chart type called a "Stacked" chart. It lets you stack the values of one series on top of another. This next chart is the same as the previous one except that its in "Stacked" mode. It shows what the EIC required fuel looks like stacked on top of the stock injectors. The tail of the EIC required fuel curve shows up but it is of no consequence since the EIC "cuts fuel below" a certain pressure. Looks pretty similar to the Megasquirt curve.
Time to take a look at the secondary injectors. Notice the slope is different than that of the primary and EIC curves. It grows at, you guessed it, precisely 50.554717 percent as quickly as the others. The correction slope in action. It starts growth at the same place our primary injectors do at 0 kpa. Also notice it intersects our EIC requirements ever so close to the 201kpa MAP rung, where our MAP pw correction is only %99(or .99 in the matrix).
The secondaries mimic the EIC requirements When the MAP pw corrections are applied to the VE table. I directly applied the corrections to all of the MAP points from 105kpa on up to 265kpa. I intentionally extended the 105kpa correction of 9.4193% to the remaining lower MAP rungs to keep all of the MAP pulsewidths positive. I suppose its probably a smart thing to do on the real 034. If you look real close you can still see the very lower end of the EIC requirement curve.
Finally we get to see the full Monty. This is another "Stacked" chart. Once again the primary injectors are on the bottom, but this time our MAP pw corrected Secondary injectors are on top of it. It is exactly the same data as the previous graph except the EIC requirements are gone and the chart widget is in the "Stacked" mode.
95 Eclipse RS : 5 speed
15.901 @ 88.34mph
Jeep TB writeup - http://www.dimensia.com:81/jimbo/JeepTBfor2gnt.html
|
