Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > DIY PROM
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

DIY PROM Do It Yourself PROM chip burning help. No PROM begging. No PROMs for sale. No commercial exchange. Not a referral service.

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-12-2006, 10:42 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Injector size constant for a 1227747 ECU in TunerPro?

Hi, I'm (starting) to use TunerPro so I can hopefully get my very rebuilt '87 454 TBI motor to run.

(For those interested: Edelbrock Mutlipoint injector intake, ally heads, roller rockers, 202/210@50 cam, 9.5:1 compression)

I'm taking my current prom (from the Edelbrock multi-point intake conversion) as the starting point. It ran with 8x19lb/hr injectors, which I'm changing for 29lb/hr ones, to support the expected 450hp.

So as a simple starting point, I'd like to alter the fuel tables to at least be aware of the bigger injectors, in the low rpms and idle, so it doesn't overfuel.

The thing is, I can't see an injector constant anywhere in the TunerPro lists, am I missing it? I imported 7747-mine.ecu defintion downloaded from the TunerPro site and saved it as 42.xdf. Am I missing the constant, or should I just alter the VE / fuel tables directly if there is no alterable constant?

Many thanks.
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 10:51 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
BPW in the constants will do the trick.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 10:58 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofast51 View Post
BPW in the constants will do the trick.

Thanks for the reply gofast, there's a 'BPW Const for EGF off' constant listed, but not just BPW (Base Pulse Width?) on its own. Is this is it, or something else?
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 11:24 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I downloaded another 42.xdf file. I have the same setup except for the engine size. That xdf has been modified so might not be a good place to start. If I can find the file again I will post it for you. My 42.xdf file has the BPW (base pulse width in the constants.)
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 11:24 PM   #5
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 5,958
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Well there is one for EGR off and a table for EGR on. It is for sure included in this XDF definition file.
Attached Files
File Type: zip 42.zip (641.1 KB, 114 views)
Fast355 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 11:36 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Thanks guys. Fast355, that xdf sure us different to the one I already had! I guess the stock 7747 ecu file from the tunerpro site isn't so good? Where have you and gofast got your definitions from? (Or have you worked on them yourselves, I've got a lot to learn!!)

Thanks
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 11:40 PM   #7
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 5,958
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkshirespud View Post
Thanks guys. Fast355, that xdf sure us different to the one I already had! I guess the stock 7747 ecu file from the tunerpro site isn't so good? Where have you and gofast got your definitions from? (Or have you worked on them yourselves, I've got a lot to learn!!)

Thanks
I usually get mine from Craig Moates site. I am about to try dissasembling a Vortec PCM on my own though.
Fast355 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2006, 11:41 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I found the file on a web site that I got from reading alot in this forum. There is a wealth of info and very helpful people here. Fast 355 has alot of posts and reading his stuff has been very helpful to me.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 12:02 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofast51 View Post
I found the file on a web site that I got from reading alot in this forum. There is a wealth of info and very helpful people here. Fast 355 has alot of posts and reading his stuff has been very helpful to me.
I know what you mean! I've been reading and reading for about 3 months now, but I'm almost at the point where I've got to try to put all this into practice. I pulled the my motor for a full rebuild, which is nearing completion. I've been looking at all this chip stuff in parallel since I realised that at the very least I would have to change the injectors for bigger units to realise the extra horsepower the rebuild is trying to achieve, and therefore the fuel tables at least would need tweaking. (And of course then spark due to engine changes).

Interesting, I've used the new XDF to look at the stock prom the engine originally had (ACLP), and the GM updrage AZFT. They both have BPWs of 134. I ran the truck like that for a year, and then installed the Edelbrock multipoint (which I ran for a few more years). That has a BPW of 187.

That sorta makes sense as the Edelbrock conversion certainly gave a kick in the guts, but ...

Stock 454 injectors (80 lbs/hr ??) x 2 = 160lbs/hr, and
Edlbrock 19lbs/hr x 8 = 152 lbs/hr ... less!!!?!?

I know the Edelbrock runs at much higher psi (45) compared to TBI (12), but the lbs/hr ratings should cover that. Maybe something to do with injecting into the intake ports rather than intake equates to a better flow?? Hmm, confused!!

Any thoughts?

Cheers
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 09:10 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I think the math may be off a bit. read the come in for a free tune thread it has alot of the calculations that you need. The bigger the BPW the longer the pulse width of the injector. You can get a high enough pulse width that your injectors will go static(on all the time) at a very low rpm. 187 bpw for a 454 sounds way too high. I'll bet if you were to calculate it out from scratch that you will be down in the low 120's. You will need to estimate your horspower of your new setup then calculte what fuel pressure you will need based on the injectors you are using. Then you will be able to calculate a good bpw to start with.

Last edited by gofast51; 10-13-2006 at 09:26 AM.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 11:10 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofast51 View Post
I think the math may be off a bit. read the come in for a free tune thread it has alot of the calculations that you need. The bigger the BPW the longer the pulse width of the injector. You can get a high enough pulse width that your injectors will go static(on all the time) at a very low rpm. 187 bpw for a 454 sounds way too high. I'll bet if you were to calculate it out from scratch that you will be down in the low 120's. You will need to estimate your horspower of your new setup then calculte what fuel pressure you will need based on the injectors you are using. Then you will be able to calculate a good bpw to start with.

Thanks, I'll take another look in that thread to check my calcs. I'm aiming for 450hp which is why I'm going to use 8x29lbs/hr injectors in the rebuild.

I think I may not have explained myself properly though, I'm just starting to look at burning chips now for when the rebuild is complete, I haven'y burnt any yet. The 134 BPW is what I *read* from the stock truck ACLP chip, and the 187 BPW was read from the Edelbrock chip currently in my truck from their conversion kit. Seems a bit weird?
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 09:49 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
I hear what you are saying! If you do the calcs on the stock stuff alot of times they are different than what is in the chip. It keeps you from obtaining any rpm as the injector constant is so high that your injectors will go static at maybe 3200-3600 rpm. Raising the fuel pressure and lowering the constant will give you some room in your rpm range.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 09:56 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofast51 View Post
I hear what you are saying! If you do the calcs on the stock stuff alot of times they are different than what is in the chip. It keeps you from obtaining any rpm as the injector constant is so high that your injectors will go static at maybe 3200-3600 rpm. Raising the fuel pressure and lowering the constant will give you some room in your rpm range.
Well there's the odd thing. I followed the maths in the Tune thread, and they are spot on for the stock GM ACLP and AZFT tunes, using 454cu and 80lb injectors, the result is the 134 as found in the chips.

I'm a little confised by the equations in the tune thread though, they reference the volume of a single cylinder, and what I assume is one injector (80lbs/hr) out of the two in a TBI setup. The edelbrock setup has 8 injectors at 19lbs/hr. Should that be multiplied by 4 to pretend to be one TBI injector?

Maybe the Edelbrock setup is just a bit weird. I'm tempted to use AZFT as my starting point for my own bin.
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2006, 10:27 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
7.4/8=.925= volume of one cylinder. 4x19/3600x453.6=9.57 rate of injectors.BPW is 1461.5x .925/9.57=141. 29lb per hr. injectors will support 397 hp. so you would have to raise the fuel pressure on your 29's and recalculate to support your estimated 450hp.

Last edited by gofast51; 10-14-2006 at 10:16 AM.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 08:33 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chasing Electrons
Posts: 11,391
Car: check
Engine: check
Transmission: check

Classifieds Rating: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkshirespud View Post
I'm a little confised by the equations in the tune thread though, they reference the volume of a single cylinder, and what I assume is one injector (80lbs/hr) out of the two in a TBI setup. The edelbrock setup has 8 injectors at 19lbs/hr. Should that be multiplied by 4 to pretend to be one TBI injector?

Maybe the Edelbrock setup is just a bit weird. I'm tempted to use AZFT as my starting point for my own bin.
Multipling the flow of a single injector by 4 (19 * 4) as 1 TBI injector for the calc is correct.

If you start pover with a stock '747 BIN reduce the AE by a lot. A port setup doesn't required as much AE as a wet-flow TBI setup. Can check the Edel BIN to see what kind of values they used.

When you increase the injector flow will also need to further reduce the AE. The AE calculations are PW based.

RBob.
RBob is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 10:19 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 68

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Yorshire, edited my calcs based on rbob's explanation. As you can see it is very different than what is in your multipoint bin. This is what I was trying to show you. Thank you rbob for your correction.
gofast51 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 12:03 PM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ok
Posts: 56

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast355 View Post
I usually get mine from Craig Moates site. I am about to try dissasembling a Vortec PCM on my own though.
Is there a chance there will be a tunerpro based program to read and flash the vortec style pcms? If so that would be awesome
lo-n-slo is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 12:09 PM   #18
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 5,958
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears

Classifieds Rating: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by lo-n-slo View Post
Is there a chance there will be a tunerpro based program to read and flash the vortec style pcms? If so that would be awesome
That is what I am working for. Just have too many other projects to really sit down and try it. I am making an ECM test bench for the Vortec PCM as well, time permiting. In all truthfulness, I should just repin the harness, go to the silver PCM, and buy LS1 edit.
Fast355 is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2006, 04:18 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
scuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Beautiful Tunnel Hill Georgia
Posts: 587
Car: 67 Firebird Convertible
Engine: LB9
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 3.55

Classifieds Rating: (0)
EFILive supports the 12200411 PCM already. S10Wildside is using it, and Lextech I believe has re-pinned his 97 L13 harness for the new PCM. I'm looking into changing my TCII for EFILive.
It's supposed to have an autotune feature.
I don't know enough about it yet to know for sure though.
Ron
scuzz is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2006, 09:50 AM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 23

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gofast51 View Post
Yorshire, edited my calcs based on rbob's explanation. As you can see it is very different than what is in your multipoint bin. This is what I was trying to show you. Thank you rbob for your correction.

The problem with equations of course is that everybody has different ones! Edelbrock explicitly claim in their literature

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...8-123(efi).pdf

that their 29lb/hr injectors (x 8) are good for 450hp! I've gone with this claim, we'll see what I get!!

Cheers for the help so far anyway guys.
yorkshirespud is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2006, 09:50 AM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > DIY PROM

Tags
1227747, 454, 74, 7747, base, bin, change, constant, conversion, files, flash, injector, pulse, size, tunerpro, width
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details