Ford EU EEC IV&V specificities

[jsa]

It seems really simple, but adding 40% (real injector difference) to what I think is Injector slope, generates really lean idle or stabilized mode (if not stalling).
Updating constants to raise [214] value, changes nothing, the main result is done by raising Battery correction [2a6] by 80% to stabilize everything.
On my daily stable version (which is not really clean), only VE tables and expected AFR are changed.
OK, to expect AFR 14.8 at idle to provide 13.5 at real and 15.3 at WOT to provide 12.5 is not the best thing to do.

The description of how it works sounds fair, but I am not clear on what you have done with injectors and slopes.
Are you saying you put injectors in the car that are 40% larger flow rate, then adjusted the slope 40% and got lean running?
Or are you saying you adjusted the slope by 40% on the OEM injectors and got lean running?

Is a fuel value being clipped or capped somewhere?
Are you able to log the various registers involved?

I agree, fudging battery etc is not a solution.

Feel free to send me your listing If you want another set of eyes to look over it. I will have a look as time permits.

[decipha]

if you want to post it here i'll give it a look when time permits

did you setup datalogging yet?

[Pym]

I am using 265cc injectors instead of genuine 190cc ones, on a self modified binary which I have based on a known stage 2 chip (still available for purchasing).
This stage 2 chip was written for 240cc injectors (without modifying slope) and with a maximum boost at 0.9bar. With this setup it is already too much lean and with mine clearly bigger injectors were needed.
As I have said, this binary is not well tweaked, my changes get better results, but I have reached the limit like this, this is why I want to restart from original binary and to update right information.
So the whole work is done on current injectors, 265cc ones.
Logically, I was thinking like this, raising by 40% the right single injector slope only, on original binary, should give good results and perfect results should be achieved with battery correction, but not at all.

You can have a look at 0FAB (0SLTXA) which is on the first page of the topic, it will match described registers.
Yes, datalogging is in place on mine, but I have to add more registers to detail different values in ticks, because I do no understand why battery correction has this impact, compared to other constants.
On my last tests, on normal voltage, original value at 123 was giving a 17 AFR at idle, for 297 it was a 10 AFR, function goes from 123 to 1426, for sure I have not tried the maximum one.

[jsa]

Ok understood.

Injector offset (volts>injector dead time) will mostly effect low pulse widths, so idle and low load stable running. What does your Lambda read as your load increases and more injector pulse width is demanded?

Say for idle, 2ms dead time + 1ms of fuel > 66% is no flow time. Injector offset dominates
Some load, 2ms dead time + 6ms fuel > 25% is no flow time. Injector slope dominates.

From your numbers
123 gives 1.15 Lambda
297 gives 0.68 Lambda
174/0.47=370.2
370.2*0.15=55.5
123+55.5=178.5

Enter 178.5, see what you get.

Is it possible the OEM MAP transfer is skewed to account for injector characteristics?
What is the Fuel Pressure Regulator rating and injector flow rate specs for OEM and your new injectors?

You said you expect AFR of 14.8, is your fuel really 14.8? More ethanol lowers AFR for lambda=1.
Do you have an AFR scalar?

[Pym]

The best thing I have obtained (in the garage) is 250cc equivalent on slope and 225 for battery correction, with other things updated too.
It was normal at idle and stabilized at 2500 rpm, but my feelings were not good enough to run like this.

Last week on road, I had only updated slope, at 210cc it was ok at idle and bit lean stabilized and I had 10 or 9 on AFR at WOT.
At 220cc car was not stable at all.

I do not think MAP transfer reflects injectors characteristics, it seems accurate and conform to specifications.
For fuel pressure, originally it should be 2.5bars at idle, I use 2.7bars because I can not go lower anymore with my fuel pump, knowing fuel line is limited to 5bars at boost.
S2 chip was created for 3.0bars.

Car was produced to use leaded fuel RON 97 MON 86 and unleaded fuel RON 98 MON 88 (and probably RON 95 MON 85, never tried).
Today in France RON 98 includes ethanol between 5 and 10%, RON 95 between 10 and 20%, so it has clearly an impact.
But I am talking about a CVH engine, AFR 14.7 is not a target for it, a stable idle for it has always been around 13.5 (CO between 1.5 and 2%).
14.7 could be a target in stabilized mode (for fuel consumption only) and hopefully it is not a Subaru, we can go over AFR 11 at WOT,
in secure mode (long run) it will be 12.5 and 13.5 for maximum results.

I have not seen a global or base AFR scalar, that is activated, but all related tables are easy to manage, standard results will always give a x1 multiplier.

It is interesting to talk about ethanol, because more and more people are now running with 100% of ethanol and I know some on this car with great results,
but with an aftermarket management and hours and hours (or days) spent on its setup.

[Pym]

Hi all,

no more work was done on 0SLTXA, since last year.
But I have worked on other strategies starting from 1992.

Where it is impossible to find equivalence for 0SLTXA (except on identical engines and cars),
this is not the same thing with zetec or duratec engines.
Zetec 1992=>1994 definitions are really near mustang ones, like CBAZA.
Duratec 1996=>2000 (like probably zetec) are compatible with mustang ones, based on years.

It makes the work easier.

[Pym]

Does anyone have examples about Pulsed Secondary Air Injection ?
It is used (at least) on zetec engines between 92 and 98, with some effect on exhaust.
I have removed the hardware, but it could be smart to do the same thing on software.

[Pym]

I am still searching for source of early European EFI strategies,
even if they were probably created in Germany or Spain,
because VSBAR is managed directly through Km/h.
But its first source could also be related, with the US Escort GT / Exp Turbo (1984/1985),
which are sharing the same engine and which are really near first EFI ones in Europe 4 years later.
Escort GT seems to be very, very rare especially for these years.
Have you ever seen one of this EEC IV ecus somewhere and why not its binary ?

[decipha]

I try to stay away from the 80s stuff when possible. I couldn't imagine the 80s code to be too difficult to figure out.

I don't have any early escort bins.

[Pym]

I try to stay away from the 80s stuff when possible. I couldn't imagine the 80s code to be too difficult to figure out.

To stay away from 80s stuff, I am looking at LUX0 strategy, which is semi sequential like the one I am working on
and because I have heard about DA1 turbo projects based on this ecu.
Do you know more about this one ?

[jsa]

LUX0 defs if you don't have them already.

https://eectuning.org/forums/viewtopic. ... x0#p132340

https://eectuning.org/forums/viewtopic. ... x0#p132336

[Pym]

Thank you, but I think this one is much more up to date.
viewtopic.php?f=99&t=3222&p=44957&hilit=lux0#p45104

[jsa]

Cool

[Pym]

Anyway John, after analysis, LUX0 has nothing common with early Euro EFI strategies, but is a good base for naming elements.
The most interesting strategy is for me 1WNBX6 (this is you, which had provided me a binary),
it is an Euro one too, but based on Pinto engine, using batch firing or semi sequential injection too,
with probably all injectors opening at WOT. This is Escort RS2000 MKV.

[jsa]

I will look at what else I may have for it tomorrow.

Xanthe comes to mind, maybe.

[Pym]

I will look at what else I may have for it tomorrow.
Xanthe comes to mind, maybe.

Thank you, but I am pretty sure that you will find nothing.
Xanthe has worked on zetec engines, which have strategies probably coming from US ones,
and which have given the base for GHAJ0.
This one is a pure European one and because,
it was not sold in a big volume (thanks to RS Cosworth ones), not so much people have had a look at it.
But we can have a look at the Scorpio, which is using the same engine and why not at the 2.3L used on Scorpio and Transit.

[jsa]

Well I can recall stuff from 5years ago........
I shamelessly downloaded 1AGB from a post by xanthe, here;
https://eectuning.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 90#p118654

I see FALL now as well;
https://www.eectuning.org/forums/viewto ... 73#p118973

http://xanthe.arkku.net/?p=09

*RS2000 AFAR or DADS ecu can�t be replaced by older ecu 1AGB (nonPATS)

I did a disassembly run on the 1AGB but nothing further as it was quite different to others I had looked at.