[JuiceSC]

I'm gona say it, you have a set of 14#'ers. Don't know how, but you got'em.

[tufgriz]

ive got them out and gonna clean them and see what happens to start with and go from there

[tufgriz]

Whats your thoughts on these?
https://www.injectorplanet.com/products ... d-br3e-e5a

[JuiceSC]

I would not go with those. I would pick an injector for the correct model year.

[cgrey8]

Those are V-pattern injectors. I've got a post somewhere that links to a Youtube video showing the spray pattern of V-pattern injectors.

These are intended for horizontally oriented intake ports with heads that have 2 intake valves. They don't work as well for older engines that have vertically oriented ports. They wet the walls of the port more than a cone-pattern injector. Now will they work? Probably, just not as effectively as a narrower cone-pattern would. After all, carbs flushed streams of fuel into intakes for years before EFI was a thing. And I suspect a V-pattern injector would still atomize the fuel better than a 70s era intake & carb on the same engine. The point is if you are going to spend money on new injectors, don't purposely chose something that isn't going to work as well as something else that would do better for about the same price.

[tufgriz]

so, I went ahead and went with the 34 lb against your advice with the thought that if I do need to change them out they will be spares for my truck. I adjusted the fuel injector settings 34/19= 1.79. it all seem a little rich and had a stumble starting. after this datalog I went ahead and dropped down to 1.65 and the starting stumble went away but I dont have a log of that yet. I will start with that tomorrow evening

[JuiceSC]

Maf transfer is wrong, unless you got a new larger maf.

[tufgriz]

Negative, just the c@l meter. Based on your formula earlier wouldnt increase the transfer numbers the same percentage as the j jector increase be a good starting point?

[JuiceSC]

With the 24# sample tube, you need a 24# transfer functions, regardless of what injectors are in it. That formula is for not having a transfer sheet for the maf. So its 24/19, not 34/19.

[tufgriz]

So what the transfer numbers on eec analyzer be a better starting point?

[JuiceSC]

Thats fine. Better? Probably no significant difference.

[tufgriz]

Ok, maybe a better question how would you go about coming up with a starting point for the maf transfer?

[JuiceSC]

Get a ProM meter that comes with flow data. That was a joke, couldnt resist. Lol
C&L meters had a bad rep for not having flow data, just matching sample tubes with injectors and no tuning. It actually worked fairly well, I had a buddy run his fox like that and it worked well. I have run my 42# maf and 42# injectors untuned, and that did work, but not too well. No tune matched maf&injectors is a crap shoot, may or may not work. With tuning ability, none of that matters. It can be dialed in perfect.

What I would do in your case:
Put the stock maf on, put the stock 19# maf transfer in.
Dial in the injectors with a stock maf. You wont be using more than half throttle while getting the idle (most difficult) and part throttle dialed in. A wot run will go too lean and may hurt the engine. So no WOT!!!
Once that is done, slap on the bigger maf, and dial that in after injectors are dialed in.
Almost all of this can be done fully warmed up, idle and part throttle in neutral, without ever even driving the car a foot.

[tufgriz]

Thats pretty much what I was considering doing but you threw me the other day when you made the comment about using my stock meter. one other option I have is the availability to to use an SN95 meter. would it be worth it to try instead of stock fox? Also when your saying dial in the injectors with stock MAF do you mean adjusting them or the MAF transfer

[JuiceSC]

You would not be touching the stock maf transfer. Its known accurate data.
Set injector hi and low slopes to 34, stock maf, stock maf transfer. Log a hot start to see where its at.

[tufgriz]

I will have that done in a couple hours, can I zip a bigger log for you? what program do you use?

[tufgriz]

here it is. Cleared memory before starting and did a restart towards the end. Also tried 7zip this time instead of winrar

[JuiceSC]

Log that file the same way.

[tufgriz]

Will do, it will be this evening again damn 12 hr work days lol

[tufgriz]

Done and done

[JuiceSC]

what elavation are you at?? 2100 feet maybe??
I see 27.8" baro in the log.

[tufgriz]

1800-1900 ish

[JuiceSC]

Ok, the BAP is accurate than. I'll be honest, I'm not seeing the expected change in LAMBSE or KAMRF moving from 1.
Try this, and hopefully I will be able to atleast see if its going it the right direction. (if I can get the file to attach)

[tufgriz]

could max idlrpm be to low or iac open to much to allow closed loop?

[JuiceSC]

Fueling is not close enough yet for the eec to learn. Once LAMBSE is at about 14, I expect KAMRF to start learning.

[tufgriz]

Here you go sir

[JuiceSC]

Excellent.Its now on the rich side a little. Backed off the injector slopes and added the 24# maf transfer. Install the C&L and log this.We are now 'in the ballpark' with injector slopes.

C&L_meter1.bin

[tufgriz]

so I recorded two logs one was from luke warm to hot and the other was a hot start, both cleared adaptive before starting

[JuiceSC]

Small update. Time to move on to some part throttle logging. And only log fully warmed up, you could actually start logging 60 seconds after engine start. Try to hold 1500, 2000,2500,3000 rpms in neutral. 5-10 seconds on each rpm should do.
I think you can test drive it, just stay under half throttle for now.

[tufgriz]

so i recorded two logs a hot start and rev and a drive