6 years overdue Kenne and I say hello
#41
08-27-2020 | 11:19 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
Just got to do a few test pulls. Unfortunately the car felt very sluggish. I didn't even bother trying a pull with nitrous. Not sure why because fuel trims looked great at idle and cruising. And drive-ability was great. Just felt slower than the stock MAF at WOT. It was 100*F out and my IATs were well above that; I'm sure that didnt help, but I'm still not convinced. I wonder why a "more accurate" reading, much larger, calibrated MAF would cause a power drop??
The only other thing i can think of is maybe its my fuel mix.I run 5 gallons of E85 and the rest 93. That's what we determined when doing a few dyno pulls while using the sniffer was the best mix for the tune and nitrous set up. You guys run just pump gas/93? Any additives? I have an AFR gauge, but I need to re-run the wires. Hopefully just a simple adjustment in fuel mix will help.
Simon, have you considered running an alternate fuel or mix? Just seems like a lot of trail by error with these things.
The only other thing i can think of is maybe its my fuel mix.I run 5 gallons of E85 and the rest 93. That's what we determined when doing a few dyno pulls while using the sniffer was the best mix for the tune and nitrous set up. You guys run just pump gas/93? Any additives? I have an AFR gauge, but I need to re-run the wires. Hopefully just a simple adjustment in fuel mix will help.
Simon, have you considered running an alternate fuel or mix? Just seems like a lot of trail by error with these things.
I think if you can get a rolling road session then that would at least confirm which is the best option? I suppose if you had a lot of underbonnet heat and no way to remove that the sensor/ intake had become heat soaked that would definitely blunt the power.
The following users liked this post:
jazzyjags (08-27-2020)
#42
08-27-2020 | 11:43 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
Simon,
I thought only the 'mmericans can touch the ProM code, and that you have to send it over the pond each and every time. I'm not near the car at the moment, but how can you see which tune it has? Please educate me on the matter. I've just ordered 2 pre cat & 2 post cat Denso O2 sensors, I think it's a good idea to eliminate the possibility of them reading wrong after 15 years. I am contemplating doing a dyno run tomorrow to see AFR in relation to rpm, before I leave the car for a couple of months (the Jag dealer is 200mi from me). Hypothetically, if my O2 sensors are not reading right, but the MAF reads OK, how is theAFR affected? or is it affected?
Plan B is to wait for the new probes, and also install a wideband AFR gauge for both banks. With that get an AFR table to send to ProM, I would like to believe that if they know what software they used to produce the results in my AFR table, they can make a new program for me. Perhaps Customs in the UK is at least not evil, I am not even considering having to deal with ours. Therefore, I am willing to buy another one, and having it shipped to a 3rd party shipper that ships in its own name to within the EU.
That's my best plan, please, if there are suggestions, or better ideas, I am open to hear them.
Also, Simon, how does the car behave with the stock MAF? Isn't it running rich all the time? Do you have some performance metrics? 1/4mile trap speed would be best, but 100-200km/h also works. Mine was a whisker under 10s. Also, did you not try with the Abaco first? What was your experience? I am starting to believe that the XKR & X308 guys aren't having issues because their routing implies a straight pipe ahead of the Abaco, that smooths the airflow. Our setup uses a cone filter on top of the DBX. I remember the tech saying that if he blew air across the filter with the engine running, the DBX would go berserk.
I thought only the 'mmericans can touch the ProM code, and that you have to send it over the pond each and every time. I'm not near the car at the moment, but how can you see which tune it has? Please educate me on the matter. I've just ordered 2 pre cat & 2 post cat Denso O2 sensors, I think it's a good idea to eliminate the possibility of them reading wrong after 15 years. I am contemplating doing a dyno run tomorrow to see AFR in relation to rpm, before I leave the car for a couple of months (the Jag dealer is 200mi from me). Hypothetically, if my O2 sensors are not reading right, but the MAF reads OK, how is theAFR affected? or is it affected?
Plan B is to wait for the new probes, and also install a wideband AFR gauge for both banks. With that get an AFR table to send to ProM, I would like to believe that if they know what software they used to produce the results in my AFR table, they can make a new program for me. Perhaps Customs in the UK is at least not evil, I am not even considering having to deal with ours. Therefore, I am willing to buy another one, and having it shipped to a 3rd party shipper that ships in its own name to within the EU.
That's my best plan, please, if there are suggestions, or better ideas, I am open to hear them.
Also, Simon, how does the car behave with the stock MAF? Isn't it running rich all the time? Do you have some performance metrics? 1/4mile trap speed would be best, but 100-200km/h also works. Mine was a whisker under 10s. Also, did you not try with the Abaco first? What was your experience? I am starting to believe that the XKR & X308 guys aren't having issues because their routing implies a straight pipe ahead of the Abaco, that smooths the airflow. Our setup uses a cone filter on top of the DBX. I remember the tech saying that if he blew air across the filter with the engine running, the DBX would go berserk.
I'm sure they are the only ones that can touch it unfortunately, I am sure you can only tell by the label on it and the paperwork that came with it. so for mine the flow sheet says " PRO-M 92, S/N VM, Calibration: 03-06 Jaguar 4.2 57"
Now what the 57, the VM means I am not sure. But the below is the MAF as it was installed, (flow sheet on page 1)
As I understand it. the O2 sensors will determine fueling when the vehicle is on full throttle with the MAF determining this when the car is running in closed loop? On the stock MAF it is rich until the STFTs pull it back to the correct AFRs. I would say it is not as fast with the standard one, but I can try and use my phone app and OBD thingy to try some data logging next week? Never done it before but i'm sure it's possible!
On and just on a PS customs stung me badly with my shipment so i had the VAT & customs and the handling fees to pay! another one of the reasons I don't want to send it to the US without really understanding the problem! I think i am lucky as after 2006 the standard O2 sensors are wideband so it offers a bit more freedom with understanding the AFRs better.
Simon.
#43
08-27-2020 | 11:45 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 394
Likes: 241
From: Tampa, FL
Honestly I am not sure, if the LTFT & STFT look good then the AFR's are surely correct, I don't think that the MAF is really the limiting factor on these cars but I am not an expert. In terms of fuelling I use V-Power which is 99RON ( i think 93 MON) and E5, I don't think ive ever seen anything more than E10 in the UK.
I think if you can get a rolling road session then that would at least confirm which is the best option? I suppose if you had a lot of underbonnet heat and no way to remove that the sensor/ intake had become heat soaked that would definitely blunt the power.
I think if you can get a rolling road session then that would at least confirm which is the best option? I suppose if you had a lot of underbonnet heat and no way to remove that the sensor/ intake had become heat soaked that would definitely blunt the power.
#44
08-27-2020 | 11:50 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
@SimonXJ
Sorry to hear about your ProM woes, its odd that you have these issues to be honest.
The standard map they made for me for the 4.2 cars was based on the 400cc injectors, so when they changed that to 600cc I would have expected it to be ok. At least that was it for me when I installed the ProM92 unit on a TS setup with 600cc injectors. Remember the Bosch injectors are standard 540cc with 43 psi, as you run 55 psi they flow 600cc.
Can you send me the map you got? I could maybe still check the voltages if that is about right. If so there is another issue at play why the unit is not working with your car.
Sorry to hear about your ProM woes, its odd that you have these issues to be honest.
The standard map they made for me for the 4.2 cars was based on the 400cc injectors, so when they changed that to 600cc I would have expected it to be ok. At least that was it for me when I installed the ProM92 unit on a TS setup with 600cc injectors. Remember the Bosch injectors are standard 540cc with 43 psi, as you run 55 psi they flow 600cc.
Can you send me the map you got? I could maybe still check the voltages if that is about right. If so there is another issue at play why the unit is not working with your car.
Thank you for the note, I think one change might be around the base fuel pressure, my set up has the later single fuel pump, unlike most of the 4.2 supercharged cars. so the idle fuel pressure is 48psi. But that would only offer a small discrepancy rather than the large one that I am seeing. In terms of the MAP I don't have a file or anything, just the flow sheet and the order confirmation, the flow sheet is in this thread and I attached a picture of the sensor itself to my reply to Matt above. I can put the Pro-M back on and try to data log the voltage output from the sensor against the g/s reported airflow?
Simon.
#45
08-27-2020 | 12:05 PM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
You were right about the heat. I took at it out night when there was no stop and go traffic and air temp was 83F rather than 100+, and it pulled hard on the highway. Seems right. Curious to see what it will do with the bigger TB and ported plenum. Still wont be TS territory without nitrous but hopefully closer. What are you guys putting down power-wise to the wheels, if it runs the way it should? Or if you had to guess...
Well I can't take credit for this so I don't know how much mine is doing, but this as far as I know is Davey's car (who had the first TS on the X350) I would say it's enough !
#46
08-27-2020 | 12:56 PM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,616
Likes: 1,068
From: Europe
Hi Andre,
Thank you for the note, I think one change might be around the base fuel pressure, my set up has the later single fuel pump, unlike most of the 4.2 supercharged cars. so the idle fuel pressure is 48psi. But that would only offer a small discrepancy rather than the large one that I am seeing. In terms of the MAP I don't have a file or anything, just the flow sheet and the order confirmation, the flow sheet is in this thread and I attached a picture of the sensor itself to my reply to Matt above. I can put the Pro-M back on and try to data log the voltage output from the sensor against the g/s reported airflow?
Simon.
Thank you for the note, I think one change might be around the base fuel pressure, my set up has the later single fuel pump, unlike most of the 4.2 supercharged cars. so the idle fuel pressure is 48psi. But that would only offer a small discrepancy rather than the large one that I am seeing. In terms of the MAP I don't have a file or anything, just the flow sheet and the order confirmation, the flow sheet is in this thread and I attached a picture of the sensor itself to my reply to Matt above. I can put the Pro-M back on and try to data log the voltage output from the sensor against the g/s reported airflow?
Simon.
Can you still confirm to me what the stft and ltft values where? I mean +32% stft and -32% ltft are perfect 0. Always name both of them to have a sensible value on the fuel trims.
Can you confirm what injectors you had originaly? Where the blue or brown? Do you have VVT on your engine? If the latter you would probably had brown injectors, and these flow about 480/500 ish. That could explain at least you don;t get very odd fuel trims now. If my thinking is right now, the latter would make sense, as the MAF value would need to be higher for the 500cc to 600cc conversion.
You should always have an absolute fuel pressure of 55psi, so that includes the vacuum/pressure in the intake. Real fuel pressure varies of course, at idle it could be around 48 psi, and when at boost assuming 16 psi for example), you would have 66 Psi. But as said the absolute fuel pressure is always constant to ensure constant flow for the ECU.
#47
08-27-2020 | 02:00 PM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
The MAF values look more right for the Bosch injectors, so it is not mapped for the stock 400cc ones.
Can you still confirm to me what the stft and ltft values where? I mean +32% stft and -32% ltft are perfect 0. Always name both of them to have a sensible value on the fuel trims.
Can you confirm what injectors you had originaly? Where the blue or brown? Do you have VVT on your engine? If the latter you would probably had brown injectors, and these flow about 480/500 ish. That could explain at least you don;t get very odd fuel trims now. If my thinking is right now, the latter would make sense, as the MAF value would need to be higher for the 500cc to 600cc conversion.
You should always have an absolute fuel pressure of 55psi, so that includes the vacuum/pressure in the intake. Real fuel pressure varies of course, at idle it could be around 48 psi, and when at boost assuming 16 psi for example), you would have 66 Psi. But as said the absolute fuel pressure is always constant to ensure constant flow for the ECU.
Can you still confirm to me what the stft and ltft values where? I mean +32% stft and -32% ltft are perfect 0. Always name both of them to have a sensible value on the fuel trims.
Can you confirm what injectors you had originaly? Where the blue or brown? Do you have VVT on your engine? If the latter you would probably had brown injectors, and these flow about 480/500 ish. That could explain at least you don;t get very odd fuel trims now. If my thinking is right now, the latter would make sense, as the MAF value would need to be higher for the 500cc to 600cc conversion.
You should always have an absolute fuel pressure of 55psi, so that includes the vacuum/pressure in the intake. Real fuel pressure varies of course, at idle it could be around 48 psi, and when at boost assuming 16 psi for example), you would have 66 Psi. But as said the absolute fuel pressure is always constant to ensure constant flow for the ECU.
however as below this was the figures I was getting with the PRO-M fitted. Definitely too lean.
just to confirm on the other points I confirm I have VVT and yes I had the brown injectors, now replaces by the Bosch ones as per the kit instructions I can get the part number for the old injectors next week if thats helpful.
many thanks
simon.
#48
08-27-2020 | 02:20 PM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,616
Likes: 1,068
From: Europe
If you have an email conversation with ProM, that you can hook my up to, I can explain them what we have seen here, in order for them to make a new correct calibration for you,
Also potentially interesting for you, your ECU is easier to tune, let me know if you are interested as well.
#49
09-23-2020 | 06:14 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
Hi @avos I have heard back from the injector testing company, they have told me that the brown injectors flow;
3 bar - 430 cc/min
4 bar - 500 cc/min
Hopefully I will get a flow curve when I get the injectors back but this may be a week or two. Do you think this is enough info to go to PRO-M to ask for re-calibration or would we need the flow curve?
Many thanks.
3 bar - 430 cc/min
4 bar - 500 cc/min
Hopefully I will get a flow curve when I get the injectors back but this may be a week or two. Do you think this is enough info to go to PRO-M to ask for re-calibration or would we need the flow curve?
Many thanks.
#50
10-11-2020 | 06:12 AM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,616
Likes: 1,068
From: Europe
Oeps sorry for the late reaction, I somehow forgot to respond...
This is great news! Just to be sure, it might be good to ask them what their base flow was for the original Maf values, so either 400 or 440cc (I think it was 400cc).
As your car is tuned for 500cc, they need to use then 500 as a base (instead of the 400), and convert then from 500 to 600cc.
(ie now you have a conversion from 400 to 600, hence its not good).
That should do it. Let me know if you need some help or of PromMRacing has some questions, you can copy me in the mail no problem.
This is great news! Just to be sure, it might be good to ask them what their base flow was for the original Maf values, so either 400 or 440cc (I think it was 400cc).
As your car is tuned for 500cc, they need to use then 500 as a base (instead of the 400), and convert then from 500 to 600cc.
(ie now you have a conversion from 400 to 600, hence its not good).
That should do it. Let me know if you need some help or of PromMRacing has some questions, you can copy me in the mail no problem.
The following users liked this post:
SimonXJ (10-14-2020)
#51
10-14-2020 | 06:57 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
#52
10-14-2020 | 02:26 PM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 172
From: NYC
Avos,
With the twin screw on my 04 I had the ABACCO MAF with the file provided for the 550 cc injectors. Would the pro M with (whatever injector) work better? I'm up for anything. I recently took the twin screw off and the m112 back on and possibly looking to get a later model XJT like Simons if it can be tuned and reinstall it all.
With the twin screw on my 04 I had the ABACCO MAF with the file provided for the 550 cc injectors. Would the pro M with (whatever injector) work better? I'm up for anything. I recently took the twin screw off and the m112 back on and possibly looking to get a later model XJT like Simons if it can be tuned and reinstall it all.
#53
10-17-2020 | 01:53 AM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,616
Likes: 1,068
From: Europe
The Abaco isn't available anymore and proved in the end also unstable for some, however, I have one on my car for a couple of years and it works fine, so it it may be hit and miss with these units.
I really liked the programmability there but nowadays I think you can get relatively ok in price ecus that can take over the MAF signal.
I had a pro-m when I started the TS kits, and that one proved to be very stable/reliable, so product wise very recommendable imo.
I really liked the programmability there but nowadays I think you can get relatively ok in price ecus that can take over the MAF signal.
I had a pro-m when I started the TS kits, and that one proved to be very stable/reliable, so product wise very recommendable imo.
#54
07-24-2021 | 01:09 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 433
Likes: 134
From: England
The following 3 users liked this post by alecescolme:
#57
03-23-2022 | 09:50 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 123
Likes: 76
From: Scotland
So as a sort of update on this front I had never got around to speaking with Pro-M, and emailed them this week, and unfortunately as I find out they are no longer supporting the calibrations,
I had a look around the forum and this seems to be being discussed with some others who may be having some problems.
I think the Pro M-92 may be going into the bin as it's of no use to me, being tuned for 400 or 430cc injectors and not the 500cc injectors which are in my car or any 4.2 supercharged from 06-09..
Not sure where to go with it next but unless a customisable MAF like the Abaco exists I think the standard MAF is the only option, maybe in a larger tube with some sort of "fakery" going on to trick it.
Unless anyone has any new ideas? @avos
Thanks,
I had a look around the forum and this seems to be being discussed with some others who may be having some problems.
I think the Pro M-92 may be going into the bin as it's of no use to me, being tuned for 400 or 430cc injectors and not the 500cc injectors which are in my car or any 4.2 supercharged from 06-09..
Not sure where to go with it next but unless a customisable MAF like the Abaco exists I think the standard MAF is the only option, maybe in a larger tube with some sort of "fakery" going on to trick it.
Unless anyone has any new ideas? @avos
Thanks,
#59
03-24-2022 | 02:59 AM
Veteran Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,616
Likes: 1,068
From: Europe
Here is an Abaco DBX one:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/13324338462...wAAOSwBq9d0hQQ
Very big one, but I have the same on my car. One warning though, they are not all good, I had some that where unreliable. Somehow mine works though,
Original MAF in a bigger tube would give a lower value, but will you ever get the right one?
Best is to use the Prom and have a device that can the signal, or program the ECU
(am not able to help with either option though)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/13324338462...wAAOSwBq9d0hQQ
Very big one, but I have the same on my car. One warning though, they are not all good, I had some that where unreliable. Somehow mine works though,
Original MAF in a bigger tube would give a lower value, but will you ever get the right one?
Best is to use the Prom and have a device that can the signal, or program the ECU
(am not able to help with either option though)
#60
03-24-2022 | 06:30 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 132
Likes: 69
From: Cluj, Transylvania, Romania, Europe
Simon, I am battling the same problem.
It might be useful to others to know that I tested the Bosch injectors that Avos suggests for the TS, and also a brand new OEM injector bought speciffically for this (almost 200 Euros for ONE, crazy thing these prices today!) The Bosch at 55psi is right on the money, with the 8 injectirs which are now close to 7 years old flowing between 588, and 615cc/min. However, the brand new 03-05 injector flowed 364cc/min... so the ProM, calibrated for 400 vs 600 isn't spot on. Just to be clear, I am not laying the blame on Andre, au contraire, it's commendable he also tried to adapt his setup for other members, who had different fuel systems than his. It also came as a surprise to me, but at least it explains the rich AFR I had on the dyno (11.2:1). On the other hand, it doesn't explain the persistent lean codes I have on both banks on every ignition cycle.
Simon, please let me know if you wish to buy the Abaco, if not tell me, because I might just risk it.
It might be useful to others to know that I tested the Bosch injectors that Avos suggests for the TS, and also a brand new OEM injector bought speciffically for this (almost 200 Euros for ONE, crazy thing these prices today!) The Bosch at 55psi is right on the money, with the 8 injectirs which are now close to 7 years old flowing between 588, and 615cc/min. However, the brand new 03-05 injector flowed 364cc/min... so the ProM, calibrated for 400 vs 600 isn't spot on. Just to be clear, I am not laying the blame on Andre, au contraire, it's commendable he also tried to adapt his setup for other members, who had different fuel systems than his. It also came as a surprise to me, but at least it explains the rich AFR I had on the dyno (11.2:1). On the other hand, it doesn't explain the persistent lean codes I have on both banks on every ignition cycle.
Simon, please let me know if you wish to buy the Abaco, if not tell me, because I might just risk it.
Last edited by Matei Dima; 03-24-2022 at 06:32 AM.