Lean spikes on throttle input (AE settings)
 

I've seen trying to figure out some lean spikes on throttle movements on my map, but I've really been struggling. Adaptronics support used to be great (Mark Gool was the man), but lately they really seem to have dropped off... guess this is to be expected with the Haltech acquisition. If anyone here can offer a hand it would be greatly appreciated!

I'm running a Modular w/ internal wideband (side note, the readings from the internal wideband seem to be much more accurate than my Innovate MTX-L), ID 1000/1700s, street port. I'm using predictive map settings and I'm quite familiar with the settings conceptually, but would to good to have a 2nd set of eyes on them to make sure I'm not doing something stupid. I calibrated the predicted MAP values on the dyno and they seem to be very accurate as verified by logged values. One question in regards to the predicted MAP values, is it correct that the highest value should be 0 psi? What if you're on boost between shifts? Is it assumed that once u engage the next gear and re-open the throttle the delay in the ECU's pressure sensor reading positive pressure will be less than the time it takes for positive pressure to be applied to the combustion chamber again?

You can see the 2 lean spikes I'm trying to sort out here. Both look to occur because of transient throttle not kicking in.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...7289e8d15a.png

Here's my transient throttle trigger settings:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...fe9ce230bc.png

The first lean spike shows throttle input going from 3% to 14% over 200ms. My trigger table above has sensitivity of 15%/sec at TPS of about 5%. So my actual input would be about 55%/sec. So why did AE not trigger there? Also it's weird that the lean spike lasted for that long a duration.

The 2nd lean spike, throttle went from 25% to 55% over 360ms... so that's about 90%/sec. The trigger table is set at sensitivity of 30%/s at TPS 25%. Am I supposed to be using the ending TPS % value in the trigger calculation? That makes less sense to me and would result in a trigger table way more sensitive than what Adaptronic has in their base map.

Here are my X, Tau, and Async settings:


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...1802e13546.png
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...d4632dd0c7.png
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...412e0de0e3.png

Current map also attached.

Hey mate, I think you need to make the trigger more sensitive, I've posted some values that might be worth a try at the end of this thread.

https://www.rx7club.com/adaptronic-e...1130588/page2/

Predicted map is disabled above 100kpa for the reasons you stated. I am not sure how the TPS delta is calculated, but there must be some logic for determining "instantaneous" TPS delta and in this case it was less than what you have in your TPS sensitivity table. :)

Hey, thanks for the input. Agreed, I was thinking about dropping the sensitivity levels even lower to see what happens, but was hoping to be a bit more calculated about it. Based on my maths (above) I have no idea how they're calculating the trigger points based on the entered sensitivity values. Took a look at your xls, not sure if I'm reading it right, but looks like my values are already quite a bit lower than the ones your listed (the 25 and 50% throttle positions). Weird thing is, the AE triggers perfectly at some points (you can see in the graph I posted, it shows an earlier trigger), but not at other points where I'd expect it to. Makes me wonder if there's a bug in the programming.

You're right, your values are already more sensitive than mine, my mistake. :) Can you post up that datalog please? Don't know if I can help but it would be good to take a closer look at what's going on there.

Sure. Here's a log showing a number of pulls. The first one doesn't show the proper AE triggers, but there are a number of other throttle applications in the log that show proper AE triggers so I'm not sure what gives...

https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...jz?usp=sharing

There are a few places in the log where the wideband pegs lean and you're not really pushing the throttle very hard, is that what you're referring to? I can't really see why it's gone lean there, did you feel that in the driver seat?

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...2d1de1b484.png

Ya that looks like one of the spots where if AE kicked in it should have prevented the lean condition, but I agree, it's not a very aggressive throttle input. If you look to the throttle input to the right you can see AE kicking in with what looks like a similar or even lesser throttle input.

Are the Tau and X value applicable even when AE isn't triggered (even tho you're grouped in that section of the sw)? I would think they're applicable to fuel modeling in general even when not using the predicted map values. Maybe my values are off, but I doubt they're that off.

X-Tau is always active, you can see what it's doing by viewing the calc enrich fuel % column. I don't think that lean spike in the log above is a transient fueling problem, I think it's a misfire, but I'm not sure what's caused it. In my opinion you certainly don't need predicted map activated there as I wouldn't expect the map sensor to be slower than required when you're pushing the throttle that slowly.

Hmm interesting thought re the misfire. Maybe the spark is getting drowned out by too much fuel? I saw posted on these forums that X of about 40% is recommended with ID injectors because of the spray pattern. I upped my settings to that, but have been edging them down as I feel like the afr readings look better with a lower settings. It's not easy getting the right balance with Tau and X.

Maybe, but my first thought was some kind of mechanical problem, e.g. old plugs. X of 40% should be ok, just ensure the values you're using don't cause oscillation. Motec have some instructions on tuning X-Tau and they state that some variation from the target is to be expected so I wouldn't lose too much sleep over your results, aside from those misfires.

hmm, I'll check for fouled plugs. Sounds like a possibility, but I hope not. I'm running fancy NGK 6448 R7420-9 plugs because I was having high rpm misfire issues before.

Although, looking at the graph below, where you see the big lean spike just after throttle input, is it odd that the primary injector duty doesn't increase at the time of the throttle input and AE trigger? Seems like it goes lean because the MAP ramps up on AE as it should, but no addl fuel is being added for about 300 ms.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...6c270a9962.png

It's hard to say from a screenshot, put up the log and I'll have a look :) I would guess that you're seeing an asynchronous pulse there that is way more than the engine needs and it's causing a rich misfire. I have async turned off as I found it did not work well consistently, much like normal manual acceleration enrichment. Sometimes it's not enough and sometimes it's too much. I will go back and try tuning it again later but my car is off the road at the moment. I have found that my engine runs well without it.

Edit: What ignition system are you running?

Good input. That makes sense as I have had similar experience with the async settings. Sometimes it seems to help out, sometimes it seems totally off. Hadn't gone to the extreme of completely disabling it and adjusting up from there though. I'll give that a try.

Here's the log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r4R...ew?usp=sharing

I'm running direct fire ignition with the IGN-1A coils connected directly to the battery.

Hello,

I am seeing similar behavior on a modular ecu. the engine is a streetport S6 with xcessive LIM, stock 550 primaries in stock location, ID1000 primary in LIM and ID2000 as secondary in the LIM. (ID1000 atm are not used)

Now I thought 2 things can cause this. 1: the double throttle. I have the feeling if you go through a certain tps range even a small movement causes a big change in VE, as suddenly the secondary ports also come into play. depending on the rpm I would guess they either help or lose 'real' VE. and this makes that in the fuel map on a small map difference you have to write weird steep edges.

the 2nd factor is that if the secondary ports are flowing air, but the secondanry injector are not firing this causes a bad distribution of fuel in the chamber and increases the chance on misfire or poor combustion. The car I am tuning at the moment has no turbo on it yet and I can almost cover the full load with the 550 primaries. when running just the primaries and lets say AFR 12.5-13 or running similar afr with 65% fuel in the 3rd stage (ID2000) it feels like the car picks up like 30-40 horsepower.

An issue I also have is that it seems very hard to make the transition between the 550 and ID2000. I feel that anythign under 1.5 msec on the ID2000 makes for a way to rich mixture. (if the afr before with just the 550's as fine). There fore you would expect that if I write a high number in the staging 3 map things will go better, which is essentially true once you are in the area where a decent amount of fuel is flowing in the secondaries. But during the transition I always get massive rich and no matter where I put the transition, it doenst like this area. I think maybe the minimum injection qty (15 microL) for the ID2000 plays a role but increasing or decreasing doesnt help. I run 300 kPa fuel pressure delta and use a sensor to measure the rail P.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...76f145e545.png

The default setting leaving all the maps on 0 which will first maximize the primaries and only then ramp in secondaries if even worse as then you end with very low quantites inejcted on the secondaries and this doesnt help the accuracy. Also the engine burns way better that when both ports are flowing air also both ports get fuel.

Sounds like you have thought through the issues quite well, the only thing that occurs to me is have you tried running the car on just the ID1000 primaries?

Also, you mentioned you tried setting a minimum fuel volume for the secondaries, but did you do the same for the primaries? :)

Datalog of these issues and an ecu file would be useful.

Running the car on only the id1000 in the xcessive lim i spent maybe 50-100 hours troubleshooting. The car would 4/5 stall when coming to a stop. Fuelcut or not. Spent 50 mails back and fwd with adaptronic support . Total nightmare. I asked them 2-3 times are you sure the problem is not the id1000 in the xcessive lim inj far from rotor. They assured this wasnt the issue.

So yes in the end I gave up. But yes i found out now running the car runs perfect with the stock primaries in the stock location and when just fuel comes thorugh one of the ports when the throttle is open for both it serves for a big hit in performance (as I think the mixture isnt very homogen).

thats why I figured out i am now stuck with the id2000 secondaries which i better use as soon as its possible at medium to high loads as it aids performance and combustion stability if both ports flow fuel and once the id2000 are at the 60-65% all is fine but its rhe inital ramping in which makes for a rich out.

Ill make a log an post it asap.

I was able to make a log and tbh I cannot at all understand the logic for the inj staging. I tried in the end alot of settings for minimum pulsewidth and fuel volume for both the primary and 3rd stage (the ID2000 are wired as inj 5-6) in the log you can easy see that the transition from one stage to both stages results in a rich out. when you look more closely it seems the inj 1 duration doesnt go down initally. at 2.5 sec in the log you see the primary go from 6 to 5.5 msec and the secondary from 0 to 2 ( I think I had about 2 msec as min duration there) then it takes like 3 (!) seconds before it starts to reduce the primaries. This is at nearly iso load/rpm and in open loop lambda control.



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...b9475eaed6.png

Hey Ruben, I'll be looking at this later tonight and seeing if there's something on the calibration side that I can figure out for you. Thanks for the email and story. Definitely puts a lot more into perspective on this build.

We know this ECU has trigger issues with non-resistor race plugs as well as what I call "Fake Math" in which some of the table values simply do not do what they are intended for. PID values for Closed Loop Idle, Boost Control, and Closed Loop Fueling seem like they're random. Amazing how every other ECU can set and lightly alter values and show immediate results. With this, I'm seemingly attacking PID with a sledge hammer to see almost zero variance. Would be nice to reference a manual...oh wait. :lol:

Yes, also the conditions for idle PID are quite strange. In a 200 dollar ecu you can set rpm and tps threshold below which idle control turns on.

On this ecu although it seems it doesnt want to go in close loop when the vehcile speed is not zero. this means lets say you idled it with high iat, causing a higher then normal IAC duty, then drive, IAT cools down, you remove foot from pedal it keep in open loop with the last duty it had from before AND with spark from normal sparkmap not from the idle spark curve (P part of spark idle control) and rpm hangs at 1500-2000. (car has no neutral switch). It has a clutch switch so as soon you press clutch it goes in close loop and all is well. The only workaround I found until now is writing a negative spak at 1500 rpm. the car idles at -10 approx so normally at 1500 part load you would write 20-25 deg this nets double torque causing the high rpm.

Maybe there is a setting that allows a simple TPS threshold to go into closed loop idle but I didnt find it yet..

Your staging the injectors too early. Staging injectors in vacuum is not a good idea and will result in an uncontrollable fuel mixture.

Also why are you staging the third stage before the second?

Sorry if i have missed it and none of it makes sense at the moment

Why would I not sage in vacuum? look at an RX-8, it has 3 stages being NA an producing only 220hp.. this car has primary 550 stock FD in iron, ID1000 as inj 3-4 in xcessive LIM primary runners and ID2000 as inj 5-6 in the secondary runners

This car will be a turbo hence the decent amount of fuel available but for now its NA and I first want to get it running as good as possible before putting the turbo back on.

I can almost fuel the engine alone with the 550 primaries but in doing so it feels like 30-40hp is missing even though the measured AFR is good. when I inject 60-65% of fuel in the 3rd stage (ID2000 in the secondary runners in the xcessive LIM) it has same measured AFR but feel like at least 30hp gain. I think this is because the fuel isnt really mixing too well inisde the chamber. if you have like a mixture of lambda 0.35 coming though the primary ports and solely air through the secondary ports.

Also it should be perfectly possible running the engine on both stages as the fuel required makes for a duration > minimum on the active stages. this you can see on the screenshot at lets say 3000 rpm WOT 2 msec on both active stages make for the fuel required. the issue is that the ecu somehow takes 3 seconds before it reaches ~ 2msec on the primaries after puttung the ID2000 to 2msec and this causes overflooding. whether or not I would change the speed/load where the stages happens, it still makes for an incorrect behavior.

Sounds like you have it all covered.

Good luck with it.

Bit of a long shot, but have you tried setting up the ID2000s on the injector 3-4 plugs and only running 2 stages and logging the results? It *shouldn't* make a difference, but I feel like there's been enough bugs in the adaptronic software that I wouldn't feel 100% confident that it's handling your 0% secondary staging correctly and that's possibly causing weird outputs for the 1st and 3rd stages. Based on your logs it seems like something is getting miscalculated. I have no addl insight into the inner workings of adaptronics' algorithms, but is another possibility that because of your 2msec min on the ID2000s, the ecu is calling for, say, .5msec on them, but it's getting bumped up to 2msec causing the rich condition? You'd assume that the primaries would be instantly reduced to account for this addl increase, but who knows. It's also interesting that your primaries started to reduce duty cycle at the same time that IMAP started to increase, so is the drop from some timeout or from the change in IMAP? Would have to compare against a couple other log sections to know for sure.

Good info re the effects of staging. I had my secondaries set to go 30% at 6psi, but I'll play around with the settings and see if I can feel any difference.

I'd probably agree with rx72c above in that staging isn't needed in vac. I'm not sure what size injectors the rx8 uses but I'm guessing they're a lot smaller than your ID2000s so probably much easier to control in small increments. A lot of RX8 design decisions were also done for the sake of emissions at the expense of performance and longevity.

Yes, that was also initally my plan where it not that 1-4 and 5-6 have different pin size on the ecu connector. And different inj plug on the engine side. So I first wanted it to fix it like this before messung up the rywire harness. I guess if theres no fix from the software side theres no other choice.

I agree that staging at a higher load will make the problem less severe but you will always have to cross a line in the map where you go from no to some fuel on 2nd or 3rd stage.

Hi Everyone,

I have held back on giving some input on this subject as I did not feel I could give the best advice yet. This is by far the hardest most difficult part of tuning on an Adaptronic in my opinion. I have a strategy that I have found to be working very well for me.

• Step 1 - Turn off map prediction (go to the tuning fuel tab, Transient corrections, basic setup, Uncheck the use map prediction)
• Step 2 - go to the Evap Time you will see that the basemap has 0.200 across the board - Go to the 8000 rpm section and set it to 0.020 and then interpolate the rows to the 1000 rpm section)
• Step 3 - go to the Precentage Async and bring down the async down to 30 after 160F and after 3000 rpms set it to 0
• Step 4 - X Fuel pooling has a few determining factors but primarly is based on injector type I find starting around 25 is a good starting point.
• Step 5 - At this point you will need to start tuning the car the Vacuum and boost areas will need to be tuned using light throttle
• Step 6 - Once the fuel map is relatively tuned you can start adjustment of the X pooling and the Percentage Async - You can do this by stabbing the throttle and increasing X and Increasing the percentage Async - You will know when you have it close when your AFRs are slightly more rich than your Target AFRS.
• Step 7 - You will notice that your AFRs on transient throttle will tend to be leaner than your target AFRs and it goes through the RPM range - I have found using the RPM Rate correction resolves this issue. What RPM rate is a locked rate from 0-5000 rpm rate that based on the value of the RPM rate it adds a % of your total trim value in the RPM Correction table. So lets say your RPM rate is 2500 it will had 50% of the trim value you have in the RPM rate correction table.
• Step 8 - During the logging you did during tuning the vacuum and boost areas you use that data to fill out the map prediction table - Enable the map prediction and fill in the table based on the data you can get from the logs.
• Step 9 - with map prediction if you have it set to long you will feel a hesitation when you are stabbing the throttle and if you have the table incorrect this will cause the same as you will see the map JUMP to the wrong location and then jump back to were it actually is. I do find having the map prediction values roughly 10% more than what the actual car has seems to work the best.

I use Megalog viewer to average out the data to obtain my RPM rate and the map prediction values.
As for setting the time for the map prediction Adaptronics scope can be used to determine this value by looking at how long it takes the map value to move based on the time in which your throttle moves.

Hope this helps you guys and if you need assistance I do offer remote tuning services and I would be happy to assist on this. www.tunedbyshawn.com

Cheers,

Shawn Christenson
Tuned By Shawn

Nice, Shawn! I'm going to try this out later today.

Hey mate, I checked my logs and the primary injector pw is not immediately reduced to offset the secondaries turning on, but my AFR stays on target. I expect at least some of this "extra" fuel is because much of that initial shot is lost to wall wetting. Maybe try setting the secondaries to stage only over 90kpa/4000rpm and see how it behaves? By the way, you have minimum injector pw and volume both set, you only need fuel volume. Minimum injector pw will affect asychronous injection pulse as well which can be... undesirable to say the least. As in why did my car turn off when I floored it. :lol:

You also have a big delay set on the map sensor signal, you can likely remove that and just leave the degree based averaging.

Ok; setting the min PW on the ID2000 fixed it.:lol: Im bit confused why if you select an injector from the dropdown list it sets automatically a min PW, which is 1.5 msec for the ID2000

So to be clear, did you remove minimum injector PW and leave minimum volume or did you remove both? If your secondaries are trying to operate much under 1.5ms when you stage them they will probably be getting close to the non linear zone. Glad it is working better for you now though. :)

Only set the minimum duration to 0: minimum volume I left to 15. It seems like minimum duration the secondaries see is close to 1.2 msec

1.2ms seems to work out to about 45ul so that makes sense. Great success! :) Thanks for the update.

Hello Shawn,

After looking into the transient tuning I managed to get the car drive almost as decent as stock, now it seems although that the rpm rate correction works different then you say. I logged during some low load conditions a very instable total fuel trim, like values up t0 30% without any rapid throttle movement to speak off. Tracing it back it comes from the fueltrim user enrichment. this should be rpm rate and transients. the AE is not triggered, the wall film model is also not causing it. this leaves that it must come from the RPM rate correction.

To start I filled the whole map with 5%, assuming that 5000 rpm/sec would give 5% enrichment. Now I see like 30% with 5700 rpm/sec (268.658sec). also with negative rpm rates there is a postive enrichment. (268.778sec). Its not an extreme issue but it causes some instability when driving with low loads. I will retry with putting the rpm rate correction off.

I have missed a specification that I do not use RPM rate in the vacuum area only in positive pressure areas.

Hm Shawn to be honest I think it still works different then what you specify. Please see screenshots and attached log.

The values for user enrich are huge even with small rpm rates and small values in the map. this is a 3rd gear pull at 15 psi with a now and then hint of wheelspin.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...bc6ddc1fd3.png
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...fb543b9eb9.png

Hi Rub20b,

I appreciate your seaking for knowledge but yes indeed it does work the way I explained. I will now explain how you are getting different results -

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...1c9ae45f0e.png
Here is your log displayed in a histogram - Rpm Rate x Imap x total fuel trim. I can see the same trims you are seeing from your log.



https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...4c60fa0206.png
Now here is your data translated differently - RPM Rate x Imap x Closed Loop Fuel Trim.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...358be20095.png
Here is your closed loop settings from the ECU file. The ECU is adding/subtracting fuel as you are in boost and doing transient actions.

Ok, but in the screenshot I posted the I turned off the closed loop to rule that out. You can see this at label #11: FuelTrim_closed_lp_1 is 0 over the entire window, also the async is not triggered. the wall film model does a bit but max 4-5%. If you substract the wal film model output from the total trim the only thing that is left is the rpm rate correction if I analyse the results I find that it does roughly 3-4 times more then what is in the map. For instance 3% in the map gives around 10-12% enrichment for 5000 rpm/sec rpm rate.

Im not trying to prove you wrong. I just want to understand how this works and hopefully help others that will without question end up in the same position one day :D

The screen shots I took from your log if you minus the closed loop trim minus the total fuel trim equals the rpm rate trim you have in the rpm rate field...

maybe they are averaged in the histogram view and one doesn't see the peaks? look at the data vs time in a normal log viewer. below i marked in yellow so you can be sure there is no intervention of the closed loop...... if you look for example at cursor 2 you see 5745 rpm/sec nets 15.3% trim. of which 0.8% comes from wall film. this is 14.5%/5745*5000 = 12.62% per 5k rpm/sec rate with 3% in the map


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...9b918991ec.png

Hey mate may I ask what log viewer you're using please? :) FYI with no RPM rate enrichment my AFRs are usually around 10:1 in top gear and 11:1 in first. Not ideal but I think in the real world most tuners would be fine with that.

I'm not sure what processing Adaptronic are doing to the RPM signal before applying the RPM rate enrichment, however this method may be prone to "noise" in the RPM signal, e.g. bumps in the road can cause RPM to spike and this will trigger the enrichment when it may not be necessary.

Its Etas MDA, comes together with Etas INCA. It's used alot in the industry but I am unsure if its remotely cheap for fome users.

I found too now that the rpm rate is not very required something. But I just want to get my head around how it works in case I or anyone else needs it. I found out now it doesn't work as described.

Do you get any bump or spike in the measure lambda or afr during inj transition? I found out the wall film model does not take into account the film of the secondaries and this nets me a 15-20% lean spike just after the transition when staging at about 140 kPa during spool.

Staging works well for me so far, no lean spike. Where did you discover this? Sounds like you're saying wall fuel is only calculated per cylinder and not per injector stage? That sounds like a fuck up if so.

What injectors are you staging when this happens and what have you set the minimum fuel volume to?

If you're referring to the ID2000s and you're using 15ul as the minimum volume as you mentioned above, from what I can tell your secondary injectors may be staging at a pulsewidth as low as 0.25ms, is that right? You mentioned you see a minimum of 1.2ms, but is that after subtracting the dead time?

The ID2000 short pulse adder data seems to indicate they are only delivering approximately 50% of the expected fuel flow at 0.25ms, and I don't think Adaptronic model this in the firmware. I would be attempting to set the minimum fuel volume at around 45ul and see if that improves your staging.

I may have made a mistake with my math as I've proven in previous threads that is not my forte... :lol:

Sure bumping the minimum time or volume lessens the lean spike but if you then stay at the transition area (and you can as this software has no hystersis) it will rich out.

Do you use the staging map or just use the logic that it only activates the next stage when the previous reaches the minimum off time? I did not try the last method as the engine doesnt run as good when all the fuel comes through just one port.

The correct way really would be that there is a wall film model for each injector stage. As the film for secondaries is maybe 10x as big as the primaries. Especially with big injectors and xcessive LiM.

I use the logic that activates the next stage when the previous reaches the minimum off time. Where did you discover that wall film is not calculated per stage?

Are you able to try increasing the minimum fuel volume on the ID2000s to 45ul and let us know how it goes? :)

ill retry when I have the chance but I know actually from before it floods the engine when u stay near the transition.

here you see lean spike when the secondaries ramp in and the film model does nothing.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx7...f99cc26169.png

Hey mate, I got my car running and was able to do some testing. The fact that the primary injector PW is not decreased to account for the secondary injector minimum fuel volume seems like a bug to me. I also agree that wall film enrichment should probably be applied per stage. Have you raised these issues with Adaptronic?

That said, staging works well for me on a third gear pull with stock primaries and secondaries. I have the minimum fuel volume on the secondaries set to 0, X at 15% and tau at 0.2ms. AFR tracks target almost exactly.

In second gear I sometimes get a lean bump of around 0.3-0.5 AFR. It seems to happen just after the wastegate fully opens, and only if boost is building quickly.

What gear were you testing in the screenshot above? Does the AFR track the target correctly if you set the staging map to zero and let it stage automatically?

​Cheers,
Sam

that was a 3rd gear pull. I cannot get away with putting the staging map to zero without cutting up the rywire harness as otherwise it will stage the secondary stage which are the ID1000 in the xcsessive LIM primary runners.

I think with stock injectors and manifold offcourse the atomisation is a lot better due to this diffusors and air injection near the injectors, also a warmer MAT will help as thisreduces the wall film to be considered. the bigger the secondaries and the further away from the ports the more the effect will become visible. I communicated all this months ago to Adaptronic. no response...

Omar has mentioned on his Instagram that the staging works well for him even with Siemens 220lb secondaries, so I'm a bit stumped. I have some ID1050x and Siemens 220LB injectors waiting to go into my car so I'll let you know how that works out when complete but it's likely a few months away.

What about making up or purchasing some injector adapter harnesses so you can switch the injectors around for testing? :)

Thats a good idea actually.

need to go from id1000 to id2000 and vica versa. Still seems a lot of pain just because some Australian dudes didn't do their homework :D