Hi Guest, welcome to TCG 2.0. Please refer to the FAQ in User Support before you do anything else. It will make the transition MUCH easier.
IF YOU ARE SEEING AN "OOPS" ERROR PAGE, IT IS LIKELY BECAUSE YOUR BROWSER HAS NOT UPDATED YOUR CACHE. YOU CAN EITHER CLICK FORUMS AT THE TOP LEFT OR VISIT THECHICAGOGARAGE.COM AND BOOKMARK THAT. - Love, Mook
Now that you mention it, I had the same problem back with my 55#s and thought WTF. I added in about 10-12% at the time to the IFR table and it got the trims back under consistent +16.4. I also noticed that my MAF curve changed overall after doing some MAF tunes after adjusting the IFR table. Like Ron mentioned, the math didn't work at the time.yeah send me some more. and someone tell me why after 50# injectors and E85, and an IFR table scaling, my car is running consistently lean to the point it trips the CEL.
IFR was done as follows (with DHP) 36#injectors(33.7#)/50#injectors(50) = .674
E85 -> .674*1.33 =.89642 scale factor
I feel like something is wrong, because I dont think the tune should be off THIS much... also, a pulley change from a 3.4 to a 3.2. typically resulted in slightly higher maf readings at idle and cruise, but nothing like +16 LTFTs constantly, and up to +30 in VE tuning mode.
I personaly wouldn't mess with VE unless you are 100% on the ifr being right.Thanks for the help ron. What I'm still concerned about is if the math is even right. if in fact I need to do it the other way around (50/36) and then multiply by the 1.3xx.
The VE tune we did last night eventually evened out to around the right place, though it did go to -5ish ltfts at the end of the night. it started at +30 though... should we have done something differently instead of just modifying the VE?
I think that might be the problem. Staight up math (33%) did not work for me either in PT. I'll post up my 55# table later tonight when I get home.hmm... I don't know how you pt guys scale your IFR table for bigger injectors.