BLSTIC wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:39 am
In a gasoline engine water flow is supposed to be in proportion to fuel flow. Usually 25% or so is when the magic truly starts.
Although that's probably too much for a diesel, you'd probably be served by using a load input for your system that scales as least partially with fuel. Boost is not a good indicator of load on a diesel
Say tps, or a potentiometer wired between tps and airflow will give you a blend of both of those outputs for a good approximation of fuel demand.
Yes, I've seen those figures, but I'm already at 127% with this nozzle.
I looked carefully at my scan tool logs when choosing which source to monitor.
Sources available for this controller:
1 MAF / MAP (0V to 5V)
2 Injector duty cycle (0% to 100%) based on single pulse injection (not suitable in modern diesels)
3 Frequency MAF (40 Hz to 220 Hz)
4 Frequency MAF (400 Hz to 2200 Hz)
5 Frequency MAF (2k Hz to 14k Hz)
6 Progressive Pressure Switch based on boost (or vacuum)
7 EGT (in conjunction with boost)
Why did I choose Progressive Pressure Switch based on boost?
There are a lot of hills in my travels around Cape Town and even mountain passes nearby. I use engine braking a lot (in gear, “ignition” on, but no accelerator being applied). The injection cycle goes to zero instead of the normal “up to” nine injections per compression stroke. Injection cycle would have been my first choice as it also increases in duration under load. However, the current technology of the injector duty cycle signal converter in today's controllers can only handle a single signal per compression stroke. When I looked at the MAF readings when engine braking, the signals didn't drop as quickly or deeply as the boost pressure as air was still being pulled into the engine based upon rpm. Thus, I choose the more analogue Progressive Pressure Switch to not flood the combustion chamber with mix when engine braking.