Bank-to-Bank or Paired EFI injects

Sequential injection will always get slightly better fuel economy and cleaner exhaust emissions. Also, according to page 152 of "How to Tune and Modify Engine Management Systems" (book by Jeff Hartman), sequential injection always gains power at peak torque and at peak horsepower. However, for racing applications, the most significant benefits to sequential injection are good idle quality with large injectors (for the reasons in my quote above), improved fuel rail pressure balance (pulses), individual cylinder fuel correction (adjustments),

Another benefit of sequential EFI, is the capability to phase the injector timing, during the intake stroke for best efficiency. Also, since sequential EFI only injects once per cycle, the injector dead time is

Read "Injection Timing", "Injector Dead Time" & "Individual Cylinder Trim":

An individual runner intake manifold (multiple throttle bodies) is the one application where sequential injection has the least amount of benefits (power-wise), because the individual runner design gets it's own (isolated) air & fuel supply for each cylinder.

Holley's Untimed Sequential injection strategy still injects once per revolution, but without a cam sync sensor. It still injects fuel in accordance to the engine's firing order (programmed into EFI software), however, without a cam sync sensor, it can't identify #1 cylinder. Holley's Untimed Sequential injection (like full sequential) also has the benefit of good idle quality with large injectors and improved fuel rail pressure balance (pulses); even though it doesn't inject in sequence with each cylinder's intake valve opening.

The dead time compensation is added to the base pulse width to linearize the output of the injector. By linearizing the output of the injector, the fuel flow responds accurately to the simple multiplication performed by the

ECU.

Here is how it works. Let's consider a situation where we have a dead time compensation value of zero entered into our ECU. If our base pulse width is 5.000 ms, and our known injector dead time is .920 ms, the effective fuel flow of the injector is equivalent to a 4.080 ms pulse width.

(5.000 - .920 = 4.080)

Now let's consider what happens when the manifold pressure doubles, and the ECU attempts to double the fuel flow of the injector by doubling the pulse width. If we take the base pulse width of 5.000 ms times 2, we get 10.000 ms. 10.000 ms minus our known injector dead time of .920 ms equals 9.080 ms, and so our effective fuel flow is equivalent to a 9.080 ms pulse width.

To quantify the results of doubling the pulse width, we divide 4.080 into 9.080 and we get 2.225 which shows that by doubling the pulse width, we have increased the fuel flow by 222.5%. The result is a 12.5% error!

(2.25/2.00=1.125, or 12.5%)

Now let's consider the same injector and the same request for double the fuel flow with the correct dead time compensation applied.

With the correct value of .920 ms entered as our dead time compensation, our ECU will add .920 ms to our base pulse width of 5.000 ms for an actual pulse width of 5.920 ms. The resulting fuel flow is now equivalent to a 5.000 ms pulse width.

(5.920 - .920 = 5.000)

To double the fuel flow, our ECU will multiply the base pulse width of 5.000 ms by 2, and then add the dead time compensation value of .920 for an actual pulse width of 10.920 ms. The resulting fuel flow is now equivalent to a 10.000 ms pulse width.

(10.920 - .920 = 10.000)

To check our results, we divide 5.000 into 10.000, and we get 2.00 which is exactly what we were looking for.

Now let's apply the same math to a more realistic situation and see what

we get. We'll consider a light throttle cruise condition with the following parameters:

Base Pulse Width = 2.000 ms

Actual Known Injector Dead Time = .920ms

Incorrect Injector Dead Time (entered into the customer's ECU) .600ms.

Static Injector Flow = 460cc/min RPM = 2500

Lambda = .9500

The base pulse width of 2.000 ms represents the tuned value during our dyno session and includes the air temp, barometric pressure, manifold pressure and engine temp compensations before the dead time compensation is added.

With our incorrect dead time compensation value of .600 ms added to our base pulse width of 2.000 ms, our actual pulse width is 2.600 milliseconds. Based on our dynamic flow test results, we see that our actual fuel flow per injector is 32.200 cc/min.

Once our customer is in traffic, we may find that the air density decreases by 6% due to high air intake temperatures. Our ECU will make a 6% correction to the base pulse width, and arrive at 1.887ms.

(2.000/1.06=1.887)

It then adds the incorrect dead time compensation value of .600 ms for an actual pulse width of 2.487milliseconds, and an actual fuel flow of 30.034 cc/min.

If we divide our corrected fuel flow of 30.034 cc/min by our original fuel flow of 32.200, and then take the reciprocal, we get 1.072 which means that our fuel flow was actually reduced by 7.2% instead of the 6% that the ECU asked for!

((1/(30.034/ 32.200))=1.072, or 7.2%)

To find our error, we divide 1.072 (7.2%) by 1.06 (6%) and we get 1.011

If we multiply this by our target Lambda value of .950, we get .9607

Rounding this, we get a resulting Lambda of .961 and this may be lean enough to cause a slight surge, or lean misfire.

In this case, a slight leaning of the mixture may be acceptable. Maybe we tuned a bit on the rich side, or maybe the engine just doesn't mind running a bit leaner.

What if the same "over correction" occurs while the motor is under boost? Did we give a large enough safety margin to account for this? If so, could we tune for higher horsepower if we knew that the ECU could properly account for changes in atmospheric conditions?

In the real world, we all apply some safety margin to our maps, but what happens if our customer finds that his E.T.s are inconsistent because of errors introduced through improper dead time compensation?

What if our customer is running a total loss electrical system and his battery voltage changes during a pass? The errors described above could easily be amplified if our dead time/battery compensation curve is incorrect!

And what about closed loop control? How effectively will our closed loop control work if it is constantly having to hunt for the correct air fuel ratio because it either over corrects, or under corrects at its first attempt to adjust the mixture?

The short story is that all the compensations in your ECU are based on the assumption that you have entered correct injector dead times. The dead time compensation linearizes the response of the injector, and if it is incorrect, fuel flow will never accurately follow the commands from your ECU.

Yes you can, and as long as the engine never leaves your temperature and pressure controlled dyno room, it will run just as it did when you originally tuned it.

This is incorrect. The amount of time required for the pintle to move to the fully open position will always be greater than the actual dead time of the injector. The injector dead time is related to the difference between the actual dynamic flow, and the theoretical dynamic flow.

This is only correct if you intend to run your engine on mineral spirits.

This is incorrect. Even at alternator voltage the injector does not respond instantly and so we need to account for that with our dead time compensation values.

Paul Yaw

__half__the amount of fuel (lb/hr - PW),__twice__for each combustion cycle (4-stroke engine). Sequential EFI injects the__total__amount of fuel (lb/hr - PW),__once__for each combustion cycle (4-stroke engine). So even though the net amount of fuel injected is the same, sequential EFI does it with half as many injector events, by injecting*double the amount of lb/hr - pulse width fuel*. The total injector duty cycle remains the same (two injector events per cycle with Bank-To-Bank, Paired),*but*with double the amount of pulse width from sequential injection. The increased injector pulse width is why large injectors can still idle good under sequential control*but*not under Bank-to-Bank control (or Paired). Different injection method, but essentially the same amount of fuel consumed.Sequential injection will always get slightly better fuel economy and cleaner exhaust emissions. Also, according to page 152 of "How to Tune and Modify Engine Management Systems" (book by Jeff Hartman), sequential injection always gains power at peak torque and at peak horsepower. However, for racing applications, the most significant benefits to sequential injection are good idle quality with large injectors (for the reasons in my quote above), improved fuel rail pressure balance (pulses), individual cylinder fuel correction (adjustments),

**and**Injector End Angle tuning (__LINK__). FYI: Sequential Injection always requires a cam sync sensor/unit.Another benefit of sequential EFI, is the capability to phase the injector timing, during the intake stroke for best efficiency. Also, since sequential EFI only injects once per cycle, the injector dead time is

**not**doubled (*like it is with non-sequential injection, which results in decreased fuel flow and sometimes requires a larger injector to compensate*).Read "Injection Timing", "Injector Dead Time" & "Individual Cylinder Trim":

__http://www.motec.com/filedownload.ph...pdf?docid=2490__(Motec Glossary, page 70.)__http://www.tracklab.biz/html/motec_terms.html__(← Or read the same document here.)An individual runner intake manifold (multiple throttle bodies) is the one application where sequential injection has the least amount of benefits (power-wise), because the individual runner design gets it's own (isolated) air & fuel supply for each cylinder.

Holley's Untimed Sequential injection strategy still injects once per revolution, but without a cam sync sensor. It still injects fuel in accordance to the engine's firing order (programmed into EFI software), however, without a cam sync sensor, it can't identify #1 cylinder. Holley's Untimed Sequential injection (like full sequential) also has the benefit of good idle quality with large injectors and improved fuel rail pressure balance (pulses); even though it doesn't inject in sequence with each cylinder's intake valve opening.

**Injector Dead Times - What You Don't Know Can Hurt You**

The dead time compensation is added to the base pulse width to linearize the output of the injector. By linearizing the output of the injector, the fuel flow responds accurately to the simple multiplication performed by the

ECU.

Here is how it works. Let's consider a situation where we have a dead time compensation value of zero entered into our ECU. If our base pulse width is 5.000 ms, and our known injector dead time is .920 ms, the effective fuel flow of the injector is equivalent to a 4.080 ms pulse width.

(5.000 - .920 = 4.080)

Now let's consider what happens when the manifold pressure doubles, and the ECU attempts to double the fuel flow of the injector by doubling the pulse width. If we take the base pulse width of 5.000 ms times 2, we get 10.000 ms. 10.000 ms minus our known injector dead time of .920 ms equals 9.080 ms, and so our effective fuel flow is equivalent to a 9.080 ms pulse width.

To quantify the results of doubling the pulse width, we divide 4.080 into 9.080 and we get 2.225 which shows that by doubling the pulse width, we have increased the fuel flow by 222.5%. The result is a 12.5% error!

(2.25/2.00=1.125, or 12.5%)

Now let's consider the same injector and the same request for double the fuel flow with the correct dead time compensation applied.

With the correct value of .920 ms entered as our dead time compensation, our ECU will add .920 ms to our base pulse width of 5.000 ms for an actual pulse width of 5.920 ms. The resulting fuel flow is now equivalent to a 5.000 ms pulse width.

(5.920 - .920 = 5.000)

To double the fuel flow, our ECU will multiply the base pulse width of 5.000 ms by 2, and then add the dead time compensation value of .920 for an actual pulse width of 10.920 ms. The resulting fuel flow is now equivalent to a 10.000 ms pulse width.

(10.920 - .920 = 10.000)

To check our results, we divide 5.000 into 10.000, and we get 2.00 which is exactly what we were looking for.

Now let's apply the same math to a more realistic situation and see what

we get. We'll consider a light throttle cruise condition with the following parameters:

Base Pulse Width = 2.000 ms

Actual Known Injector Dead Time = .920ms

Incorrect Injector Dead Time (entered into the customer's ECU) .600ms.

Static Injector Flow = 460cc/min RPM = 2500

Lambda = .9500

The base pulse width of 2.000 ms represents the tuned value during our dyno session and includes the air temp, barometric pressure, manifold pressure and engine temp compensations before the dead time compensation is added.

With our incorrect dead time compensation value of .600 ms added to our base pulse width of 2.000 ms, our actual pulse width is 2.600 milliseconds. Based on our dynamic flow test results, we see that our actual fuel flow per injector is 32.200 cc/min.

Once our customer is in traffic, we may find that the air density decreases by 6% due to high air intake temperatures. Our ECU will make a 6% correction to the base pulse width, and arrive at 1.887ms.

(2.000/1.06=1.887)

It then adds the incorrect dead time compensation value of .600 ms for an actual pulse width of 2.487milliseconds, and an actual fuel flow of 30.034 cc/min.

If we divide our corrected fuel flow of 30.034 cc/min by our original fuel flow of 32.200, and then take the reciprocal, we get 1.072 which means that our fuel flow was actually reduced by 7.2% instead of the 6% that the ECU asked for!

((1/(30.034/ 32.200))=1.072, or 7.2%)

To find our error, we divide 1.072 (7.2%) by 1.06 (6%) and we get 1.011

If we multiply this by our target Lambda value of .950, we get .9607

Rounding this, we get a resulting Lambda of .961 and this may be lean enough to cause a slight surge, or lean misfire.

In this case, a slight leaning of the mixture may be acceptable. Maybe we tuned a bit on the rich side, or maybe the engine just doesn't mind running a bit leaner.

What if the same "over correction" occurs while the motor is under boost? Did we give a large enough safety margin to account for this? If so, could we tune for higher horsepower if we knew that the ECU could properly account for changes in atmospheric conditions?

In the real world, we all apply some safety margin to our maps, but what happens if our customer finds that his E.T.s are inconsistent because of errors introduced through improper dead time compensation?

What if our customer is running a total loss electrical system and his battery voltage changes during a pass? The errors described above could easily be amplified if our dead time/battery compensation curve is incorrect!

And what about closed loop control? How effectively will our closed loop control work if it is constantly having to hunt for the correct air fuel ratio because it either over corrects, or under corrects at its first attempt to adjust the mixture?

The short story is that all the compensations in your ECU are based on the assumption that you have entered correct injector dead times. The dead time compensation linearizes the response of the injector, and if it is incorrect, fuel flow will never accurately follow the commands from your ECU.

**Common Misconceptions:**

**1.**You can tune around incorrect dead times -

Yes you can, and as long as the engine never leaves your temperature and pressure controlled dyno room, it will run just as it did when you originally tuned it.

**2.**The injector dead time can be determined with an oscilloscope by measuring the amount of time it takes for the pintle to move to the fully open position -

This is incorrect. The amount of time required for the pintle to move to the fully open position will always be greater than the actual dead time of the injector. The injector dead time is related to the difference between the actual dynamic flow, and the theoretical dynamic flow.

**3.**I can determine injector dead times with my flow bench which uses high viscosity, low volatility mineral spirits as a test fluid -

This is only correct if you intend to run your engine on mineral spirits.

**4.**The injector dead time/battery compensation table only exists to account for low battery voltage -

This is incorrect. Even at alternator voltage the injector does not respond instantly and so we need to account for that with our dead time compensation values.

Paul Yaw

__InjectorDynamics.com__

Originally posted by

**Russ Collins - RC Engineering**
Originally posted by

**Duttweiler Performance & EFI University**
## Comment