Me78569

Np

It is max allowed within the map. So you are right with stretch set a 1500 at @1000 rpm it is 9 * of crank rotation in time length vs 27* at 3k rpm

ensuring your timing hits 30 * at 3k will help with that hard pull up top. you might need something like this 1500: 1 2000: 2 2500: 3.5 3000: 5 max: 6.5

Some trucks are picky about timing. Watch your timing at 2750+ rpm if you rev that high. You injectors are big enough you should be maxing timing by 3k rpm for max power.

Super odd

happy wife happy life? lol heat her feet first.

I'd prob bump low psi timing reduct to 5.0* then do your rpm curve like htis 1500: 14 2000: 18 2500: 23 3000: 28 max: 30

well within assuming you don't max wiretap.

I would opt for no wiretap and more injector. It is so easy to tune some 7 x .010's or 7 x .011's to run nice without wiretap. When the warranty is up on the pump throw some wiretap on it up top and enjoy.

Post up your old tune settings and we can adjust now that's e know it was bucking because of too much timing

100k miles isn't that low add to that 20+ years and I wouldn't be shocked to see the vp die.

try this for timing settings on any of your tunes. This trick uses ecm timing as the base and adds on top with the values at each rpm band. Timing: Fuel Load Timing: 0 Low PSI Timing Reduct: 0 Timing Reduct Scaling: 0 Light Throttle Timing Adv: 0 Light Throttle Timing Load Limit: 0 Timing vs rpm 1500: 1 2000: 2 2500: 3 3000: 4 Timing Max: 5

They pretty much all sell a pump from either midwest diesel, oregon fuel injection, or one other place I cannot remember, I like DAP because of their customer service, nothing more complex than that. The % likeliness of a good pump from DAP is about the same as any other diesel parts reseller (generally speaking) but I have confidence in DAP standing behind the warranty you stand by your end of the deal ( not tapping the pump)

Where are you getting the pumps from? normally I would say you are right about 2 of the same thing going bad in short order being something outside causing it, but VP44's are old tech and a lot of places don't do a great job rebuilding them. i trust reman pumps about as far as I can throw them and prefer to buy based on the service of who sourced it. It used to be that whenever someone got a reman pump we would tell them to drive the absolute snot out of it in the first 30 days before doing anything like tuning, if it survived the first 30 days then it would be likely that it was a good rebuild and would last. I would ask the shop for specific's on why they feel the computer on the pump was bad also. That is kind of a generic thing to say. Was there a code they pulled that pointed to it?

What tune are you running? Bucking is normally too much timing for the setup. what rpm's does it buck?

the chip is to ready shaft speed. you can control the turbo with boost vs drive, but man it works a lot better with the shaft speed version of the code.

I don't think the board will fit onto that shield, but man that is a cool shield. I wish that was around when I did mine. I am not sure of a great way to hook up the 9924 chip with that setup. I don't really remember which wires are needed on the 9924 anymore.

humm I guess times have changed since I created this. when I bought my 9924 chip it came with a 10 pin pcb board to get soldiered to. I attached the board to the red breadboard / screewboard adapter that sat on top of the Arduino. you are looking for UMAX-10 pcb

so do you not believe what I posted in terms of how much jet-a is burnt yearly vs how much gas and diesel is burnt yearly? I know 5 gallons a mile sounds like a lot, but when you compare actual fuel burnt and see that airline travel makes up only %7 vs gas and diesel on road use it is a little different story.

I am feeling the same way hahaha.

Don't overlook the scale of how many vehicles are on the road. in 2012 there were 254,639,386 registered vehicles that number has grown since. a 747 does burn a lot of fuel, but how many jets are there? roughly 6,000 in the US or .00000235 % of vehicles on the roads in the usa. Planes can burn a metric F ton of fuel and still be no where near what cars burn yearly. thankfully this type of things is recorded and reported on, airlines burnt 14 billion gallons of jet -a in 2021. The vehicles in the US burnt 134 billion gallons of gas last year and 47 billion gallons of diesel. So vehicles burnt %97 of the total gallons of fuel compared to airlines. How many gallons of fuel are being burnt a minute in a LA traffic jam? but you are really missing the point of what we are calculating, C02 is something we can compare between the two, just because you disregard it doesn't mean the thought experiment isn't worth while and it also shows valid data.

would the ev co for 90 miles be ~3x the 32 lb at 300 miles? so closer to 100 lb/c02? my brain is a little foggy, but i think thats right. Good catch on my mess up or wait hte total c02 per kwh doesn't change only the c02 per mile, which when towing would be roughly 3x unloaded.

i think it is important to understand with the last coupe posts that we are comparing the worst use case for EV. It is still good data. I only have range #'s for the f150 lightening so we will use that for loaded vs unloaded. unloaded 255 miles vs 90 miles for the heaviest load or ~%35 loaded Same situation I am going to guess Mikes truck drops to ~13-15 mpg, which is ~%55 loaded. https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/ford-f150-lightning-electric-truck-towing-test/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/power-plants/ Found this while looking for additional info. Not exactly related, but I think it is pretty cool to see the depth of info on where the USA get's it's power from. Using ID as an example, %21 is Natural gas .97 lb/kwh %59 hydro 0 lb /kwh %15 wind 0 lb /kwh %5 other ?? so lets call it %25 generated at .97 lb/ kwh and %75 generated at 0 lb/ kwh. So that brings the CO2 total for 300 miles way down ~32 lb/ c02 for EV IF you live in Idaho. So the 1:1 with Mike would need to adjust for CO2 offset by that. I think this all bring into the scope more variety in EV vs ICE for C02 based on region. Too many data points.

I am talking about the system contained within the technical aspect of the car itself. Ice just bothers me from a technical point of view when trying to convert fuel into down the road movement. I'd be willing to wager that at large scale power generation even if from fossil fuels is more efficient than the %80 loss we see when converting gas tank gas into down the road movement. Then you start considering the possibility of things like replacing shingles on roofs with solar panels and figuring out a way to store that energy and things get better. Trains are incredibly efficient and moving cargo and they run diesel generators to power the electric drivetrain. There is a reason for that. Another example is I have a river that flows all year round 10's of thousands of cfm worth of water. I would love to put into place a power generation unit into the river. If I was a rich man I would design that and then give away the unit to every house on the river. Its not world changing scale but it would help locally and those things bring me joy to think about. None of this exists yet as a system but it is exciting to think about. I think the world needs as much joy and excitement as possible.