Jeff,

To avoid confusion, it should be pointed out that references to “first” or “second” method are only valid within the context of an individual post.

In the earlier long post, the “second” method is an alternative tuning method where the effect of injector lag is removed from the table only at staging by using mode 6.  Injector lag will still affect the rest of the table and adjustments to it may be needed.  This is not a solution to the problem but rather a work around.

In the more recent post, the “second” method refers to removing the effect of injector lag from the entire table.  This is not very easy with the controller as it now exists.  I have done this by adding extra circuitry.  Tracy may be able to do this with a firmware calculation.

I am not suggesting that the controller cannot be tuned to work well.  There are many cases where it is.  What I am suggesting is that getting the controller to work well may be more difficult than it needs to be.  There are problems sometimes in the early tuning stages of a new installation.  To tune the controller effectively, the rest of the system needs to be working properly.  For the rest of the system to work properly, the controller needs to be tuned reasonably well.  Sort of a catch-22.   The behavior of problems in the system other than the controller can be affected by controller tuning, giving the impression that the controller is at fault when this is not really the case.  The closer the controller is to working right out of the box, and the easier it is to tune, the easier it will be to isolate other system problems if they are present.   This makes it less likely that a cycle of frustration will develop.

If your installation is working well, you may not gain much by arriving at the essentially the same condition using a different method.  If you find an alternate method to be easier to use, others may benefit from knowing about it.  I know that I would appreciate any feedback you may give.

Steve

Steve, I chose not to tune the EC2 that way (using either mode 6, or 2) for that exact reason -  I couldn’t tell what the computer was doing.

If the method works, I suppose one could argue who cares – I certainly don’t know what the table looks like for my Ford Escape.

I used Mode 3 to set injector flow rate (above staging) as per the manual, then made manual adjustments to every data point using Mode 1 – the result is my MCT table looks like a saw-tooth waveform, i.e., 2 non-linear rising slopes either side of staging with an obvious correction just above staging.

I may try your method – I can always go back to what I have now – Ed’s little device makes it pretty easy to do MCT entries.

Jeff