Modified Uprated 327 injectors for 16v JTD CDTI - Alfa Romeo Forum
You are currently unregistered, register for more features.    
Tuning & Upgrades Discuss performance enhancements for your Alfa Romeo

Reply
 
Thread Tools
(Post Link) post #1 of 27 Old 07-12-15 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Modified Uprated 327 injectors for 16v JTD CDTI

I've created a new thread specifically for this upgrade test to make it easier to find and so that it does not invade other peoples posts.

I sent a set of 327s to DieselPower (Dieselpower) after speaking to Yanko about his upgrade. I spoke to Lukas and he set about testing and modifying the injectors.

I first wanted flow data from the standard 327 injectors, so a good one was selected and run both on the standard Bosch test for generating calibration figures and on the rig at a variety of pressures and durations to allow firstly better comparison of the standard and upgraded items, and secondly for a good injection duration map to be created.

They then modified the injectors and did the same again, the results below are for the modified 327 are from the lowest flowing injector post modification, all others flowed slightly more.

Standard 327 (expected / achieved)

Backflow: 1 18.0-68.0 / 35.6
Backflow: 2 0.0-80.0 / 34.2
max val: 61.7-77.7 / 69.0
med val: 18.4-27.2 / 23.9
low val: 3.0-9.6 / 5.6
pre 1: 0.3-3.9 / 1.6
pre 2: 0.0-2.8 / 2.4

Pressure(bar) duration(us) flow(cc/min)
300 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 3.9/9.3/15.6/21.7
600 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 13.9/25.5/40.1/54.5
900 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 22.5/40.2/61.5/82.7
1200 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 31.2/53.9/78.4/105.6
1500 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 39.3/65.7/94.6/126.2
1700 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 44.2/74.9/105.1/139.4

Modified 327 (mean std 327 value / achieved)

Backflow: 1 19.9 / 39.9
Backflow: 2 40.0 / 29.2
max val: 69.7 / 85.0
med val: 22.8 / 32.9
low val: 6.3 / 7.2
pre 1: 2.1 / 3.0
pre 2: 1.4 / 7.3

Pressure(bar) duration(us) flow(cc/min)
300 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 6.1/11.6/17.6/25.5
600 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 19.8/35.8/49.7/63.2
900 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 34.2/55.9/76.2/97.1
1200 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 47.3/71.8/98.1/124.3
1500 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 62.6/90.7/119.7/147.8
1700 - 600/800/1000/1200 - 72.9/105.0/132.1/161.2
nutron is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
(Post Link) post #2 of 27 Old 07-12-15 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

So the average increase was around 17% increase over the standard 327s.

The mean average max flow of a 327 would be 69.7cc and the same for a 243/159 injector would be 65.2

So the 327s are approximately 6.9% more flow than the original 243/159 injectors at the max flow test for calibration, their flow above this set pressure and duration might be a greater increase though.

The modified 327 would there fore give approximately 25% more flow than the original 243/159 injectors.

I have not tested the injectors in the car yet, so can not comment beyond the rig flow data. I'm hoping the variations between injectors will be low enough to avoid any vibration issues. The biggest variation is about 7% between them on the low/med/max tests, I think that will be okay.
nutron is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 30

Member car:

Alfa 75 3.0 QV

Interesting. Variation of 7% sounds something that could be accepted. Did you check how big were the variations before modification? Is there any logic on injector calibration codes that could be used for estimating injector differences afterwards?
kterkkila is offline  
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 30

Member car:

Alfa 75 3.0 QV

Interesting. Variation of 7% sounds something that could be accepted. Did you check how big were the variations before modification? Is there any logic on injector calibration codes that could be used for estimating injector differences afterwards?

EDIT: Example injectors with codes BIAIDTAAA and 8Z15BT7AA might have quite different characteristics, as the engine sound like a different engine when setting these for all the injectors. These both were on one original injector in my car.
kterkkila is offline  
(Post Link) post #5 of 27 Old 10-12-15 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

I have been unable to find any information to allow me to generate codes, so it is a case of collecting lots of codes, starting with the same code for all and then trying different codes on any injectors showing high deviation.
nutron is offline  
Status: [URL
AO Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: United Kingdom
County: Wrexham
Posts: 1,758
the calculations used are here but understanding the codes to generate one is a different matter.
ima page 5.png

ima page 6.png

ima page 7.png

ima page 8.png

ima page 9.png

ima page 12.png

I have a lot of ima codes listed in my thread 243's 327's and some 341 ducatis in there also for people to try and test.
https://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/tunin...jtd-16v-8.html

Last edited by sussexa; 11-12-15 at 08:10.
sussexa is offline  
Status: fix it till it's broken
AO Member
 
Black-Sheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Germany
County: Sachsen
Posts: 562

Member car:

Delta III 1.9 TT

Interessting,

i do have a minor question regarding injected fuel and soot production.

What does generate more soot (assuming the same amount of fuel in total would be injected).

a: inject more fuel in a shorter injection window (short duration)
b: use a wider injection window and longer duration


?

And somehow one should manage to code these, otherwise it would be a PITA to get injection window rigth (i guess)....

anyway verry cool someone actually came up with uprated injectors
Black-Sheep is offline  
(Post Link) post #8 of 27 Old 11-12-15 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

A shorter duration started at the same time should produce less smoke, which, what I'm aiming for.

The duration values will be based on the average flow of the four injectors I have and that should work fine just like the 327s I have in now.

I ran the car on the dyno today to get some figures to compare after. The corrected flywheel estimates from the dyno were

Eco mode (90mm^3) - 218bhp / 335lbft (458NM)
Sports mode (120mm^3) - 258bhp / 393lbft (537NM)

I'm only wanting to increase the power more as the torque is almost unuseable now.
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #9 of 27 Old 24-01-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

The injectors are in and working okay but there is noticeable vibration from 2000-3000 currently.

I will try various codes to see if I can get a smooth runner but clearly they are not close enough in balance at the low to medium range.

On the positive side, they idle fine without smoke and I held it at 4500rpm in neutral and there was no smoke. This means the low end fueling is as per the flow data, as per standard.

I do think it pulls harder but without measurement this could be just in the head.
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #10 of 27 Old 01-02-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Finally got my gps data logger working again and found I was about 40bhp down on what I had with standard 327 injectors.

I increase and decreased injection timing and found I could get a lot more but still not as much by significant advance of timing, to levels I was not comfortable with.

On studying the logs I found that though common rail demand was 1600+ bar, the achieved pressure was about 400 bar below. So clearly the current pump is no where near capable as it is dropping off by 3000rpm.

I will look for and fit an R80 pump, hopefully I'll be able to get some power out of them then but I need to collect injector codes AND flow data to find suitable calibrarion codes.
nutron is offline  
Status: To GTB or not to GTB?
AO Silver Member
 
TribesMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Slovenia
County: -
Posts: 2,289
Hmmm.... pump issue or are modified injectors leaking too much back to the return line?
I would guess this is not a pump related issue...
TribesMan is offline  
(Post Link) post #12 of 27 Old 02-02-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

The back flow figures were measured on the Bosch calibration rig and were all well inside the limits of a standard 327 injector. Unless they gave me false figures then there is no reason that it should be related to the leak back. It only occurs above 3000rpm under load, at lower IQs it can maintain high rail pressures at high revs happily.

Even with the standard 327s the pump struggled to keep up at top end.
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #13 of 27 Old 11-02-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Fitting the R80 pump has done the trick on the fuel pressure front, now able to hold and exceed demanded pressure at 120 IQ. I pushed it up to 130 IQ and the pump is starting to lag a bit again though, so I'm looking for a compatible R90 or bigger.

After collecting a lot of calibration codes along with the accurate values of the injectors from the Bosch rig, I was able to get the balance of the injectors close enough to now make some good power and make my clutch smell like a burning tyre.

I don't think I have the sort of increase I was hoping for but I will stick it on the dyno again and see. Results from the GPS box suggest maybe 10bhp more.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,712
Hmm, I wonder how these compare to 341's. Have you tested these before?
JS JTD is offline  
(Post Link) post #15 of 27 Old 13-02-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

I've not tested the 341s and haven't been able to get flow data for them. If the 341s flow 20% more than stoke 243s, these modified 327s are flowing 30% more than and average 243 according to the Bosch standard test but in the broader flow tests upto 1700 bar they were 26% above 243s.

I'm happing with my mapping for them now but need to get them calibrated better. I need codes along with the correct flow data for them.

For example

0 445 110 243
A8ISH6EAA

High (57.2-73.2) 58.3
Med (16.6-25.4) 22.3
Low (2.0-8.6) 4.3

By calculating each as a percentage of the range and plotting as a line graph, I can compare a large number of codes to fine ones that are suitable but without the flow data, the codes are useless.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
I've not tested the 341s and haven't been able to get flow data for them.


Here you go.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg test result 445110341 injector.jpg (189.5 KB, 55 views)
JS JTD is offline  
(Post Link) post #17 of 27 Old 18-02-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Those figures suggest the 341s flow no more than standard 327 or 299s from the figures I got
nutron is offline  
(Post Link) post #18 of 27 Old 02-03-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

A friend of mine has just dynoed on one of my maps and achieved 246.5 at the road wheels with dyno stated flywheel figures of 292bhp / 600NM.

He has less fuel flow than me but rather than my GT1858, he has a GTB2260. He also hits peak torque at just 2700rpm.

I'm happy for him but a bit jealous, especially as it is my mapping XD

This has made up my mind once and for all to fit a GTB2260 to mine.
nutron is offline  
Status: To GTB or not to GTB?
AO Silver Member
 
TribesMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Slovenia
County: -
Posts: 2,289
Go for VKLR. either GTB2060VKLR or GTB2260VKLR

Its worth it.
TribesMan is offline  
(Post Link) post #20 of 27 Old 03-03-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

The extra water feed and the additional cost of acquiring one of those units puts me off. The 2260 I'm looking for can be acquired for 300 and all the rest of the parts I have already and can fabricate anything needed for the vacuum conversion.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
A friend of mine has just dynoed on one of my maps and achieved 246.5 at the road wheels with dyno stated flywheel figures of 292bhp / 600NM.
Only 246.5 whp for 292 bhp? Quite a high loss value isn't it?
With 96 mm3 injection I had 257 hp and 223.6 whp.
JS JTD is offline  
(Post Link) post #22 of 27 Old 05-03-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

And that is exactly what I pointed out. Whp is measured, other figures vary greatly. Transmission losses alone are around 25hp at 4000rpm but pumping losses are a difficult value to quantify as they vary due to engine setup, boost pressure, amount of fuel. I still assume 35hp to be a sensible loss, still giving him 281.5bhp easily.

Even between dynos there can be variation in WHP, so without putting two cars on the same dyno, you can't compare them. The flow data provided for the 341 ducati injectors suggest they only flow the same at the 327 or 299 injectors, so this guy potentially has the same fuel capability and way more air flow but still the figures are much smaller than would be expected if we went on the figures from European dynos.

In June the car should be on the 1/4 mile drag strip, that will be a bettet comparison.
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
And that is exactly what I pointed out. Whp is measured, other figures vary greatly. Transmission losses alone are around 25hp at 4000rpm but pumping losses are a difficult value to quantify as they vary due to engine setup, boost pressure, amount of fuel. I still assume 35hp to be a sensible loss, still giving him 281.5bhp easily.

Even between dynos there can be variation in WHP, so without putting two cars on the same dyno, you can't compare them. The flow data provided for the 341 ducati injectors suggest they only flow the same at the 327 or 299 injectors, so this guy potentially has the same fuel capability and way more air flow but still the figures are much smaller than would be expected if we went on the figures from European dynos.

In June the car should be on the 1/4 mile drag strip, that will be a bettet comparison.
For sure there's difference between dynoes, but I have tested at quite a bit different ones the last few years and the results in engine power are very close when I regard the output at a fixed fuel quantity. Let's see:
- Dynostar 4x4 (2 locations)
- MAHA (2 locations)
- Dynapack hubdyno
- Superflow 4x4

Ps I always had the impression UK dynoes are more optimistic, if I see the outputs that are claimed with just a remap.

There's a much easier way to compare performances btw, just make a datalog in 4th gear and compare the time to rev from 2000 to 4500. Me and others do it all the time.

147 JTDm 16v - GTB2060v - 329 hp/578 Nm
JS JTD is offline  
(Post Link) post #24 of 27 Old 07-03-16 Thread Starter
Status: -
AO Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: United Kingdom
County: Hampshire
Posts: 517

Member car:

1.9CDTI 16v

Most remaps give 185bhp from 150ps engines unles they crank the boost up heavily.

My gear length and tyre circumference are not the same as yours and at 4500rpm in 4th I'd be looking at being in court for speeding. Also, my turbo being a GT is much slower to spool and not on full boost until 3000rpm. Would you like to try a 3000 to 6000rpm in 2nd gear instead?

This is a log of my current sports mode in 3rd gear. As you can see, the VNT duty is high and rising to maintain the 2.1 bar I've demanded. This suggests to me that the turbo is working very hard.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sports 3rd 130IQ.jpg (141.7 KB, 18 views)
nutron is offline  
Status: 329 hp
Club Member
Membro Medio
 
JS JTD's Avatar
 
Club Member Number: 1004
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Netherlands
County: Noord Brabant
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron View Post
My gear length and tyre circumference are not the same as yours and at 4500rpm in 4th I'd be looking at being in court for speeding.
Gear ratios are very close, we compared these before. But your car is quite a bit heavier, so it doesn't compare well to a 147. You should compare to 159's or other Astra's. Or was it a Vectra you have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron
Also, my turbo being a GT is much slower to spool and not on full boost until 3000rpm. Would you like to try a 3000 to 6000rpm in 2nd gear instead?
We compare acceleration times in 500 rpm steps, if we're talking 3500-4500 rpm area spool is obviously not an issue. I'm not revving my engine to 6000 rpm as you probably know, I think the current 5200 is more than enough. Efficiency drops and EGT is ramping up past 5000 rpm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nutron
This is a log of my current sports mode in 3rd gear. As you can see, the VNT duty is high and rising to maintain the 2.1 bar I've demanded. This suggests to me that the turbo is working very hard.
Indeed that is a lot of VNT, I think you're running very high EMP. Mine is around 25% with a much bigger turbine and less IQ. You can imagine the difference in effective exhaust flow area must be huge.
JS JTD is offline  
Reply

Go Back   Alfa Romeo Forum > Supported Alfa Romeo Models > Technical & Vehicle Assistance > Tuning & Upgrades

Tags
16v , 327 , cdti , injectors , jtd , modified , uprated

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome