Anyone with a DiabloSport Powerpuck, please come in

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:19 pm

I was wondering if someone with a Powerpuck(WWDiesel?) could measure the resistance across the Fuel Rail pressure terminals(input and output plugs).

I'm curious to know how much pressure they felt it was safe to run with the puck turned up all the way to max. Based on our Injection duration maps, the benefit of adding 1 or 2000 psi is not that great so I wonder if they bumped it 4-5000 to get the results they want.

jws84_02 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:11 pm

Hopefully no one in here runs a "fooler" box

flash7210 · **Posted:** Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:29 pm

From what I can tell, the ECM limits max pressure to 26600ps. But that's just the ECM commanding the rail pressure solenoid to fully shut.
With my rail pressure gauge I have seen a max of 24000psi with the yeti stage 2 tune.
I see no reason max pressure cannot be 28000psi.

All the tuner boxes do is fool the sensors.
I think the max value from the rail pressure sensor 4.5 volts. The tuner box will drop that to about 4v or whatever. Thus allowing pressure to be higher.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:02 pm

flash7210 wrote:

From what I can tell, the ECM limits max pressure to 26600ps. But that's just the ECM commanding the rail pressure solenoid to fully shut.
With my rail pressure gauge I have seen a max of 24000psi with the yeti stage 2 tune.
I see no reason max pressure cannot be 28000psi.

All the tuner boxes do is fool the sensors.
I think the max value from the rail pressure sensor 4.5 volts. The tuner box will drop that to about 4v or whatever. Thus allowing pressure to be higher.

Yeah its 1600 bar/23000psi on the stock tune. I think yeti turns it up very slightly to like 1660 bar/24000 psi.

Thats why im curious about the power puck. If they think its ok to push it too 2000 bar or something then maybe we could in our tunes and get a bit more power.

Mountainman · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:28 pm

If it was beneficial, and reliable, wouldn't GDE have modified this, or Chrysler from the get go? I'd like to hear Keith chime in on this :?:

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:03 pm

mass-hole wrote:

I was wondering if someone with a Powerpuck(WWDiesel?) could measure the resistance across the Fuel Rail pressure terminals(input and output plugs).

How would you do this? Would you need a sophisticated scanner tool, or can it be done with the engine off using a digital multimeter?
I have no Android products

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:25 pm

Mountainman wrote:

If it was beneficial, and reliable, wouldn't GDE have modified this, or Chrysler from the get go? I'd like to hear Keith chime in on this :?:

Reliability isnt the point. GDE's tunes are meant to provide OEM like reliability while also bumping power, hence why they do such extensive testing prior to release. Chrysler might have if their aim was to make 400+ ft-lbs from the factory, but they only tuned it for 300 so they didnt need to.

This would be for someone who is looking for more, like dieselguy with his 265 rwhp build. I think he has more turbo than fueling and if he could move more fuel he could make some more power. Eventually I am gunna move to a big turbo and I am trying to put the pieces together now to see what we can do with what we have.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:32 pm

WWDiesel wrote:

mass-hole wrote:

I was wondering if someone with a Powerpuck(WWDiesel?) could measure the resistance across the Fuel Rail pressure terminals(input and output plugs).

How would you do this? Would you need a sophisticated scanner tool, or can it be done with the engine off using a digital multimeter?
I have no Android products

No it would just be a multimeter set to read ohms(resistance) across the male and female fuel rail plugs of the powerpuck harness with it turned up all the way. not sure which pin is which though. Just wanna know how many ohms its putting between the Sensor and the ECU, and then from there you can back track it to the rail pressure that its achieving. If the sensor is needs to output 4V to tell the ECU 1600 bar then with the resistance we could figure out how much voltage the sensor needs to output to make the output of the puck 4V. Then with the new increased sensor output we could use the sensor calibration tables to understand what pressure the puck is achieving.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:34 pm

WWDiesel wrote:

mass-hole wrote:

I was wondering if someone with a Powerpuck(WWDiesel?) could measure the resistance across the Fuel Rail pressure terminals(input and output plugs).

How would you do this? Would you need a sophisticated scanner tool, or can it be done with the engine off using a digital multimeter?
I have no Android products

Unplug the sensor and do resistance checks between the pins on the powerpuck side. Center pin is the signal wire.
Resistance checks are done with voltage off. So not sure what this will tell you.
Voltage checks would tell you more. You would have to backprobe the sensor connector with engine running to get a signal.
Of course, a rail pressure gauge is the best way to know.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:46 pm

mass-hole wrote:

Mountainman wrote:

If it was beneficial, and reliable, wouldn't GDE have modified this, or Chrysler from the get go? I'd like to hear Keith chime in on this :?:

Reliability isnt the point. GDE's tunes are meant to provide OEM like reliability while also bumping power, hence why they do such extensive testing prior to release. Chrysler might have if their aim was to make 400+ ft-lbs from the factory, but they only tuned it for 300 so they didnt need to.

This would be for someone who is looking for more, like dieselguy with his 265 rwhp build. I think he has more turbo than fueling and if he could move more fuel he could make some more power. Eventually I am gunna move to a big turbo and I am trying to put the pieces together now to see what we can do with what we have.

It seems that GDE tune actually lower rail pressure. They make more power by changing injection timing and duration.

Ive checked rail pressure on both the yeti stage 2 and stage 4 tunes.
Stage2 seems to max out at 24000psi
Stage 4 about 23000psi.

Again, I see no reason why 28000psi cannot be done. But I dont know if the ECM will allow it.
And injection pressure isnt everything. Injection timing and duration (volume) account for a lot.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:13 pm

flash7210 wrote:

mass-hole wrote:

Mountainman wrote:

If it was beneficial, and reliable, wouldn't GDE have modified this, or Chrysler from the get go? I'd like to hear Keith chime in on this :?:

Reliability isnt the point. GDE's tunes are meant to provide OEM like reliability while also bumping power, hence why they do such extensive testing prior to release. Chrysler might have if their aim was to make 400+ ft-lbs from the factory, but they only tuned it for 300 so they didnt need to.

This would be for someone who is looking for more, like dieselguy with his 265 rwhp build. I think he has more turbo than fueling and if he could move more fuel he could make some more power. Eventually I am gunna move to a big turbo and I am trying to put the pieces together now to see what we can do with what we have.

It seems that GDE tune actually lower rail pressure. They make more power by changing injection timing and duration.

Ive checked rail pressure on both the yeti stage 2 and stage 4 tunes.
Stage2 seems to max out at 24000psi
Stage 4 about 23000psi.

Again, I see no reason why 28000psi cannot be done. But I dont know if the ECM will allow it.
And injection pressure isnt everything. Injection timing and duration (volume) account for a lot.

it will. There are separate limiters in the tune that we know of and can increase. I know other vehicles from our vintage have higher injection pressures on bosch systems so I agree. I just kinda figured that if we knew what Diablosport felt was safe then we could do the same. If they are claiming like 30 hp or whatever just on rail pressure alone, they must be bumping it pretty substantially.

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:14 pm

flash7210 wrote:

Unplug the sensor and do resistance checks between the pins on the powerpuck side. Center pin is the signal wire.
Resistance checks are done with voltage off. So not sure what this will tell you.
Voltage checks would tell you more. You would have to backprobe the sensor connector with engine running to get a signal.
Of course, a rail pressure gauge is the best way to know.

I will take the readings this afternoon and post later. :wink:

I do know from playing with the settings on the power puck, if you turn it up all the way and give it full go pedal, it can throw it into limp mode, been there done that and I never turn it up past 50% anymore. The ECM did not like something at full power setting!!!! Bet it saw something out of range?
The more it is turned up the higher the boost pressure goes under load (I have mech. boost gauge). I can peg my 35 psig boost gauge with the puck if I desire, but now I keep the boost to 25 psig or less with puck at set at 50% or less and never have any limp mode problems. But it definitely adds go power that you can feel. NO observed black smoke from overfueling though!!!

mass-hole · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:05 pm

WWDiesel wrote:

flash7210 wrote:

Unplug the sensor and do resistance checks between the pins on the powerpuck side. Center pin is the signal wire.
Resistance checks are done with voltage off. So not sure what this will tell you.
Voltage checks would tell you more. You would have to backprobe the sensor connector with engine running to get a signal.
Of course, a rail pressure gauge is the best way to know.

I will take the readings this afternoon and post later. :wink:

I do know from playing with the settings on the power puck, if you turn it up all the way and give it full go pedal, it can throw it into limp mode, been there done that and I never turn it up past 50% anymore. The ECM did not like something at full power setting!!!! Bet it saw something out of range?
The more it is turned up the higher the boost pressure goes under load (I have mech. boost gauge). I can peg my 35 psig boost gauge with the puck if I desire, but now I keep the boost to 25 psig or less with puck at set at 50% or less and never have any limp mode problems. But it definitely adds go power that you can feel. NO observed black smoke from overfueling though!!!

Awesome. Do you have an EGT gauge?

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:00 pm

mass-hole wrote:

Awesome. Do you have an EGT gauge?

No, not on the Jeep, only on my Dodge Cummins!

Took the readings as requested, does not tell me a whole lot! Disconnected the power puck fuel rail pressure sensor/to OEM connector and took reading on the two outer pins that would be sending info to the PCM if plug was connected, and no matter what setting I set the power puck power level set at, the readings was almost the same... 23.42 to 23.52 Ω from 0% setting to the 100% setting.
Tried turning on the ign. and powering up the puck, made no difference, resistance readings remained the same. Did get a P0193 DTC from disconnecting the rail pressure sensor from the power puck and turning the ing. switch to the on position. After I starting the engine with everything connected back up properly, I cleared the code right away with my code reader!!!

Mountainman · **Posted:** Sun Dec 18, 2016 11:21 pm

mass-hole wrote:

Mountainman wrote:

If it was beneficial, and reliable, wouldn't GDE have modified this, or Chrysler from the get go? I'd like to hear Keith chime in on this :?:

Reliability isnt the point. GDE's tunes are meant to provide OEM like reliability while also bumping power, hence why they do such extensive testing prior to release. Chrysler might have if their aim was to make 400+ ft-lbs from the factory, but they only tuned it for 300 so they didnt need to.

This would be for someone who is looking for more, like dieselguy with his 265 rwhp build. I think he has more turbo than fueling and if he could move more fuel he could make some more power. Eventually I am gunna move to a big turbo and I am trying to put the pieces together now to see what we can do with what we have.

Right on, performance is tempting now that I have several spare blocks :frankie:

but the time and labor is imposing :juggle:

WWDiesel · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:03 pm

This may explain why reading resistance of the power puck to rail pressure sensor did not reveal much variance?
I got this from Ranger1 with his permission to share:

Ranger1 wrote:

Read your post on measuring rail pressure box resistance. I've had one
in the past and the better ones are not passive resistance devices,
they're active components, meaning IC's and only provide varying voltage
output. No way to measure resistance accurately on them, on or off.
You're ending up measuring the output stages of electronic amps,
including the resistors in their output circuits.

The error code when the power puck is over 50% happens because it lowers
rail pressure sensor output voltage too much, out of the allowable range
the ECM programming is expecting to see. It sees the rail pressure not
keeping up because of the lower voltage and thinks there's a problem
with the CP3 fuel supply. The original programmers coded it that way
because they didn't program error codes for rail pressure boxes, only
loss of fuel prime on a vacuum drawing CP3 pump. They made the
assumption that if rail pressure was too low, it was because of an air
leak in the vacuum fuel supply to the CP3 pump. I used to get P0093
codes, IIRC that's the code for a large fuel leak.

I've read that the CP3 system was designed for a maximum safe pressure
of 26,000 psi, but their have been reports of cracked injector bodies
and leaking rail pressure valves in the Cummins forums when going past
that using stacked rail boost boxes and a tune. The Cummins uses the
valve on the rail as a pressure relief valve, while ours uses it as part
of the fuel pressure regulator, so blocking it with a plug isn't an
option like it is for the Cummins owners.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:22 pm

I guess the only other way would be to get one of those fuel pressure gauges for the Cummins that hook straight to the sensor, and put it before the powerpuck so you get the actual pressure instead of the faked one.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:43 pm

I was doing some digging in my tune and think I found the calibration map for the rail sensor and its range is 0-1800 bar/26106.8 psi. .5V = 0 bar - 4.5V = 1800 bar. It looks like this is what they found on the cummins forum as well.

So it doesnt look like there is much more room to work with anyways.

mass-hole · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:45 pm

Confirmed that the map i found was the rail sensor calibration so it looks like it only sees up to 1800 bar. The stock tune is at 1600.

Also, Flash, i think you said you though Torque Pro was outputting the ECU's targeted rail pressure, but I changed the calibration map to 900 bar for all voltages and Torque was showing 900 bar and doesnt budge off of it even when cranking the jeep over. So it appears Torque is outputting the actual sensor readings.

flash7210 · **Posted:** Tue Dec 20, 2016 4:31 pm

mass-hole wrote:

Confirmed that the map i found was the rail sensor calibration so it looks like it only sees up to 1800 bar. The stock tune is at 1600.

Also, Flash, i think you said you though Torque Pro was outputting the ECU's targeted rail pressure, but I changed the calibration map to 900 bar for all voltages and Torque was showing 900 bar and doesnt budge off of it even when cranking the jeep over. So it appears Torque is outputting the actual sensor readings.

I still disagree.
My rail pressure gauge, which is connected directly to the sensor, does not always match TorquePro.
Sometimes its dead on, like when cruising at a steady speed.
Sometimes its 2000psi higher, like when under hard acceleration.

And when the pressure sensor is unplugged, torquepro displays the maximum 26000psi.

Anyone with a DiabloSport Powerpuck, please come in

Who is online