Notices
ECU Flash

ECU ROM mod - double the "Fuel Cut Load Limit" range to 638

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 28, 2009, 11:06 AM
  #16  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (48)
 
Creamo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Just for the sake of clarity; this is not needed if you convert over to SD?
Old Sep 28, 2009, 11:19 AM
  #17  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
wreckleford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,171
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Great. I was just thinking the other day that this needs to be done.
Old Sep 28, 2009, 11:59 PM
  #18  
Evolving Member
 
krazykorean84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NorCal
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Creamo3
Just for the sake of clarity; this is not needed if you convert over to SD?
You are asking a question right? Not making a statement? Just wondering cause it looks like a statement.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 04:40 AM
  #19  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Jack_of_Trades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Opelika,AL
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by krazykorean84
You are asking a question right? Not making a statement? Just wondering cause it looks like a statement.
I'm pretty sure the question mark is a dead give away
Old Sep 29, 2009, 04:49 AM
  #20  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
phenem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Central PA
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Creamo3
Just for the sake of clarity; this is not needed if you convert over to SD?
I would imagine the load limit is still in effect if you switch over to SD. When I switched over my load decreased by about 10, that's all. I am using the JDM 3 bar sensor. But if you switch over the 4 bar omni sensor, that will dramatically lower your load values and the limit should not be reached. This is because of the scaling of the 4 bar sensor.

mrfred am I correct in my assumption?

~Zach
Old Sep 29, 2009, 05:02 AM
  #21  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Jack_of_Trades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Opelika,AL
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
So I guess the higher the BAR rating of the sensor, the lower the scaling for the same power level car?
Old Sep 29, 2009, 05:18 AM
  #22  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
phenem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Central PA
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack_of_Trades
So I guess the higher the BAR rating of the sensor, the lower the scaling for the same power level car?
Yes from my experience that is correct. It makes sense.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 05:24 AM
  #23  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (48)
 
Creamo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
It doesn't really matter what MAP sensor you're running; when you convert to SD you dictate what you want your load to be for a give pressure. For me; I'm running a 1:1 value over 100Kpa. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that once you go SD it removes the load limits associated w/ the MAF based setups. I used to have the load limit/IPW limit removed on the MAF setup w/ a patch from JCS that I had to set back to stock values once going SD.

And yes, it was a question in the form of a clarifying statement hence the question mark
Old Sep 29, 2009, 05:31 AM
  #24  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (39)
 
phenem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Central PA
Posts: 811
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Creamo3
It doesn't really matter what MAP sensor you're running; when you convert to SD you dictate what you want your load to be for a give pressure. For me; I'm running a 1:1 value over 100Kpa. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that once you go SD it removes the load limits associated w/ the MAF based setups. I used to have the load limit/IPW limit removed on the MAF setup w/ a patch from JCS that I had to set back to stock values once going SD.

And yes, it was a question in the form of a clarifying statement hence the question mark
Yeah I am not sure then, mrfred or jcbanks would know 100%.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 05:39 AM
  #25  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (48)
 
Creamo3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,079
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by phenem
Yeah I am not sure then, mrfred or jcbanks would know 100%.
Found what I was looking for:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/7301160-post186.html
Old Sep 29, 2009, 06:07 AM
  #26  
EvoM Guru
Thread Starter
iTrader: (50)
 
mrfred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Posts: 9,675
Received 128 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by Creamo3
It doesn't really matter what MAP sensor you're running; when you convert to SD you dictate what you want your load to be for a give pressure. For me; I'm running a 1:1 value over 100Kpa. I'm pretty sure I remember reading that once you go SD it removes the load limits associated w/ the MAF based setups. I used to have the load limit/IPW limit removed on the MAF setup w/ a patch from JCS that I had to set back to stock values once going SD.

And yes, it was a question in the form of a clarifying statement hence the question mark
Some clarification is in order:

1) A properly tuned SD setup will show exactly the same load values as the original MAF setup. That is the goal of the tuning process after converting to SD. This is true regardless of the MAP sensor that is used (e.g., 3-bar, 4-bar, 5-bar, etc).

2) The MAF algorithm includes code to *clip* the load value. If the load calculated from the MAF exceeds the clip value, then the algorithm will use the clip value. That code has nothing to do with the load limit tables I have posted here.

3) The load limit tables I have posted here will cause fuel cut to occur when the load, calculated either from MAF or SD, exceeds the value in the table (and the delay time has passed).
Old Sep 29, 2009, 08:57 AM
  #27  
Evolving Member
 
evonut270's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: vienna,austria/scotland
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
just got mine sorted hope to try it later.

Last edited by evonut270; Sep 29, 2009 at 09:06 AM.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 09:02 AM
  #28  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Jack_of_Trades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Opelika,AL
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I think what they were trying to say was that when going to SD, you can fudge the settings so the maximum load you hit can stay under the 319 load limit. I know the old school MAFT guys did this so they had maximum resolution with the factory ECU scaling since it wasn't able to be edited by the averge user like we can so they were forced to make their peak load stay within the factory map scaling.

I agree that its best to match the MAF scaling since we don't REALLY need to fudge the max load values reached with SD. Unless of course you're running insane loads and the amount of load scaling steps we have available (its around 20 load points right?) doesn't offer enough resolution, then it would make sense.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 09:32 AM
  #29  
EvoM Guru
Thread Starter
iTrader: (50)
 
mrfred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tri-Cities, WA // Portland, OR
Posts: 9,675
Received 128 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by Jack_of_Trades
I think what they were trying to say was that when going to SD, you can fudge the settings so the maximum load you hit can stay under the 319 load limit. I know the old school MAFT guys did this so they had maximum resolution with the factory ECU scaling since it wasn't able to be edited by the averge user like we can so they were forced to make their peak load stay within the factory map scaling.

I agree that its best to match the MAF scaling since we don't REALLY need to fudge the max load values reached with SD. Unless of course you're running insane loads and the amount of load scaling steps we have available (its around 20 load points right?) doesn't offer enough resolution, then it would make sense.
Fudging an SD tune so that load reads below the real value is a really bad idea. I think it would create more hassles than any benefits it would provide. Now that we have much better control over the ROM programming, no one should be doing that.
Old Sep 29, 2009, 09:57 AM
  #30  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (17)
 
Jack_of_Trades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Opelika,AL
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by mrfred
Fudging an SD tune so that load reads below the real value is a really bad idea. I think it would create more hassles than any benefits it would provide. Now that we have much better control over the ROM programming, no one should be doing that.
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to add load columns to the fuel/timing maps for the guys now pushing serious loads on street cars? Thats one of the only major differences between the AEM guys and the stock ECU's guys these days.


Quick Reply: ECU ROM mod - double the "Fuel Cut Load Limit" range to 638



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:38 PM.