Thanks! Also, I can't see the value window in the 'NLTS RPM Drop' box. I type "=" and nothing appears either. I hit Alt-G and it crashed the program

 

scaling is probably missing...

what version of ecuflash u using?

 

Latest 1.42

 

Right click on the table, click edit. Right now it may show (none) in the scaling box. This should be unit16, and this is a common scaling. Click on the arrow and srcoll down until you see unit16. Click ok...done. I had this problem a couple of times using the 96530706, I think this may have something to do with using an xml with no inheritence.

 

Hey guys,

so is seanv and me the only one with the timing issues? this is a glaring problem in the sense that where is the ecu getting its numbers from?

i can tune around it by looking at the logged timing and getting that to what i want, but still not right.....

if i cant find the issues, i might go back to small maps:-(

Mike

 

Ours runs perfect.

 

Why?

wonder if we have the wrong formula in evoscan, but then it would be out at idle too.

Tephra? your thoughts are desperately needed.

Mike

 

Here is a log/map trace of the same problem I am seeing.

Log was done in 3rd gear and 100% throttle started at load site 90, 2000 rpm all the way to 7000 rpm.




And a pic of the full iginition tables as the big maps doesn't show up fully in the map tracer.

 

Which load are you logging?

- Bryan

 

2Byte....


Edit: Arrrgghhhh, let me guess, the problem is due to me using 2Byte load, when I should be using 1Byte Load.

 

the difference between the two shouldn't be that significant

 

It is under boost for me. They track each other to about 100 load, but above that 1byte load can be 15-20% higher than the baro+temp compensated value.

d

 

even good ole "load calculated" wasn't off that much

 

From what Ive seen, 2ByteLoad follows 1ByteLoad, "almost identically" but if your using 2byte (temp + baro), then there will be ~ 10 - 20% difference between 1byte and 2byte temp + baro.

 

Why would you _not_ log temp+baro corrected load? It was my understanding that the corrected value is usually used for table lookups (in 96530006 at least). LOAD_RAW is quite a lot higher underboost -- several cells off.

d