I was just going over my data logs, and since updating my EvoScan logging information with the data for 55590006 on page one, I noticed my boost levels appear to be higher than before...

I looked over the XML data and confirmed I have the same entries as page 1 from this thread:

I know it's been said that the above is the "proper" way to log boost levels. I read the OP of this information on the EvoX thread, but did not read the entire thread to see if my observations became a topic of discussion. With these settings I noticed the PSIG readings in my logs to be directly proportional to my altitude. or to put in another way, my logged PSIG readings were inversely proportional to the environmental air pressure...

For example, I was doing some pulls at about 2750 ft altitude (Baro logged 13.3), as a result my logged boost levels were about 23 PSI peak. Using the old method of calculating PSIG ( - 14.7 instead of - Baro ), I would consistently have around 21 PSI...

With the calculation for PSIG being based on the Baro reading, I would have 1.3 PSI less boost at sea level (Baro reading of 14.7), which would be about 21.7PSI peak boost. That is assuming the pressure in the intake manifold was identical regardless of environment air pressure.

This is kind of confusing me, because with the calculation for PSIG the logs would (and do) indicate I have increasing boost levels as I increase in altitude. Relative to the environmental air pressure this makes sense, but at the same time, it seems a bit counter intuitive?

I guess, the part that's confusing me most is why I would want my logged boost levels to indicate higher numbers when I'm at higher altitudes?

 

Ok, I've read more of the thread that I think first brought this method of calculating boost levels up. It seems that it's thought that this method is better for people at altitude. However, I still don't really understand why you would want to do it this way for your logs. If you're tuned on PSI based maps, then wouldn't logging your PSI relative to the atmospheric pressure cause your logs to show artificially high PSIG readings if you were to drive into the mountains?

I mean, if I log PSIG relative to sea level, then my boost levels while driving through the mountains would be relatively consistent when reaching peak boost levels (e.g. 21 psi). If I log PSIG relative to atmospheric pressure, then when I reach 6000ft of altitude (altitude changes for me in the mountains range from 2500 to 6200 ft), my logged peak boost readings would be 2.9PSI higher (e.g. ~24psi), which would give the appearance of over boosting.

In that comparison above, the absolute pressure inside the manifold is the same. The only thing that changed is the atmospheric pressure.

In the interest of properly detecting over boost conditions, shouldn't I want to log my PSIG as a function of a constant, like air pressure at sea level (14.7)? I mean, isn't knowing the "absolute pressure" in the manifold more important than knowing the pressure in the manifold relative to the environment?

If I'm missing something major here please do enlighten me...

 

I did much more reading, and decided to have EvoScan log my PSIG as a function of air pressure at sea level, because with a PSI based tune made for sea level the pressures inside the manifold that you want to keep track of will be relative to sea level, regardless of your altitude. The car will adjust the AFR trim based on the PSI inside the manifold relative to the altitude it was tuned for. This means at 6000ft of altitude and logging PSIG relative to atmospheric pressure, the PSIG will read 2.9 PSI higher than sea level, which would give the appearance of over boosting. However, in reality it isn't because the car is making its boost corrections based on the targets set for sea level, and a manifold pressure of 22.9 PSI at 6000 ft of altitude is the same as 20 PSI at sea level.

The only point that this ~might~ be a problem is with soft lines that have to hold positive pressure inside them, for example the OEM UICP and the couplers on after market UICPs. However, in the case of after market UICPs the soft couplers should be rated to hold much much higher pressure differentials than we can achieve w/ the stock turbo. I'm not sure what the OEM UICP is rated to be able to handle, but I imagine it should be able to handle pressure differentials much higher than we can achieve with the stock turbo as well.

Most importantly, IIRC, the GST base map v2.5 ROMs are PSI target tunes that target 22.4 PSI @ sea level...

 

The GST 2.5 ROM version I use (AUDM) still uses "traditional" load-based boost control...

Rich

 

Yea the basemaps are target-load based.

 

ah, my bad ... didn't mean to mis-inform anyone :\

 

Has anyone figured out how to log and/or alter the radiator activation temp yet?

I'd like to set mine to about 195, under 35 - 45MPH. I've been logging my commutes between work and home, and during LA evening rush hour, I'm seeing the coolant temps go up past 205. Today it got up to 208, and I don't recall hearing the fan kick on at all. :\

 

hey everyone i'm currently on the hunt for some addresses for 2010 ralliart. currently cannot find load timing and ignition timing. if anyone can help it would be much appreciated. thanks

 

they should be in there plain as day, assuming you have the right definitions. Well, the ignition timing is. You have high octane timing, low octane timing, upper and lower timing boundaries, warm up timing retard, etc... I assume by "load timing" you mean the cam timing, or are you referring to egr?

also the data in this thread is all EvoScan/ECUFlash centric...

 

09
53600010
evoscan 2.9

I'm getting weird number logging baro(2380A911), snap-on scanner is showing 30inHG/correct for my area, while evoscan is showing 0 or 60+ bar.

This is the default evoscan xml file. The table in the first post doesn't list baro at all.

 

<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="Barometer" LogReference="Baro" RequestID="2380A939" Eval="x*0.07251887" Unit="psi" MetricEval="x/2" MetricUnit="kPa" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="255" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="255" ScalingFactor="1" Notes="" Priority="50" Visible="False" />

 

Thanks, is there an updated list of addresses for my particular rom? I'm also curious as to how x is defined in the eval portion, I assume it's just an integer and then some math to hit what unit you're trying to describe it as?

 

x is the raw logged unit

Here is the list I have for your ROM:

23808776 Load
2380874E 2ByteRPM
23808722 PSIG / Boost
23808A53 Knock Sum
238088A0 STFT
23804573 LFTF Idle
23804575 LTFT Cruise
238088B1 LTFT in use
2380877C Load (MIVEC) and (Timing if IAT GT 75F)
23808701 TPS
2380951D Accel Pedel Position
23808A0F TimingAdv
23808B5B ActiveWGDC
23808661 Intake Air Temp
23808647 Coolant Temp
23808667 Manifold Air Temp
2380A974 IPW
23808F64 MAF Volts
23809446 INVVT (Target)
23809452 EXVVT (Target)
2380947E INVVT (Actual)
2380948A EXVVT (Actual)
238087EF Speed
238086F7 Battery
2380A939 Barometer
23808A59 knock_adc_processed
2380A96B knock_base
2380A967 knock_var
2380A96D knock_change
23808A67 knock_dynamics
2380812D knock_flag
23808671 Front O2
23808675 Rear O2
238045C5 Cruise Light
23808B59 WGDC Correction
238087E3 MAF Hz
238088FD AFR Map

 

Any chance we can get the info for logging maf_calcs and map_calcs???? In particular for 555900006

 

Can this be updated for the 2011 USDM addresses?