Ludikraut, what are your modifications?

Where is it the out the most compared with your ignition timing? RPM and load?

 

Fixed MalibuJack's DATA.XML

For some reason Evoscan did not like the speed calculation using *x*. I also changed Load to MAPsensor and left it unchecked; also renamed the other "Load" to AFRMAP.

JCS, I'll post a log later. No time right now...


l8r)

 

The formula makes sense, I realized that.. but you were right, the AFRMAP load should be called AFRMAP (that was fixed in the later file) If you rename the wrong one, the Definition for data log lab won't show it correctly..

 

Depending on the mods to the cars where this doesn't work we might be able to modify the calc to make it more universal? I'm thinking that if cars have different injector scaling it would be off... We still of course need to find the proper load value. I've been busy to do any more work on this since Wednesday.

 

I did a log with your file and it works. I am having a hard time understanding the load fomula that you guys are using.

Questions:

1. Which load is the airflow/rpm*852? Does it log automatically or do we have to do a mathematical computation after words?

2. Which load is the formula that jcsbanks came up with? Does it log automatically?

3. Which one is more accurate?

 

Both load formulas have to be calculated afterwards. Airflow/rpm*852 doesn't work too well, since the log files can only log up to 1603 MAF Hz. Anything past that and the formula doesn't work.

JCS' formula may work well for a stock(ish) Evo, but mine is modified well past that with an AMS turbo kit, AMS VSR intake, 65mm TB, ported head and built internals... FYI, I run 780cc injectors with an injector scaling of 597.

l8r)

 

Thanks, Ludi.

I know that the coolant temp numbers are off by about 10* and the O2 sensor are off by about 0.1 v. Did you fix those in your data.xml file? Or do we have to wait for the 0.9 version for the fix?

 

I do understand that the Airflow/rpm*852 method is not accurate. It does however provide consistant results and can be an effective tool with tuning if conditions and the pull are done in same manner.

Moreover it's all I have to use now so I'll have to make do with it.

Doesnt all the ECU feel is 1604 hz as well?

So what will this data.xml provide with the next 0.9 version, AFR? The info is available at the ECU inputs to mathmatically figure this one W/O wide band, right?

 

The ecu itself sees over 1604hz

 

It does? That makes sense, if the MAF had a cap it would'nt be exactly 1604 all the time - duh what was I thinking, it would be like 1603, 1620 ect.

So what do you think it ramps up to, 2000hz? My W/M controller is both psi and MAF (0-2000hz) based and I thought I was just sending 1604 hz to it

 

Yes, with stock turbo on my car, I've seen almost 1900hz on 100 octane. I can't recall off the top of my head the limit of the factory MAF, ask some of the bigger turbo guys in here, malibu jack, etc.

 

as razor says, afaik the limitation of the 1603hz is in the usb data i/o stream itself...and not the ecu.

 

it's not a usb data i/o problem, just how we read the live data off the ECU.

 

Correct, the ECU functions with MAF values well over the 1609hz.. The reason it clips at 1609 probably has to do with the code that outputs the data stream.. Not the USB port or anything like that.. Its probably a mathematical limitation of the value being converted from Hexidecimal to decimal representation, and it was never changed or updated because it is probably required to stay compatible with other ECU's and the MUT-III data tool..

 

my bad, thanks for the correction.