2-byte shows 245-ish at 22.5 psi or so.

 

Seeing about 265 (2-byte) load at 24 psi at 3400 rpm.

 

i see around 285-290 at 25psi - 8 MR with ancillary mods, pump fuel

 

I see about 280 according to 2 byte on mine with stock VIII turbo and the usual TBE, O2 housing and header.

I have noticed that calculated and 2 byte load can differ anywhere from 0 to +/- 20, so if you aren't using that, your real load could be a whole lot less.

 

I see about 275 (2-byte) with the stocker 10.5, HKS RS intake at 24psi. I did see 283 the other day @25psi. How would we know when to rescale the MAF?

 

My 2-Byte load is showing 310-315's on my 05 VIII.

I am running around 26-27psi, 93, Maps rescaled to 300 (Hmm) and the injector scaling changed to 609 (If I remember correctly) for my 680 injectors..

I have not re-scaled my MAF, but would really like to do that soon.. I have been reasing up on how to do it, but I am trying to get my latency settings as close as possible to make the fuel trims close to 100 before I rescale.

 

Rescale the MAF becomes critical when the intake by itself manages to throw off the fuel trims OR there are erratic lean/rich spots in your map that shouldnt otherwise be there.

 

That last part of what you said, I was reviewing some of my most recent logs, and
found readings that seemingly jump around a little. More details:

Loads of 272-291, 100%TPS, 3rd gear, AFR's from 11.0 to 11.4 over a time span of 3-4 seconds.

Would that qualify as erratic? In my fuel map, I just confirned the load cells the car was using to be all the same number for fuel.

I would think it probably would be a good idea for me to do so, the car has an Injen intake with TurboXS Maf Adapter and K&N Cone on the end.

 

JohnBradley, I asked this same question in a PM to another member, but thought I would ask it here also. If ecuflash is still using stock 513 with 680s (rather than a setting of 615 or so) and Evoscan also uses 513 instead of 615, does this affect the load's being shown? If so, more or less than displayed. Also, are the load's shown ALWAYS (at least Most of the time) higher or is it a variance from 0 (+ or - 20). Finally, if the injectors used, such as in my case 680's, are the loads shown closer to correct (if in fact with both ecuflash and evoscan using the same setting, they are still incorrect) than they would be had I used 780 injectors, but still used a scaling of 513. Little confusing, but bottom line is: Does anyone know about the loads displayed if both programs use the same scaling and if they are wrong, how much since they change was minimal to 680's? Thanks for any response. Hope this goes along with the OP question for accuracy of Maximum loads seen.

 

As far as everything I have ever read, and I believe that MJ said this, that yes, not having Evoscan set up to where your load calculations are set to exactly what your scaling is set to will throw off your headings. How much, I do not know. I know that when I changed mine to the correct value, my loads did indeed change.

One thing, I noticed you use the example of having 680's caled to 615. Did you just pull that number out of your ****, or is that what you actually have yours set to? Reason being is mine is set to 609 I believe, and if yours is right, well, I need to replace my **** with my head and vice versa and fix my shizzle.

As far as how much more "off" your load calculations will be, well, I can answer with utmost certainty, but I thing they will be minimally off if you had 513 with 680's vs. 513 with say 1000's. But, I could be wrong.

 

No matter what the load would be off if EvoScan hasnt been corrected. Evoscan uses Injector scaling but it also uses injector pulse width. Bigger injectors have different IPW and DC's so Evoscan will be thrown off no matter what.

To fix EvoScan (assuming everything has been scaled)-

Open the Evoscan folder on your harddrive, open the DataSettings file, then select data and open with notepad. Scroll down until you find the list of normal loggable items, find Load calc and change the 560 to whatever your scaling is (in my case 650).

In a post long long ago, MJ said pick a scaling about 10% smaller than the actual injector rating. In my experience picking one about 100 less and then adjusting the latency pretty much does what he talks about as far making the "target AFR's" resemble real world AFR's.

 

Aftermarket Intake Filter, stock intake piping
Stock injectors
2ByteLoad
28.0 PSI @ 4000RPM (Stock exhaust)
313 Load @ 3969

 

The factory MAF is calibrated to the OEM intake and filter, changing it would throw it off - considerably at times. I think all the smoothing/scaling/barometric/temp tables can be a way to get things back on track for the most part.

Bottom line - with a modded car, load % cant be used as a viable load figure to compare to the standard car off the factory, but it can be used to compare changes in load on the smae car.

Acceleration is a better tool for car to car comparison if you axe me

 

That was kind of my point in another thread concerning the load as being a 'reference point only'. If the ecu sees that 'reference point' it uses that cell for the given rpm. I still am not certain about the ecuflash vs evoscan settings, if they are the same. My target AFRs for the given loads and rpms are right on, when monitored with the LM-1. That's why the above statement is true for OUR car. Not necessarily good to compare to anyone elses. I think when time permits, I'll change both and see what happens, then just change one at a time and see the results. Thanks for the help C6C6CH3vo and others.

 

Thanks of course to JohnBradley for your response too. As far as out of my ARS, yes you are correct, since I don't have the 680's scaled, I just arbitrarily used the 615 figure, knowing it was reasonably closer for a 680, than 513/560. (roughly -10 percent of 680).