Notices
ECU Flash

adding extra cells to get to 300 load

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 05:05 AM
  #31  
Oracle1's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Mellon
I disagree, that's not always the case

I find my car in the 320+ load will sometimes pull timing but no knocks present?



Is the load going beyond 320+? Not sure what is going on and why...
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 06:43 AM
  #32  
Mellon Racing's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
I'm referring to cars that barely go over the load column and often the slight decrease in timing is desirable. However, best practice is to extend that column so that you have full control.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 07:00 AM
  #33  
EVO8emUp's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 1
From: Wheeling, WV
What exactly does the "Load %" represent? MAS flow or something?
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 10:31 AM
  #34  
Oracle1's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
I have extended it to 330. Should I extend it to 340? (from 300) What is the max ecuflash supports?
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 10:53 AM
  #35  
juyanith's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
What loads are you actually hitting? There's really no point to extend past that.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 11:21 AM
  #36  
l2r99gst's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 4
From: CA
Originally Posted by EVO8emUp
What exactly does the "Load %" represent? MAS flow or something?
It's basically an airflow/rev value.

Quoting Bez from one of the disassembly threads:

MAF SIZE is 1/engine_volume

base LOAD=MAF_PULSES_PER_REV*MAF_SIZE*2^17



Eric

Last edited by l2r99gst; Jul 16, 2007 at 12:02 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 11:48 AM
  #37  
TouringBubble's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 3
From: Chelsea, AL
So, if load % is based on MAF readings (which makes sense for OL), does that mean that an incorrectly scaled MAF will not only throw off the fuel mix, but also the load value the ECU thinks its running on?

Basically, the ECU thinks it's in the 260 cell when it's really in 240?
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 11:51 AM
  #38  
Oracle1's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by juyanith
What loads are you actually hitting? There's really no point to extend past that.
I am not sure which load is being hit but what I do know is that is it must be past 330 load otherwise why would the ECU retard timing if no knocks are present? It has retard the timing by 2 degrees from 330 load?

Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:04 PM
  #39  
l2r99gst's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,499
Likes: 4
From: CA
Originally Posted by TouringBubble
So, if load % is based on MAF readings (which makes sense for OL), does that mean that an incorrectly scaled MAF will not only throw off the fuel mix, but also the load value the ECU thinks its running on?

Basically, the ECU thinks it's in the 260 cell when it's really in 240?
Yes, that is correct.

That is the main reason why most aftermarket intakes need a tune. It is because it is messing up the calibrated MAF readings and throwing you in other load columns that do not really represent your true mass airflow.


Eric
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:08 PM
  #40  
TouringBubble's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 3
From: Chelsea, AL
Originally Posted by Oracle1
I am not sure which load is being hit but what I do know is that is it must be past 330 load otherwise why would the ECU retard timing if no knocks are present? It has retard the timing by 2 degrees from 330 load?

Knowing which load value you are hitting is pretty much the basis of tuning with ECUFlash. If you need to know anything its the load value.

Your timing pull could be due to map interpolation. I commonly run between the #2 and #3 timing maps on my IX. I also noticed interpolation at times to the low octane timing map with no knock present.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:32 PM
  #41  
Mellon Racing's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
another common problem is evoscan users that don't tell the program their new upgraded injector size.. that'll get you some really low load values in the logs. The signs are when you see people well into the sub 100 load columns when they go WOT.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:32 PM
  #42  
Oracle1's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Thats makes sense and is what I suspect... Why or how can it be controlled better? Fuel is 100 octane in Evoscan. High Octane maps 1-4 are same.

(Evoscan is configured correctly for Injector size. The LoadCalc is off and I am going by the timing to enable my load cells. Only sometimes in WOT this happens...)

Last edited by Oracle1; Jul 16, 2007 at 12:37 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:37 PM
  #43  
Mellon Racing's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 1
From: Virginia Beach, Virginia
looking at timing can be misleading when you have 3 low octane and 3 high octane timing maps.. which map are you comparing to the log?
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:39 PM
  #44  
Oracle1's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
High octane maps as my octane is reading 100. Also knock shows 0.
Reply
Old Jul 16, 2007 | 12:42 PM
  #45  
burgers22's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 953
Likes: 2
From: Oxfordshire
Originally Posted by Oracle1
I am not sure which load is being hit
Best to run 2 Byte load, not to hard a mod now jcsbanks has done the leg work.

MB
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.