Finally able to log everything now that I have EvoScan 1.0. I did pulls at night with no more sputtering and did some pulls today with no problems, so that part seems ok for now. I'm still going to go with an HKS-DLI for the future, but I should be able to compete this weekend withou too much worry. The only worry will be the much lower altitude and its effect on my peak boost, boost sustainment, AFRs, and then the timing I can run. I'm hoping NJ1266 will reply to my PM so we can hook up in San Diego (*wink wink nudge nudge*), but if not, then I'll do some e-flash action through logs.

Ok, so I'm still having some knock and have to clean up the tune some more, but I was curious what you guys thought about my 2-byte load. It looks higher than possible, so is there a different formula that I need to use in v1.0? Right now, I'm using the Data.xml file that I also use in v2.1 that has all the additions/mods. I'm not sure if the formula is off for v1.0, so let me know. The values are in the right range, but they look higher than possible for my setup, boost levels, and altitude.

Log details:
- Not sure on boost, but my guess is 24-25psi
- 60-ish* weather
- First pull is a rolling 1-2-3 with drag shifts on NLTS, which didn't work too well (hard bucking caused by a delay between shifts)
- Straight 3rd gear pull from below the peak boost range

 

It looks like you will need to reduce timing at peak tq.

When it comes to 2byte, you're right it is off. 350kpa on a stock turbo at 25psi is not accurate. Have you plugged in the right numbers for the 2byte into your ROM with ECUFlash?

 

They may be off, since I've had so many different versions of my ROM passed around. I'll go adjust for my ROM ID in case they're off.

 

Did you manage to log baro during these runs? I am curious as I want to plug your numbers into an equation I have for boost estimate.

Also, the first thing I noticed about your log was your maxed out LTFT Lo. You may need to adjust the latency settings for your injectors.


Eric

 

Yes, latency wasn't adjusted on the tune initially, so I'm logging those things for the purpose of getting them adjusted. I didn't log barometer, but I will put that on the list for my next logs with the 2-byte parameters fixed.

 

Great...add in intake temps as well if you can. I'm going to plug in a few numbers now to see if your load truly is off or if it makes sense for your altitude, etc.


Eric

 

His barometer readings read like this:

Way Up There
Way Up There
Way Up There
Way Up There
Way Up There
Way Up There


Warr, did you end up using the ROM I fixed for you?

He he, did I make that call on the Fuel trims, or what?!?!?!

And, did you rescale your maps yet? I had a sneaky suspicion you were going off your maps.. Confirmed with logs now...

 

Plugging in a few numbers, your load does appear to be off on the high side. Was your maf scaling adjusted by chance?

What is the altitude in your area anyway...I looked up atmospheric pressure for Colorado Springs and it is showing higher than in Chicago, so something isn't making sense to me.

Even using the higher baro reading, I still show your load way too high.


Eric

 

Slow down - I'm on a long phone meeting, so I'll get to all this as soon as we're done. I'm adjusting the MUT table to make sure it's right.

6000' feet here.

 

OK, I figured this out myself...the baro that is reported for weather readings are corrected to sea level. That is why weather sites were reporting baro at pressure of 30.18 inHg for Colorado Springs.

The real pressure (baro) for your altitude (6650 ft or so) would be roughly 11.5 psi.

So, using my little equation and one of your points from your log:

BoostEst=[(load*T)/(P*VE*280)]-14.7
T = actual intake air temp (not MAF temp) in degrees Rankin (degrees F +460)
P = atmospheric pressure in psi at the MAF(baro)
VE = VE of engine at the RPM being measured

Your data: 4972.65625-RPM 330.3125-load assuming intake temp of about 80F, VE of 1

BoostEst=[(330*540)/(11.4*1*280)]-14.7
BoostEst= 41psi

So, yeah, I would say your load is a bit off.

I'm *guessing* that whoever tuned your ROM messed with the maf scaling table a bit?

EDIT: On second thought, I don't think MAF scaling can be adjusted to that extent at that airflow range to make that big of an error in your load calculation, unless the maf adder was also adjusted. I think something else is going on.


Eric

 

I have the MUT table values set right, but do I need to do the math calculator thing? iTune's thread references ECU_Load, but I'm not logging that. Where else do I need to check to be sure my 2-byte Load is set properly?

I don't think the MAF scaling has been touched. It's at least the same now as it was when first tuned last week, and my tuner didn't mention changing it.

 

Your 2-byte load for your 05 ROM is held in addresses 899A and 899B. So, those two values should be in the two MUT requests that you are using to log them with. For example, if you are using MUT requests 00 and 01 to log 2-byte load, then 899A would be in the place where MUT 00 is and 899B would be in place where MUT 01 is.

Just post up a screenshot of your MUT table from ECUFlash and we can tell you if the 2-byte load is setup right. Then post up the code in your loggers XML for calculating the 2-byte load.

 

Attached.

Here is the DataListItem entry in my EvoScan Data.XML file:

<DataListItem DataLog="N" Color="" Display="Load MUT 2Byte Mod" LogReference="LoadMUT2Byte" RequestID="00" RequestID2="01" Eval="0.3125*x" Unit="load" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="500" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="500" ScalingFactor="1" Notes="Load MUT 2Byte Mod is a reflashed modification to the ECU to see if you is beating it like yo hoe when she owes you Benji's, or if you is only shakin da hoe, not beatin da bish" Priority="1" Visible="False" />

I'm not sure where to do this part:

"Once you start logging these channels, you will need to use the math calculator to add these two bytes together to get your ECU_Load value.

Here is the math forumula:
MC(ECU_Load;%;0;350) = ((loadmsb * 256) + loadlsb)*10/32"

 

It looks like you are all setup properly.

The reference to the math formula is for LogWorks. You probably got that from a LogWorks thread where you can setup various match channels and calculations of your logged data. EvoScan already does that calculation in the background for the 2-byte requests.

So, there is something else causing your load reading to be too high as it's not anything listed above in your logger or your MUT table.


Eric

 

Hmm, I'll do some more and see what happens. I've added barometer and air temp (assuming that's intake temps).