my AFRmap logging shows exactly what my byte values are in the cell its currently in. 128 equals a different IPW value in every load column BTW. Its because of the fuel map scaling which no one has cracked yet.

 

Once running closed loop my AFRMAP is 128 no matter what the cell contents. So it isn't this value on warm up or over-run, but it certainly is in closed loop. Is yours really different? I've watched this over hundreds of miles on my dash logger whilst switching between fuel maps - on that has 15.2 in the closed loop areas and one that has 14.7 in the closed loop areas. Switching maps keeps AFRMAP at 14.7 (128) when it runs closed loop regardless. Go onto overrun and it switches to 15.2 if on alt maps.

Agree that 128 does result in a different IPW for different loads. That is because the 128 is multiplied by the load to calculate IPW (with other compensations).

"Its because of the fuel map scaling which no one has cracked yet." I think we're pretty much there. The disasm is done. Do you want me to put together an outline?

 

If someone wants to test this, the easiest way to do it would be to modify your MAF scaling table down low and drive around until fuel trims are way out of whack. Then do a WOT pull and note the difference. Since injector scaling isn't changed and MAF scaling isn't changed up top, the only cause of change would be trims.

 

I did that many times but I couldn't detect any change in WOT. Well, I don't have the wide band so I don't see the small changes. But I can detect significant changes by looking at IPW logs. So far, I haven't seen any evidence of it.
Only thing effects WOT alot is water temp and air temp.

 

I actually did this, but used the JDM math smoothing table, gave me a SES system rich and got global rich, both in closed and open loop. After rescaling the injectors up everything came back to where it was before. MPG was bad too

 

I could write new fuel trims simply by overwriting these variables using the present patch I'm running, but I don't think there is any point given that I've already observed no offset in fuelling as I mentioned despite maxxed out trims.

The patch I already put out for 88590015 is capable of the same.

 

Thanks for acting cocky in your response, it's much appreciated!

 

Actually you guys are both wrong.

The fuel "sock" is a type of filter but not the actual system filter.

There is also a "filter" on the right side of the tank:



You can purchase this as it has it's own part #

 

You probably touched high flow area also. that is guranteed to make you rich or lean depending on the values you put in. It will affect the load calculated.
To control the trim, you only need to touch below 250 Hz. Leaving everything else to stock should be the right way to test this.