For the 19-75 range I'm guessing that's done using low LTFT logging at idle, but what about high LTFT (>500)? Am I just taking guesses up there?

 

from what I have read, and seen in my efforts to scale my maf (which has presented some rather interesting results) you are right. As for >500 ... yes it is high but generally you are in open loop by that flow rate. I'd like to do some testing to see just how high of an Air flow I can get in closed loop, the trick being keeping TPS as low as possible so that I don't tip into open loop. I wonder if I can tweak that a little higher to allow me to use the STFT to guestimate the scaling needed.

 

BTW, in case that made no sense at all, I'm testing Sangria recipes

 

two things to note:

1- It isn't "unit8" , it is "uint8". uint = unsigned integer
2- This can also be accomplished by adding a couple of lines to the XML, although it is probably easier for the novice this way

 

I've read through both of the maf rescaling threads and basically am confused on how this affects the car. I know that it can affect the fuel trims, but does it cure poor idle, or cure the morning warm-up hesitation?

 

Thanks pilot for the thread! I will try it out on my lean at idle issues with the new 780's .

 

Actually I end up getting the same results as a previous poster with the load units all messed up. I quadrople checked the settings and played with the big to small setting and it changed them for the bad. Any ideas anyone?

Edit*

I actually screwed up when messing around with some hex in my editor.

Played around with the maf scaling and it did not make any difference for my lean idling issues. Even plus changes of +12 did nothing for me in the hz idling areas. Cruise fine, idle I can't get anything better then 15.8-15.9. And yes, I have been through tuning the voltage latencies thourghly. I am with gsrboi80, I am going with stand alone where I know the changes I make will have somewhat of a effect lol.

 

AFR's are in check. Played with some maf scaling last night didnt make any difference for my idle. Sucks I have to have the rpms way low to clutch to a stop so it doesnt surge and choke rich.

Well hopefully the maf/map mod pans out. If not looks like Im droping the nut on a stand alone

 

You are trying to correct the airflow that the ECU is "seeing". This is to get the correct calculations in other areas since we are working in a completely calculation based system. IE: If the ecu is getting a signal of 50hz from the MAF, but the calculations in the rest of the system and ECU 'thinks' its seeing 70hz that would obviously throw things off. This is mostly due to differences in analog to digital sensing/conversion and the fact that this is a calculation based system. All of the calculations are based on the assumption that the building blocks for the values they are 'seeing' are correct.

Yes, this can help idle, improve gas milage, improve drivability, and fix a whole ton of stuff. At the same time it can also royally screw things up if you do it wrong.

 

ok so i did mine on my oz but the right side table shows
43
47
56
63
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
82
80
79


anyone familiar with the base lancer ecu's? does this look correct?

 

Probly

 

FYI: Old thread is still hosted in a word doc: https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/5965619-post107.html

 

Question about scaling. Do I only modify that 1 cell ? I understand that its only the idle/50Hz I'm fixing, but It just seems like I should be making the transion smoother.

 

I found smoother transitions are better for drivability.

 

Has anyone scaled the other MAF tables to make them all read simular (i.e. with Hz)???