is it the same as "Boost Enhancement (Anti-Lag) Start RPM" and Boost Enhancement (Anti-lag) Stop RPM.

also would 98640014 address for lean spool be different than 9055001?

 

No, they're totally different things.

I'm not sure what you're asking in your second question..

 

no they are different.

however the standard defs from ecuflash are incorrect for boost enhancement start/stop - just ignore them.

there is a good chance 90550001 and 98640014 have the same addresses for lean start/stop.

IF THE NUMBERS DON'T MAKE SENSE ie ARE NOT 2500 and 7000rpm then the addresses are wrong.

 

They do use the same address's for 99.9% of things, and lean spool is 1 of them that have the same address.

 

so my (anti lag) start rpm is 2500 and the (anti lag) stop reads 4531. This means my address is wrong? Do you have the correct address?

 

start = 1680 stop = 1684

 

thanx Cossie1. will take a look @ it tonight...

 

Thank guys.

 

like I said b4, ignore those antilag start/stop tables.

they are WRONGLY definied.

the sotp is actually part of the lean spool and not and RPM at all.

ignore the boost enhanchment start/stop and just worry about lean spool enable/disable...

 

Do you mean ignore the table's title "boost enhancement" because it's actually the lean spool (with incorrect rpm address too)?

Interestingly, the antilag table with throttle volts (another incorrect address for both axis) has a direct effect of the lean spool operation range. Change the throttle volt address to uint8 to get 128-like fueling access, now log AFRMAP and see the direct fueling control over spooling (from 128 closed loop breach to about 240% load). I think the anti lag rpm collumn is more like a load/rpm thing.

Crazy stuff

 

well crap. I had the same numbers to start, and I changed them. Can I just change them back and be safe? I haven't noticed anything wrong, but coudl this possibly mess stuff up?

 

I have read this as well, but figured I would just fix the address... But if you say dont even worry bout it... nuff said

 

tephra, would you suggest we try to get those boost enhancement tables removed from the def files in ecuflash? seems silly to have them in there if they are not correct.

PS also how come everyone is still saying to make the rpm for those two values the same to turn off lean spool?

 

there is an effort to clean up the xml files, look for a thread by mrfred.

we have the evo9base basically sorted out (few more changes to come).

Be good to get someone to port the changes to evo7base and update the defs

 

oh really .. cause I'm taking on that effort myself ... in the wiki thread. I have the 7 base mostly sorted out ... not the addresses just the messiness of it. This is why I asked