Load scaling on a IX
Load scaling on an Evo IX
I have a few questions for those that have rescaled the load columns on there evo 9. I have been tuning my car on E85 and i am seeing loads in the 360s.
My question to you guys is, what columns did you delete and what did you add? Why did you choose the ones that you chose to delete? Any drivability issues?
Thanks
My question to you guys is, what columns did you delete and what did you add? Why did you choose the ones that you chose to delete? Any drivability issues?
Thanks
Last edited by CGMSTI; Sep 29, 2008 at 06:03 PM.
I cant remember off hand what I have, but you definately want up to 370 to be able to see everything. Basically you want more resolution up top in the 200's and above then you really need at say 20.
I have a few questions for those that have rescaled the load columns on there evo 9. I have been tuning my car on E85 and i am seeing loads in the 360s.
My question to you guys is, what columns did you delete and what did you add? Why did you choose the ones that you chose to delete? Any drivability issues?
Thanks
My question to you guys is, what columns did you delete and what did you add? Why did you choose the ones that you chose to delete? Any drivability issues?
Thanks
I am about to try this tomorrow:
10 20 40 60 80 100 115 130 145 160 175 200 215 230 245 260 275 290 305 320
From what I have been reading and such, the lower load doesn't require as much resolution to still be effective. Although I know my choice doesnt help you much since you need 360, but you can see where from 100 I went in intervals of 15, you may want to do intervals of 20.
10 20 40 60 80 100 115 130 145 160 175 200 215 230 245 260 275 290 305 320
From what I have been reading and such, the lower load doesn't require as much resolution to still be effective. Although I know my choice doesnt help you much since you need 360, but you can see where from 100 I went in intervals of 15, you may want to do intervals of 20.
Your tables are actually the oppposite in terms of what he wants relating to higher accuracy in the upper load columns. You want smaller steps up top, you have 15% steps up top and 10% steps at the bottom.
I am about to try this tomorrow:
10 20 40 60 80 100 115 130 145 160 175 200 215 230 245 260 275 290 305 320
From what I have been reading and such, the lower load doesn't require as much resolution to still be effective. Although I know my choice doesnt help you much since you need 360, but you can see where from 100 I went in intervals of 15, you may want to do intervals of 20.
10 20 40 60 80 100 115 130 145 160 175 200 215 230 245 260 275 290 305 320
From what I have been reading and such, the lower load doesn't require as much resolution to still be effective. Although I know my choice doesnt help you much since you need 360, but you can see where from 100 I went in intervals of 15, you may want to do intervals of 20.
Trending Topics
I see load somewhere around there too, e85 and 9 turbo, atermarket intake pipe. I'm not exactly sure you need to rescale your maf unless you change it. The maf is a measuring device which meters air through it, and unless you change the MAF itself, it shouldn't matter if you make more air (intake pipe) pass through it.
I see load somewhere around there too, e85 and 9 turbo, atermarket intake pipe. I'm not exactly sure you need to rescale your maf unless you change it. The maf is a measuring device which meters air through it, and unless you change the MAF itself, it shouldn't matter if you make more air (intake pipe) pass through it.
One thing you cannot do is compare 2byte load and airflow to others as yours is now skewed.







