Yep, that's the point. Who knows how much these effects have on air temp though.

 

Oh for some reason i thought you were implying you wouldn't want to measure those effects on the air temp.

Cossie, my IM is coming off in december for a ported one so i might as well just tap it while it is off. Cheaper then buying a bung and having it welded anyway

 

Fair enough, I cheated and just fitted an IM from a JDM IX as I had the engine in bits anyway

 

ok just got of the phone with "my guy" - he uses grease covered paper, so when the fillings fall they get caught by the grease.

about an hour todo he reckons.

So by placing it in the IM is it going to be subject to some sort of heatsoak from the IM itself (through the sensor housing?)

 

Unlikely the sensor is ceramic insulated only the tip which is the heat variable resister is really getting effected by the air inside.

 

The ideal gas law shows the relationship of volume to mass for an ideal gas. It doesn't state that volume is mass...that's absurd. I think this is getting blown out of proportion, though, and we are arguing to no avail.

But, I do agree with the rest of your post. A pressure reference is needed and that was my whole point to my posts. If you are at > 100%, then it's because there is a slight pressure increase from your reference pressure. In our cases, that would mean we are in boost.

My whole point is that for our Evos and tephra's patch for SD, we should be using 100% VE as the max. All pressurization beyond atmospheric in our cases will be from the boost pressure. There is no need to incorporate this into the VE %. If you want to use > 100%, be my guest.

 

Doesn't matter if you think so air at any volume is going to have some pressure that's the whole point of a VE table. It allows the computer to estimate the cylinder charge so the fuel needed for some AFR could be dumped in.

You also don't need boost to create positive cylinder pressure that's the one thing i find truly amazing about your post. You know it can happen but just want to ignore it because its over 100%.

As for the sliding reference pressure i really don't care but greater than 100% efficiency at whatever reference pressure should definitely be allowed in the program.

 

Yes, I do know it can happen. I think what I am trying to get at and it may be from my lack of communication/wording, is that it won't happen on our 4g63 engines. I'm not just guessing at this either. This is from years ago when many people were running speed density setups on the 4G63 and also people were using pseudo speed density setups (fake MAF) in DSMLink.

But in all fairness to you, we don't know what everyone's setup will be. So, ok, let's make the VE table able to have values >100. I think maybe to settle this, we should measure the volumetric efficiency of our engines. It is pretty easy to do. I may do it myself, since I already have both an IAT and map sensor installed and loggable. The only issue is that I don't have the stock airbox, so it may skew my numbers a bit. Anyway, this should be able to get us a good 'baseline' for a VE table for an Evo VIII. The mivec on the Evo IX will change the VE table.

I think one of the biggest misnomers is actually the name 'volumetric efficiency'. It should be called mass efficiency or something similar, because in the use in internal combustion engines, that's actually what is being referenced.

 

The name surely could have been better.

I don't even care if a typical mitsubishi engine wont reach 100% VE its just absurd to spend the time programming something only to limit based on whats going on now.

You can log your VE in other ways you know you don't need the MAF. You can derive VE from the AFR the car is producing.

(Injector Pulse Width * Injector Flow Rate * AFR * Gas Constant * Temp) / (Engine size * Air Pressure) = VE

Just some quick substitution from that paper on Speed density.

 

That's interesting because my old 99 GS-T was running over 100% VE. It was a fairly mild setup even. Based on the stock, umolested MAF sensor, the peak VE was like 105%.

While the factory MAF may not be 100% accurate, it's at least something. If we really wanted to find out, somebody would need to invest in a lab grade MAF. I wish I could use the calibration airflow bench at work. Either that or I suppose some careful pitot-static tube measurements could be done?

Doing VE off injector pulsewidth is just as likely to have error in it as well though, particularly if the fuel pump isn't keeping up.

 

so UICP or Inlet Manifold for the IAT sensor ????

 

Ideally the Intake manifold if possible. Installing it in the UICP tells you how well the FMIC is doing its job but not necessarily what the engine is ingesting since the engine heats up the intake manifold which in turn heats up the air charge just before entering the combustion chamber.

 

cheers , il weld in a bung so ,, was gonna try drill and tap it but from looking at it there isnt really anywhere thats gonna take a 3/8 npt thread .wall is too thin .

 

Fit a JDM IX inlet manifold Todd

 

I would russ if i had one lol ,,do they already have a 3/8npt sensor ???