Links to jcsbanks' Speed Density patches
I've found it easier to just use Excel rather than EvoScan's MAP Tracing but, mostly because I can never get MAP Tracing to work
The VE table that is setup from JCS is pretty damn spot on and really doesn't need to be touched, especially on a stock turbo but, I always confirm the table through logging on the MAF sensor.
Right column divided by left column.
Your final VE will be that multiplied by the RPM VE.
So, if you have your MAP VE at:
10 7.7
and RPM VE at 1000 RPM at 90%
then final VE is 7.7/10 * .9 = 69% at 1000RPM and 10kpa.
What you are trying to do with the SD tuning is to match your VE from MAF based logs. Before going to SD, ideally you should have made some logs and a 3D chart of your VE (load/map). That is what you use as a starting point to make your initial SD VE tables. Then, switch to SD, and fine tune from there.
It's pretty simple though. Just put what load you see at what map in the map ve table. Then adjust RPM VE at the extremes and readjust the map ve again, if needed, since the final VE is the multiplication of the two.
Eric
Your final VE will be that multiplied by the RPM VE.
So, if you have your MAP VE at:
10 7.7
and RPM VE at 1000 RPM at 90%
then final VE is 7.7/10 * .9 = 69% at 1000RPM and 10kpa.
What you are trying to do with the SD tuning is to match your VE from MAF based logs. Before going to SD, ideally you should have made some logs and a 3D chart of your VE (load/map). That is what you use as a starting point to make your initial SD VE tables. Then, switch to SD, and fine tune from there.
It's pretty simple though. Just put what load you see at what map in the map ve table. Then adjust RPM VE at the extremes and readjust the map ve again, if needed, since the final VE is the multiplication of the two.
Eric
Last edited by l2r99gst; Sep 14, 2009 at 08:42 AM.
My loads are generally higher than my MAP in kPa, so does that mean my VE is over 100%? Car is running a Red and makes much more power than a stock turbo at my boost level.
You shouldn't ever have over 100%VE in that table. 100%VE is the maximum VE of your motor regardless of whether load is higher than MAP. Rescale so that you have 100% VE as your maximum setting, or don't since it isn't a huge deal.
What isn't working with evoscan map tracing? A lot of people miss it but you need to load a rom in maptracer to get the scaling for load/rpm. Just right click on the bottom set of cells and you can load a set of definitions and a rom.
I've found it easier to just use Excel rather than EvoScan's MAP Tracing but, mostly because I can never get MAP Tracing to work
Actually you are wrong. You can and do go over 100% VE especially on modified cars.
Its use is more like that of an old audio amp squashing or amplifying dynamics in the load rather than saying that its this efficient. I totally however understand the need to call it VE rather than load gain due to its acceptance in the tuning field.
At this point I've noticed that the dynamics in load at lower rpms are perhaps a bit higher than the table can reasonably accomplish. However a bit of clever map scaling and some added fuel in the fuel table easily remedies this. The fuel table may look slightly off due to this but its a small price to pay for the gains.
Here are the settings that I used for the Omni 4-bar. If you are using the Omni 4-bar, you have to make sure that you map 16bit scaling is ECUFlash is set correctly. It should be:
That being said, these were my settings when I was running the Omni 4-bar for SD. As others said though, these may end up being a bit different for your car, but it can give you an idea:
Map VE:
RPM VE:
90
95
95
97
97
97
100
100
100
96
96
96
96
94
92
88
87
Eric
Code:
<scaling name="MAP 16bit" units="kPa" toexpr="x/2.472" frexpr="x*2.472" format="%.1f" min="0" max="450" inc="0.4" storagetype="uint16" endian="big"/>
Map VE:
Code:
10 7.7 40 32 50 41 60 48 70 60 80 70 120 120 408 408
90
95
95
97
97
97
100
100
100
96
96
96
96
94
92
88
87
Eric
How is it that definition wasn't included in Mrfred's omni 4bar settings definitions? Or maybe it was and I just missed it. That definition goes into the base file correct?
Edit: the definition is there but some of the toexp are different. Which one is correct?
This is what he has as the omni 4 bar def:
<scaling name="MAP 16bit" units="kPa" toexpr="x*0.4072" frexpr="x/0.4072" format="%.1f" min="0" max="450" inc="0.4072" storagetype="uint16" endian="big"/>
Last edited by lan_evo_mr9; Sep 14, 2009 at 03:26 PM.
Those two definitions are the same.
1/2.472 = .4045 (You have .4072, which is just about the same...not sure which was the 'final' value settled on). I could have pulled my scaling from old notes, as this isn't my tuning computer. So, you can use the one that you have listed.
But the point is that you need that scaling for the Omni 4-bar.
1/2.472 = .4045 (You have .4072, which is just about the same...not sure which was the 'final' value settled on). I could have pulled my scaling from old notes, as this isn't my tuning computer. So, you can use the one that you have listed.
But the point is that you need that scaling for the Omni 4-bar.
One thing I don't understand (shocked), is why there is such a jump in the MAP VE table between 120 and 408 in l2r99gst's table and not in Mork's table. Anyone care to explain?
Last edited by lan_evo_mr9; Sep 14, 2009 at 04:47 PM.