Easy speed density? First test...
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: UK
Ahh I see, yeh the 1 time I actually spell something correctly, and it was wrong still lol.
I will leave the scales as they are for now, and maybe 1 day you will be kind enough to rescale the maps for better resolution
Lets see this table you have in mind, as I remember you saying before from the few logs I sent you, that you thought my readings were about 5% off where they really should be.
I will leave the scales as they are for now, and maybe 1 day you will be kind enough to rescale the maps for better resolution
Lets see this table you have in mind, as I remember you saying before from the few logs I sent you, that you thought my readings were about 5% off where they really should be.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 6
From: UK
What I had in mind was what I showed as multiplier in that screen grab from Excel I posted. We'd end up I think probably just putting those numbers into the MAF scaling table, and leaving the smoothing table fairly flat, we'd also leave the RPM and MAP VE tables flat (or get rid of them entirely).
So bottom line is you'd have load=MAP(kPa) at 25C MAT. You'd have one MAF Hz vs VE table to tune aiming for 100% in the midrange at full load (say 400-1600 Hz at typical stock turbo boost levels). You'd adjust the injector size to make it hit the AFR you have in the fuel map at that point.
Result is all the weird non-linearity of load is removed, you always know where you are for load depending on MAP, and it maps more like a standalone.
You make a fuel map with the AFRs you want by MAP and RPM. You make a safe timing map. You go drive the car and look at the MAF Hz at idle. You adjust the VE at that MAF Hz to get the trims right. Repeat with cruise at 2000, 2500, 3000 RPM, etc, then do the boost work. After you've done the fuel you sort the timing by just putting in the numbers you want at the boost and RPM levels you lookup.
There are some things worth keeping, but Mitsubishi's screwed up pseudo load isn't one of them especially when all the performance areas of the map are virtually 1:1 with manifold absolute pressure until you get to high RPM or vacuum when the VE drops off in both cases.
So bottom line is you'd have load=MAP(kPa) at 25C MAT. You'd have one MAF Hz vs VE table to tune aiming for 100% in the midrange at full load (say 400-1600 Hz at typical stock turbo boost levels). You'd adjust the injector size to make it hit the AFR you have in the fuel map at that point.
Result is all the weird non-linearity of load is removed, you always know where you are for load depending on MAP, and it maps more like a standalone.
You make a fuel map with the AFRs you want by MAP and RPM. You make a safe timing map. You go drive the car and look at the MAF Hz at idle. You adjust the VE at that MAF Hz to get the trims right. Repeat with cruise at 2000, 2500, 3000 RPM, etc, then do the boost work. After you've done the fuel you sort the timing by just putting in the numbers you want at the boost and RPM levels you lookup.
There are some things worth keeping, but Mitsubishi's screwed up pseudo load isn't one of them especially when all the performance areas of the map are virtually 1:1 with manifold absolute pressure until you get to high RPM or vacuum when the VE drops off in both cases.
Last edited by jcsbanks; Mar 2, 2009 at 03:34 PM.
That sounds like a nice, clean, and easy way to do it.
The only issue that I see coming up is the question, "Why does my load not equal my map?". As long as people understand that it is 1:1 at 25C (77F), and will vary from there, then it is a super simple solution.
Maybe if this becomes the ultimate solution to your SD patch, maybe give a dummies guide to load numbers for varying MAT, like from -20C to 80C or so. Just so people get an idea and understand what it going on.
The only issue that I see coming up is the question, "Why does my load not equal my map?". As long as people understand that it is 1:1 at 25C (77F), and will vary from there, then it is a super simple solution.
Maybe if this becomes the ultimate solution to your SD patch, maybe give a dummies guide to load numbers for varying MAT, like from -20C to 80C or so. Just so people get an idea and understand what it going on.
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
From: UK
Right I kind of understand some of what your saying, but as I have never messed with any ecu's other than stock (as pulling out 1 chip and plugging another in doesn't count lol) then that sounds like a whole new ball game to play with.
Would it be possible to use that new table, but tie it in, with the 2 tables you already have, so that when you have the choice of using MAP Calibration and RPM VE or MAF HZ vs VE ??
So if you change 1 table say the MAF HZ it will change the MAP Calibration too ?
Would it be possible to use that new table, but tie it in, with the 2 tables you already have, so that when you have the choice of using MAP Calibration and RPM VE or MAF HZ vs VE ??
So if you change 1 table say the MAF HZ it will change the MAP Calibration too ?
After reading what you said about me looking at the table I went back to check my map definitions do I need to make sure they match yours exactly including changing the address to 2a22, and all the rest ?
After that should I change the maf smoothing table to match yours on the pics you posted ?
This way to me seems a little easier to start off if anything. This way if it performs well or even alright atleast making small changes will be easier.
After that should I change the maf smoothing table to match yours on the pics you posted ?
This way to me seems a little easier to start off if anything. This way if it performs well or even alright atleast making small changes will be easier.
My math could be off, but for example, if we list *F and the change in mass airflow, using 77F (25C) as unity, I get this:
So, I am assuming the change in load will deviate by the same percentage?
Code:
*F % of 77F 7 1.15 114.99 17 1.13 112.58 27 1.10 110.27 37 1.08 108.05 47 1.06 105.92 57 1.04 103.87 67 1.02 101.90 77 1.00 100.00 87 0.98 98.17 97 0.96 96.41 107 0.95 94.71 117 0.93 93.07 127 0.91 91.48 137 0.90 89.95 147 0.88 88.47 157 0.87 87.03
Last edited by l2r99gst; Mar 2, 2009 at 04:13 PM.
Hmm so I answered my own question and changed the scaling and thats all set. Now Im wondering are there threads to rescaling the table somewhere because mine only goes from 1-150 and 90-100 fluctuating.
Can anyone point me in the right direction ? I did some researching and Im not to sure. Ill keep looking in the mean time.
Can anyone point me in the right direction ? I did some researching and Im not to sure. Ill keep looking in the mean time.
This is why I started a new thread, I did not want to confuse, more to discuss with those interested. This is not a change of direction I don't think, just another option, there are loads of ways of doing this conversion, and different methods may be useful on different engines.
The method in this thread is a deliberate simplification to the point of absurdity, yet it actually works well, and the end result is a very neat mapping arrangement where 0 PSI gives you 100 load, 14.5 PSI gives you 200 load, 29 PSI gives you 300 load. More like a standalone and it tidies up some of the odd design decisions Mitsubishi have made in their calibration of load (which as I've said before isn't always strictly load in the sense of it being always proportional to air mass per cylinder).
The method in this thread is a deliberate simplification to the point of absurdity, yet it actually works well, and the end result is a very neat mapping arrangement where 0 PSI gives you 100 load, 14.5 PSI gives you 200 load, 29 PSI gives you 300 load. More like a standalone and it tidies up some of the odd design decisions Mitsubishi have made in their calibration of load (which as I've said before isn't always strictly load in the sense of it being always proportional to air mass per cylinder).
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 6
From: UK
esevo, the MAF scaling in yours is the Airflow raw scaling.
Ryan, it effectively has "boost comp" in that the lookup of AFR is a ratio rather than an injector time.
cossie1, you already have the choice, you can change any combination of RPM VE, MAP VE, MAF smoothing or MAF scaling. I suggest you don't do them all though!
Emperor, these tables haven't been really used before, and there are lots of incorrect scalings floating about. The MAF Hz is x/10.24. The MAF smoothing I'm showing as percent128 (x/1.28). The MAF scaling has the offset in that is shown separately in esevo's calibration, I don't think we've standardised this one yet.
Eric, seems sensible, following the ECU's air temp compensation line/curve, although once over 25C some of the tables won't show lower loads depending on which load they use. Presumably this is to stop heatsoaked sensors leading to a lean/advanced condition. Using MAT instead of IAT will mean we hit this 25C point a little sooner, some in hot climates could be running with no temp comp all the time even on the MAF sensor. We could do with looking at this 25C cap to see if it also applies to the IPW calc, I didn't seen anything to suggest that it did.
Ryan, it effectively has "boost comp" in that the lookup of AFR is a ratio rather than an injector time.
cossie1, you already have the choice, you can change any combination of RPM VE, MAP VE, MAF smoothing or MAF scaling. I suggest you don't do them all though!
Emperor, these tables haven't been really used before, and there are lots of incorrect scalings floating about. The MAF Hz is x/10.24. The MAF smoothing I'm showing as percent128 (x/1.28). The MAF scaling has the offset in that is shown separately in esevo's calibration, I don't think we've standardised this one yet.
Eric, seems sensible, following the ECU's air temp compensation line/curve, although once over 25C some of the tables won't show lower loads depending on which load they use. Presumably this is to stop heatsoaked sensors leading to a lean/advanced condition. Using MAT instead of IAT will mean we hit this 25C point a little sooner, some in hot climates could be running with no temp comp all the time even on the MAF sensor. We could do with looking at this 25C cap to see if it also applies to the IPW calc, I didn't seen anything to suggest that it did.
cossie1 I was having the same problem as you with my maf scaling table not looking right. If you follow this thread by mpspilot it will run you through rescaling your maf.
You just need to make sure you follow his steps for the smoothing table and then apply the same AirFlowHz category you will make over to the scaling table and keep percent128 as jcsbanks and all should be good.
You just need to make sure you follow his steps for the smoothing table and then apply the same AirFlowHz category you will make over to the scaling table and keep percent128 as jcsbanks and all should be good.
after doing the original method i dont think it was that difficult. I do like the load correlated closer to MAP though. I sort of understand this method less however. I need to read more.
Do we need to make sure we change the address's under airflow16 to x/10.24 and x*10.24 ?
I believe I got it all set. But like Cossie said Im getting the higher airflow hz values in white not normal color if that matter's. But they are reading to the nearest tenth.
I cant find where my screen shots are going or id post a screen shot.
Edit: I take back the color thing dumb question now that I lookback. Its just our choice of colors. I do believe I figured it all out and got the scaling right. Just a matter of making sure the address's match the x/10.24 and x*10.24 in the maf smoothing map definitions.
I believe I got it all set. But like Cossie said Im getting the higher airflow hz values in white not normal color if that matter's. But they are reading to the nearest tenth.
I cant find where my screen shots are going or id post a screen shot.
Edit: I take back the color thing dumb question now that I lookback. Its just our choice of colors. I do believe I figured it all out and got the scaling right. Just a matter of making sure the address's match the x/10.24 and x*10.24 in the maf smoothing map definitions.
