The tables I posted where done after I fully tuned the car on a MAF and switched everything to SD.

I didn't touch any other maps (fuel/timing/injector) and just used those two SD tables to match the AFR and fuel trims from the MAF tune.

I am in the camp of the Fuel maps will/should not match actual AFR.

- Bryan

 

^I'm on the same situation as you described Bryan, and my maps are coming out somewhat like the ones you posted. I think having the AFRs line up would be nice, but I think counting on them to match up is dangerous.

 

No thats not what I meant, I meant it matches a MAF car ROM where I know that 10:1 in boost is an 11.5 or so.

 

Ok cool, thanks for the clarification.

Maybe I'm just on the lucky side, but my fuel map matches my actual AFR within about 0.2 using a 1:1 ratio on the MAP VE table above 120kPa and then similar RPM VE numbers to what GST posted. I'm wondering if I zero out the MAF comp tables to some nominal values and then go 1:1 on the entire MAP VE table if it will run right and make the engine VE numbers have some meaning too.

I'm also using the injector scaling directly off my IDC 1000 sheet and they are working great...other then those damn warm starts...

 

I know this may be a dumb idea, but in my old 94170015 rom I know I had access to a closed loop fuel map. The map is "removed" (aka hidden) in the v7 rom, but what if we were to put the definition in and adjust the weird points that we may have in the RPM VE table to make up where the VE just isn't quite right? IMO I think it would allow a more precise control over the cruising/lower load areas that give us some headaches.

 

I have a kind of a noob question. But for the Map VE table do we have to change anything if we're not using a JDM 3 bar but another sensor instead? I loaded up the SD rom without changing any of the VE tables and the car runs ok but not just right (figured it would happen since i don't have the same engine as an evo8).

 

Every MAP sensor is different as far as voltage scaling goes, i.e. a GM 3 bar reads differently from an Evo 3 bar. The settings will probably be close, but inherently not correct due to the slight scaling difference. It's pretty much up to the user to find the differences and adjust the MAP VE table accordingly to match. You can tell when you get the scaling close, because then it stops running really rich or stops breaking up consistently. Every car is different and it seems to be a "feel it out as you learn" type of process. Over the winter (if my friend gets his transmission fixed) I'll be doing this conversion with a GM 3 bar to a friend's 2G Eclipse as he has an Evo ecu swapped in as well, and I can post my findings and updates from that as well.

 

This idea that the MAP sensor needs to be tuned for each specific car seems wrong to me.

MAP sensors don't vary that much and 2.0L 4G63s don't vary that much at cruise.

Based on the tables posted though, different mentalities can definitely lead you down VERY different roads.

 

I understand that but seeing as the base rom was setup to run on a JDM 3 bar (which has differecnt scaling than my GM 3 bar) is there a base scaling that would be closer? Of course nothing will work perfectly for everyone as everyones setup is different i understand that, but a better starting off point is all im looking for.

 

I meant when going from a JDM evo map sensor to a GM 3 bar map. The scaling will be different for each different brand of map sensor (not by much) even if they are all the same pressure rating.


I do believe that the scaling is in the xml for a GM 3 bar, you just have to make sure that's the one being used. Or search around some of mrfred's posts on logging from map sensors, he may have the scaling math in one of them as well.

 

On a separate note, for some odd reason I've noticed that I can't seem to keep my feedbacks under -12% without the car starting to break up again. I currently have the LTFT Low at -7.351 and the further towards 0 I get it, the more the car starts to break up while cruising. The best seems to be at -12.45%, which oddly enough both the LTFT Low and Mid settled to when it ran the best, but o2 feedback was so far all over during cruising that even adjusting the RPM VE tables down to try and match now leans out some areas pretty badly. I need to take a second look at my map sensor scaling...it's close but I think just not quite close enough. Or maybe I'll leave it run with a larger negative feedback, it seems to like it for some odd reason.

 

Monday update, the part throttle cruise either has gotten worse or I'm noticing it more. I am going to turn my async table back down to stock and see if that makes it better or if the increments I made to the EGR timing advance table make any difference either (I'll try that next).

I unplugged my stock MAS/MAF tonight w/o issue. No CEL, no stumble (did it while car was running), nadda, just plain awesome! Does anyone know if the MAF Scaling and associated tables actually do anything anymore?

Thanks a ton JohnBradley and Bryan@GST Motorsports for sharing your setups with me. JohnBradley's (Ref1, Ref2) is something to strive for, perfect fully tuned 1:1 VE tables, definite beauty to that! Bryan@GST, well, my tables look damn near identical to yours, although I did make a bump near the bottom to try and get some of my midrange load values to line up to my previous maf-based tune. However, our SD RPM VE tables are not so close, I feel like mine are globally down 15% from your or so. I have yet to idle or cruise in full open-loop but the car idled way rich and fuel trims were full -12% negative w/o setting these values in the middle of this table (1000-3000rpm) in the 67-70% region. Anyone have any idea why that might be? Ported head, cams?

I have timing very very close to where it was before and the car feels fantastic. Boost is low 24psi, right where I want it, nice and conservative. I'm nearly ready to flip the alky on except for a few problems: thanksgiving (traveling), rain, and snow in teh forcast. Sigh.

 

oh, I forgot! Any ideas on what to do for an intake when I delete the mas?

I'm thinking of simply bolting one of these to my standard buschur intake:
http://www.perrinperformance.com/pro...gory=3&model=2

 

That would look Fantabulous!

 

This is what i went with along with my FP intake pipe



And on a seperate note i found the answer to my own question in this thread Don't know how i missed it.