hey, i am running v7 sd and i am trying to understand exactly what the map ve and rpm ve tables are adjusting. is it correct to think that you are calibrating the engine load to the map sensor signal? also what does ve stand for? thanks for any help

 

Hello

what coud be the problem I dont have stationary rev limit on V7 9653 ? Someone had the same problem ?! I set it to 5000rpm and just revving over.. Can not use the launch map now. I dont have ideai what coud be wrong. Need to activate it somewhere ?
I have rev limit and valet mode rev limit also working only the stationary didnt !

The ecu is from a 2004 Evo 8 RS how I know the oem rom was the 99270000 !

 

will the 9653 need a clutch switch for the stationary rev limit ? :O

 

Hi. I am using the Tephra V7 94170715. I want to log boost with a JDM MAP sensor.

What values should I enter in the MAP sensor tables to enable logging with a JDM MAP sensor?

Thanks

 

edit: just read the other thread and realized theres more to your question...

Although I have no experience w/ this rom, I would go w/ patch/values from mrfreds thread. I dont see why changing to a tephra rom would change the map sensor patch or values.

my .02

 

Great, stationary rev is working Thanks to Ziad, following his post here : https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...-not-work.html and working

But what about the MAF scaling the differences between the ralliart rom and v7 9653 rom maf scaling table ( where the maff adder included) is 175.5 . Is it correct ?

 

Insert dumb question


Edit: never mind i figured it out. the answer was to read more then reread.

 

Downloaded the V7 XML pack for all EVOs here:
http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/use...OD-XMLPack.zip
The 94170715 XML file is dated 3/22/10.

And then, there is another file ("gears fixed") found here - file date unknown:
http://www.globalshare.net/evo-mod/v...ears-Fixed.zip

Anyone else find this confusing? Shall I assume the 'gears fixed' file to be the most current, and should replace the 94170715 in the "XML Pack"? It is presently unclear.

 

Ted B....shoot me an email....same sn as here at g mail. I have a very accurate and up to date XML set for 94170715 v7.....if you want it.

 

Many, many thanks to Appauldd for sending me a V7 XML that works. The 94170715 included in the 'XML Pack' zip file appeared to be flawed. Perhaps it should be removed.

I quickly learned that 2-byte Load, Airflow, and RPM would not log correctly in EVOScan as is. I changed the MUT table values as per the "Official 2-byte Thread" for 94170015, and now these items log correctly. Any reason why this shouldn't be considered as default for the most current 94170715 XML?

I've inserted the required EVOScan code as listed in the main V7 thread, but one thing that is presently happening is EVOScan is logging "Gear" as an irrational number and not an integer, and it's incorrect at that. I was careful to set up the
"RPM/Speed to Gear" and "Main Map WG Duty" tables correctly (1st and 6th are zeros), and I do have the 'gear fix' engaged (thanks Appauldd).

Any ideas as to what would cause EVOScan to log 'Gear' as an irrational number?

 

Ted, one other thing to note is that on 9417 with Tephra V7 is that timing follows Load *Raw* and not any of the Load Compensated (+Baro/+Temp) values. So make sure you are logging the 2 byte Raw address. It probably won't differ a whole lot for you since you're not at high elevations, but I can assure you there is a considerable difference above 5500ft!

Check your evaluation formula for Gear in Evoscan. I can't remember offhand, but I had to change mine since I was getting some weird values. I believe it's in one of Tephra's old posts where he defined gear based boost control.

 

Thanks for chiming in ...

I am logging raw load, so no worries there. I wouldn't have opted for the corrected value unless I could do it separately, and yes, I'm not at nosebleed altitudes.

I'll go hunt the correct gear formulation for EVOScan, as I was unaware of any such thread. It may be worthwhile perhaps to start an EVOScan thread, which lists the most updated example of a bug-free EVOScan data file with correct definitions, which would probably resolve many such questions before they arise.

 

I went digging and read for an hour, and I think the corrections are reflected in the code presently specified to be included in the EVOscan data file along with V7.

Everything in my EVOscan data file that pertains to 'gear' or 'speed and rpm' is as follows:



<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="RPM_SPEED_RATIO_AVERAGE" LogReference="RPM_SPEED_RATIO_AVERAGE" RequestID="42" RequestID2="43" Eval="x/36.37" Unit="rpm/kph" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="300" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="300" ScalingFactor="1" Notes="" Priority="1" Visible="False" />

<DataListItem DataLog="N" Color="" Display="Gear" LogReference="Gear" RequestID="21" Eval="x/[Speed]" Unit="unit" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="255" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="255" ScalingFactor="1" Notes="RPM/Speed" Priority="1" Visible="False" />

<DataListItem DataLog="Y" Color="" Display="Gear Position" LogReference="GearPosition" RequestID="4A" Eval="x+1" Unit="gear" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="255" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="255" ScalingFactor="1" Notes="" Priority="1" Visible="False" />


This reflects what is specified in the V7 thread right now. I'm just curious as to the cause of this issue if it's working for others.

 

Paul was super kind to share his 94170715 packet with me. I am currently running V7 9653 and need to make the switch the high idle start up and no rev limits are killing me. Some things I noted though:

-PBits are completely different. Should they be the same for both roms. I dont want to transfer stuff from 9653 to it an monkey things up

-MUT Table is completely different as well. I had some things changed in my original 94170015 rom for 2 Byte stuff. Should I just transfer that from the 94170015 non V7 Mut table to the V& one??

 

9653 and 9417 have different settings for the Periphery bits. If you make the switch to 9417....use it's bits as a starting point.

As for the MUT, it should be correct. If anyone finds a discrepancy please let me know and I will make the changes ASAP.

I would like to be able to log "load+baro+temp". If one of the Disassembly gurus would be so kind as to look it up in 94170015 and post the address. I will make the XML for it.