Danger associated with setting injector scaling too low?
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 2
From: West Coast WA
Care to post a rom? I'm curious to see what the fuel table and maf scaling for you look like. You say maf scaling but it sounds like you really mean maf compensation rather than the value of the maf's size or the scaling of the hz to load table.
I could take a wild *** guess that the readings on the car say the load is lower than it should be making the fuel problem in your trouble area happen. The computer determines load by the size of the maf and the airflow readings it shows so a log of airflow hz would easily prove or disprove that theory.
Went through the insanity of that turbo thread of yours seems like you covered all the major bases in fuel pressure so i'll leave those alone.
I could take a wild *** guess that the readings on the car say the load is lower than it should be making the fuel problem in your trouble area happen. The computer determines load by the size of the maf and the airflow readings it shows so a log of airflow hz would easily prove or disprove that theory.
Went through the insanity of that turbo thread of yours seems like you covered all the major bases in fuel pressure so i'll leave those alone.
Hope I am making sense lol.
Last edited by 03lances; Apr 22, 2010 at 09:05 AM.
With the Lancer ECU and WRX injectors, I've found that they will stop adding fuel at a certain IDC%. It's a limitation caused by the ECU not compensating for boost, but can be tuned out.
The solution is a rising rate FPR in most cases. If you want to attack only the tuning side, you can adjust the MAF size values and you're IDC% will have more range. But, this also increases the average load values, so you might be cruising at 90% load rather than 40% to 50% like you would normally.
This leads to issues with closed loop crossover points and is further complicated by the limited range of tuning area for "in boost" situations. If you cruise at 90% and are at 8 psi at 105%, there isn't much room for part throttle tuning.
Again, running a rising rate FPR will compensate by automatically adding fuel under boost, which lets you keep the cruise load down and the MAF size and scaled at lower values. Even if the IDC% caps out at 60% like you have now, the added pressure will let you run higher values in the fuel map with richer results.
but, if you already have a RR FPR, all of the above is useless info.
One thing to note is that some Lancer maps have the high and low octane tables swapped ... meaning that the car actually runs off the low octane map in normal operation. Try duplicating the high octane map to the low and see if it has an effect.
The solution is a rising rate FPR in most cases. If you want to attack only the tuning side, you can adjust the MAF size values and you're IDC% will have more range. But, this also increases the average load values, so you might be cruising at 90% load rather than 40% to 50% like you would normally.
This leads to issues with closed loop crossover points and is further complicated by the limited range of tuning area for "in boost" situations. If you cruise at 90% and are at 8 psi at 105%, there isn't much room for part throttle tuning.
Again, running a rising rate FPR will compensate by automatically adding fuel under boost, which lets you keep the cruise load down and the MAF size and scaled at lower values. Even if the IDC% caps out at 60% like you have now, the added pressure will let you run higher values in the fuel map with richer results.
but, if you already have a RR FPR, all of the above is useless info.
One thing to note is that some Lancer maps have the high and low octane tables swapped ... meaning that the car actually runs off the low octane map in normal operation. Try duplicating the high octane map to the low and see if it has an effect.
Last edited by TouringBubble; Apr 22, 2010 at 09:29 AM.
Thats pretty interesting touring bubble I'm willing to bet like the evo rom there is a load cap in place.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 2
From: West Coast WA
With the Lancer ECU and WRX injectors, I've found that they will stop adding fuel at a certain IDC%. It's a limitation caused by the ECU not compensating for boost, but can be tuned out.
The solution is a rising rate FPR in most cases. If you want to attack only the tuning side, you can adjust the MAF size values and you're IDC% will have more range. But, this also increases the average load values, so you might be cruising at 90% load rather than 40% to 50% like you would normally.
This leads to issues with closed loop crossover points and is further complicated by the limited range of tuning area for "in boost" situations. If you cruise at 90% and are at 8 psi at 105%, there isn't much room for part throttle tuning.
Again, running a rising rate FPR will compensate by automatically adding fuel under boost, which lets you keep the cruise load down and the MAF size and scaled at lower values. Even if the IDC% caps out at 60% like you have now, the added pressure will let you run higher values in the fuel map with richer results.
but, if you already have a RR FPR, all of the above is useless info.
One thing to note is that some Lancer maps have the high and low octane tables swapped ... meaning that the car actually runs off the low octane map in normal operation. Try duplicating the high octane map to the low and see if it has an effect.
The solution is a rising rate FPR in most cases. If you want to attack only the tuning side, you can adjust the MAF size values and you're IDC% will have more range. But, this also increases the average load values, so you might be cruising at 90% load rather than 40% to 50% like you would normally.
This leads to issues with closed loop crossover points and is further complicated by the limited range of tuning area for "in boost" situations. If you cruise at 90% and are at 8 psi at 105%, there isn't much room for part throttle tuning.
Again, running a rising rate FPR will compensate by automatically adding fuel under boost, which lets you keep the cruise load down and the MAF size and scaled at lower values. Even if the IDC% caps out at 60% like you have now, the added pressure will let you run higher values in the fuel map with richer results.
but, if you already have a RR FPR, all of the above is useless info.
One thing to note is that some Lancer maps have the high and low octane tables swapped ... meaning that the car actually runs off the low octane map in normal operation. Try duplicating the high octane map to the low and see if it has an effect.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 2
From: West Coast WA
There isn't really a "cap" per se, but a combination of values that effectively limits the injector's max duty. You can max out the maps and get no more IDC%. Modifying the MAF size and the scaling can help with this "glass ceiling."
Anyways I was disassembling the rom today since i'm bored at work
The lancer rom definitely doesn't have the exact same structure as the evo so its hard to say for sure what the 2byte load address is but i have a couple promising hopefuls
Attempt 1:
MUT 00 = 8956
MUT 01 = 8957
Attempt 2:
MUT 00 = 898A
MUT 01 = 898B
Attempt 3:
MUT 00 = 89EC
MUT 01 = 89ED
This particular rom seems to have it MUT table arranged at 358bc
PHP Code:
<scaling name="RamAdress" units="hex" toexpr="x-4294901760" frexpr="x+4294901760" format="%4.1X" min="10000" max="10005" inc="1" storagetype="uint32" endian="big"/>
<table name="MUT Table" category="MUT Table" address="358bc" type="3D" level="1" scaling="RamAdress">
<table name="X" type="Static X Axis" elements="16">
<data>0</data>
<data>1</data>
<data>2</data>
<data>3</data>
<data>4</data>
<data>5</data>
<data>6</data>
<data>7</data>
<data>8</data>
<data>9</data>
<data>A</data>
<data>B</data>
<data>C</data>
<data>D</data>
<data>E</data>
<data>F</data>
</table>
<table name="Y" type="Static Y Axis" elements="16">
<data>MUT0X</data>
<data>MUT1X</data>
<data>MUT2X</data>
<data>MUT3X</data>
<data>MUT4X</data>
<data>MUT5X</data>
<data>MUT6X</data>
<data>MUT7X</data>
<data>MUT8X</data>
<data>MUT9X</data>
<data>MUTAX</data>
<data>MUTBX</data>
<data>MUTCX</data>
<data>MUTDX</data>
<data>MUTEX</data>
<data>MUTFX</data>
<data>MUT10X</data>
<data>MUT11X</data>
<data>MUT12X</data>
<data>MUT13X</data>
<data>MUT14X</data>
<data>MUT15X</data>
<data>MUT16X</data>
<data>MUT17X</data>
<data>MUT18X</data>
<data>MUT19X</data>
<data>MUT1AX</data>
<data>MUT1BX</data>
<data>MUT1CX</data>
<data>MUT1DX</data>
</table>
</table>
Last edited by RoadSpike; Apr 23, 2010 at 02:43 PM.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 2
From: West Coast WA
Anything I can do to help just lemme know
Did find something rather disturbing on my car today. I friend noticed my front passenger wheel was a little tilted so I pulled her into the garage and low a behold my wheel bearing was disintigrated!!!! I just installed it 4 months ago!!! I had chunks coming out in my hand as I turned the hub
. Oh well got another on order and will be installing it tomorrow morning when it gets here.
Did find something rather disturbing on my car today. I friend noticed my front passenger wheel was a little tilted so I pulled her into the garage and low a behold my wheel bearing was disintigrated!!!! I just installed it 4 months ago!!! I had chunks coming out in my hand as I turned the hub
. Oh well got another on order and will be installing it tomorrow morning when it gets here.
RS, you may be correct. Personally, I've never found a cap to my injectors on the Evo, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know there is a scaling cap, but I've run injectors to 117% IDC and hit no cap.
Also, on the lancer, there isn't really a need for 2-byte load as the 1-byte load value caps at 160, which is plenty for a Lancer, as they don't really get past 105% or so unless you mess with the MAF size settings. Load doesn't scale with boost like it does on the Evo.
Also, on the lancer, there isn't really a need for 2-byte load as the 1-byte load value caps at 160, which is plenty for a Lancer, as they don't really get past 105% or so unless you mess with the MAF size settings. Load doesn't scale with boost like it does on the Evo.
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 2
From: West Coast WA
Here's my question though. I am running an evo maf and as such my load values are much higher. On too of that RS mentioned in the beginning something about logging lower load values than my ecu is actually using when accessing the fuel map. This is definately the case, my ecu clearly and constantly uses a much higher load cell for fuel than I log in evoscan.
RS, you may be correct. Personally, I've never found a cap to my injectors on the Evo, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I know there is a scaling cap, but I've run injectors to 117% IDC and hit no cap.
Also, on the lancer, there isn't really a need for 2-byte load as the 1-byte load value caps at 160, which is plenty for a Lancer, as they don't really get past 105% or so unless you mess with the MAF size settings. Load doesn't scale with boost like it does on the Evo.
Also, on the lancer, there isn't really a need for 2-byte load as the 1-byte load value caps at 160, which is plenty for a Lancer, as they don't really get past 105% or so unless you mess with the MAF size settings. Load doesn't scale with boost like it does on the Evo.
Perhaps jscbanks or mrfred could chime in and give me some pointers as to what to look for
Here's my question though. I am running an evo maf and as such my load values are much higher. On too of that RS mentioned in the beginning something about logging lower load values than my ecu is actually using when accessing the fuel map. This is definately the case, my ecu clearly and constantly uses a much higher load cell for fuel than I log in evoscan.
Yes, with a higher MAF size value, load values will increase ... both max Load% reached and Load% values referenced while driving. This is what moves the cruising load up higher.
I've used artificially high MAF values to get the car to run richer with larger turbo setups. If your case is that it's not lean enough, then move the MAF value back down and test. This will at least get your fuel maps closer in line with your actual AFRs. Or, you could reference the MAF hz value hit at the problem RPM and correct the airflow there.
With the turbo Lancer, there is a lot of "lying" to the ECU to get it to run right. Standard practices that we learned on the Evo don't always apply as the ROM isn't meant for boost. Injector and MAF values often have to be skewed. In pains me to do it every time, but there really isn't a choice.
Not really i'm working backwards from the hack jscbanks did awhile ago to help mellon break the 380 load limit. There is a extremely similiar pieceof code on the lancer rom so maybe i'm on the right track.In reality i'm only doing this visually and don't have a full understanding of the code here. I can figure out if the variables are the right ones. When the code is basically identical except for a few branches its easily followed from a working on.
I'm working off the idea in this post:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/6770990-post130.html
We need to remove two limits - one for load and one for the IPW calc. You can register higher load but it won't richen up the fuelling at the same fuel map entry, so this needs to be fixed as well. I haven't published the IPW calc one yet except for Mellon, but he was a bit busy to test. Let me know who wants to test first...
Possible load limit spot:
0x2424e (Stock should be 0x2ba10)
<table name="Set to 9 to remove load limit" address="2424e" type="1D" level="1" scaling="Hex16"/>
Possible Fuel limit:
0x24350 (Stock should be 0x2ba10)
<table name="Set to 9 to remove fuel limit" address="24350" type="1D" level="1" scaling="Hex16"/>
While I understand what you're working on, I don't think that is the issue. You're looking to remove the load limitations on the ROM, which is set at 160 (I think). the load issue on the Lancer really has nothing to do with a limit, but more to do with the calculations for load not compensating for boost.
Basically, WOT on a Lancer is 100% load, tapering a little toward redline. Add 7 psi, and you get like 105% load. It's not hitting any kind of load cap (as far as logging or referencing load values) ... the values logged just aren't being calculated in a way that causes a rise in load%.
I think the real solution would be to re-write the load calculation formulas so that it mimics the Evo's, with 0 at 100% load and boost rising above that. If you could swing that, you'd be the hero of all turbo Lancer owners. =)
Basically, WOT on a Lancer is 100% load, tapering a little toward redline. Add 7 psi, and you get like 105% load. It's not hitting any kind of load cap (as far as logging or referencing load values) ... the values logged just aren't being calculated in a way that causes a rise in load%.
I think the real solution would be to re-write the load calculation formulas so that it mimics the Evo's, with 0 at 100% load and boost rising above that. If you could swing that, you'd be the hero of all turbo Lancer owners. =)