Danger associated with setting injector scaling too low?
Apr 23, 2010, 02:23 PM
#31
I have never run in to this, so it's new to me. The standard "ECU Load" has been correct for every Lancer I've tuned. You may have an odd ball ROM ... I dunno.
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.
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.
Apr 23, 2010, 02:32 PM
#32
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. =)
There is another table here that is a load modifier for air and water temp that effectively limits load which I'll look at maybe in the lancer rom its just very low.
Apr 23, 2010, 07:00 PM
#33
OK some questions and maybe answers?
I'm tripping out here trying to figure out what in the world is going on with the rpm and load axis for the fuel table. When I mapped out where the load and rpm go I found they are in line with that water temp load and air temp comp load table jscbanks found so they probably aren't right.
When I looked at the fueling sub routine, i think at least
, I found the axis's are
Load = 6954
RPM = 692e
So now i'm looking to as what the heck those address you have in there now.
Current Load Axis = 6784
Current RPM Axis = 6706
I'm tripping out here trying to figure out what in the world is going on with the rpm and load axis for the fuel table. When I mapped out where the load and rpm go I found they are in line with that water temp load and air temp comp load table jscbanks found so they probably aren't right.
When I looked at the fueling sub routine, i think at least
, I found the axis's areLoad = 6954
RPM = 692e
So now i'm looking to as what the heck those address you have in there now.
Current Load Axis = 6784
Current RPM Axis = 6706
Apr 23, 2010, 08:20 PM
#34
OK some questions and maybe answers?
I'm tripping out here trying to figure out what in the world is going on with the rpm and load axis for the fuel table. When I mapped out where the load and rpm go I found they are in line with that water temp load and air temp comp load table jscbanks found so they probably aren't right.
When I looked at the fueling sub routine, i think at least, I found the axis's are
Load = 6954
RPM = 692e
So now i'm looking to as what the heck those address you have in there now.
Current Load Axis = 6784
Current RPM Axis = 6706
I'm tripping out here trying to figure out what in the world is going on with the rpm and load axis for the fuel table. When I mapped out where the load and rpm go I found they are in line with that water temp load and air temp comp load table jscbanks found so they probably aren't right.
When I looked at the fueling sub routine, i think at least
, I found the axis's areLoad = 6954
RPM = 692e
So now i'm looking to as what the heck those address you have in there now.
Current Load Axis = 6784
Current RPM Axis = 6706
Apr 23, 2010, 10:09 PM
#37
So far I know it comes right out the Maf sub routine and is uses the same 2d axis lookup routine that the fuel and timing tables use so it must do something I just don't know what.
I'd swear it was part of a fueling sub routine but I can't be sure until i work this out. If jscbanks where to pop in and tell me this would go a lot faster.
I would like to see if my 2byte load variable is working :P
MUT 00 = 8956
MUT 01 = 8957
Apr 23, 2010, 10:50 PM
#38
Sure thing... Umm lol ok so never done any of this since as far as I know no one has tried to find 2 byte load for the base lancer, how do I use this to attempt to log 2 byte load? Do I have to add stuff to my xml file like edit my mut table? I have added tables to evo roms when I was going to install an evo ecu in my car but thats another story lol.
Last edited by 03lances; Apr 23, 2010 at 10:53 PM.
Apr 24, 2010, 09:03 AM
#41
Oops ok nevermind mine actually is working fine I just edited the wrong xml lol. Gotta go outta town for a little bit but gonna try this when I get home. Just to confirm, in my MUT table I put 8956 in MUT 00 cell and 8957 in MUT 01 cell then flash it to my ecu and just tick "Load MUT 2Byte Mod" in evoscan and log correct?
Apr 24, 2010, 04:52 PM
#43
Some news:
So as I've been following jscbanks fuel limit and load limit thread I can say with certainty the lancer rom also clips the maximum fuel and load variables to a byte which would cap them like the evo at 380load.
I'll keep looking for the clip variable for load and ipw on the lancer rom. I did notice an interesting thing on the evo rom vs the lancer rom. In the fuel load limit sub routine I saw that the evo has a sort of multiplier table it uses referencing an unknown variable where the lowest was 85% and the maximum was 199% of the value. This could be the fuel load cap you guys are experiencing. If it is then the easiest thing to do is use the instructions i gave earlier and uncap the fuel load limit and load limit. I'm pretty confident they will work as expected now.
Next goal is to get into the maf hz routine and see if there is some odd ball cap there but for now it is looking as if these are it.
So as I've been following jscbanks fuel limit and load limit thread I can say with certainty the lancer rom also clips the maximum fuel and load variables to a byte which would cap them like the evo at 380load.
I'll keep looking for the clip variable for load and ipw on the lancer rom. I did notice an interesting thing on the evo rom vs the lancer rom. In the fuel load limit sub routine I saw that the evo has a sort of multiplier table it uses referencing an unknown variable where the lowest was 85% and the maximum was 199% of the value. This could be the fuel load cap you guys are experiencing. If it is then the easiest thing to do is use the instructions i gave earlier and uncap the fuel load limit and load limit. I'm pretty confident they will work as expected now.
Next goal is to get into the maf hz routine and see if there is some odd ball cap there but for now it is looking as if these are it.
Last edited by RoadSpike; Apr 24, 2010 at 05:12 PM.
Apr 24, 2010, 09:22 PM
#44
Some news:
So as I've been following jscbanks fuel limit and load limit thread I can say with certainty the lancer rom also clips the maximum fuel and load variables to a byte which would cap them like the evo at 380load.
I'll keep looking for the clip variable for load and ipw on the lancer rom. I did notice an interesting thing on the evo rom vs the lancer rom. In the fuel load limit sub routine I saw that the evo has a sort of multiplier table it uses referencing an unknown variable where the lowest was 85% and the maximum was 199% of the value. This could be the fuel load cap you guys are experiencing. If it is then the easiest thing to do is use the instructions i gave earlier and uncap the fuel load limit and load limit. I'm pretty confident they will work as expected now.
Next goal is to get into the maf hz routine and see if there is some odd ball cap there but for now it is looking as if these are it.
So as I've been following jscbanks fuel limit and load limit thread I can say with certainty the lancer rom also clips the maximum fuel and load variables to a byte which would cap them like the evo at 380load.
I'll keep looking for the clip variable for load and ipw on the lancer rom. I did notice an interesting thing on the evo rom vs the lancer rom. In the fuel load limit sub routine I saw that the evo has a sort of multiplier table it uses referencing an unknown variable where the lowest was 85% and the maximum was 199% of the value. This could be the fuel load cap you guys are experiencing. If it is then the easiest thing to do is use the instructions i gave earlier and uncap the fuel load limit and load limit. I'm pretty confident they will work as expected now.
Next goal is to get into the maf hz routine and see if there is some odd ball cap there but for now it is looking as if these are it.
Apr 24, 2010, 10:08 PM
#45
I already started a thread for this but from what I'm seeing I'd simply be amazed if the stock lancer ecu couldn't just straight up run an evo rom. I think the only consideration at this point is the wiring harness on the lancer has two pins swapped.
One of which just happens to be a pretty big deal. Pin 8 and 22 are swapped on the lancer and one of them happens to be the fuel pump relay. The other is the AC clutch.
I'm not sure what would happen exactly if someone tried this and I don't want you to brick the car for a test. We need someone that can do this as a test or just knows the answer if the lancer ecu can boot the evo rom. If it can it would mean you can just upload tephra's v7 rom into your car and use all the neat tuning bits we have available in the evo.
If that can not be done I don't see any reason the lancer couldn't be upgraded to use the v7 bits that tephra has in his rom.