How To: Speed Density on the evo8 using tephra v7/Phenem pre-patched roms
Jan 18, 2014, 03:54 PM
#272
RPM VE
MAP VE
MAF COMP VS Coolant temp
MAF Compensation (as known as MAF Smoothing)
MAF Scaling
I don't think this points to your issue. You tried different RPM VE and Map VE values which is supposed to work .. without playing with other MAF calculations.
Last edited by domyz; Jan 18, 2014 at 04:00 PM.
Jan 19, 2014, 04:26 AM
#273
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These all affect load:
RPM VE
MAP VE
MAF COMP VS Coolant temp
MAF Compensation (as known as MAF Smoothing)
MAF Scaling
I don't think this points to your issue. You tried different RPM VE and Map VE values which is supposed to work .. without playing with other MAF calculations.
RPM VE
MAP VE
MAF COMP VS Coolant temp
MAF Compensation (as known as MAF Smoothing)
MAF Scaling
I don't think this points to your issue. You tried different RPM VE and Map VE values which is supposed to work .. without playing with other MAF calculations.
yes, I've tried raising RPM VE back up to 100 and higher... have tried 340/430, 370/430, 400/430, 430/430... 330/460, 300/500 in MAP VE final row to no avail. the curve seems to only move 10 load one way or the other. My pump tune is 600hp 29psi... e85 is close to 800 at 42psi... but both pulls are nearly identical on load curve.
Jan 20, 2014, 09:50 AM
#275
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These all affect load:
RPM VE
MAP VE
MAF COMP VS Coolant temp
MAF Compensation (as known as MAF Smoothing)
MAF Scaling
I don't think this points to your issue. You tried different RPM VE and Map VE values which is supposed to work .. without playing with other MAF calculations.
RPM VE
MAP VE
MAF COMP VS Coolant temp
MAF Compensation (as known as MAF Smoothing)
MAF Scaling
I don't think this points to your issue. You tried different RPM VE and Map VE values which is supposed to work .. without playing with other MAF calculations.
my table is on right, stock is on left. Might this be my issue, and why would this table be changed? I notice they're both the same at operating temp, so I don't think this is it.
Jan 20, 2014, 12:31 PM
#276
It's not your issue. If it has changed, it's because someone edited it or "post primer enrich decay" which is the same table.
I'd still flash a new ROM with a new XML pack installed. It can be something you won't see easily.
Also, what do you use for air temperature ? AIT, MAT or Fuel temperature? Do you have any good reading of it in Evoscan? It came to my mind because if it is unconnected or bad ground, the load would be affected. It's just another guess but still worth checking.
I'd still flash a new ROM with a new XML pack installed. It can be something you won't see easily.
Also, what do you use for air temperature ? AIT, MAT or Fuel temperature? Do you have any good reading of it in Evoscan? It came to my mind because if it is unconnected or bad ground, the load would be affected. It's just another guess but still worth checking.
Jan 20, 2014, 12:50 PM
#277
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not your issue. If it has changed, it's because someone edited it or "post primer enrich decay" which is the same table.
I'd still flash a new ROM with a new XML pack installed. It can be something you won't see easily.
Also, what do you use for air temperature ? AIT, MAT or Fuel temperature? Do you have any good reading of it in Evoscan? It came to my mind because if it is unconnected or bad ground, the load would be affected. It's just another guess but still worth checking.
I'd still flash a new ROM with a new XML pack installed. It can be something you won't see easily.
Also, what do you use for air temperature ? AIT, MAT or Fuel temperature? Do you have any good reading of it in Evoscan? It came to my mind because if it is unconnected or bad ground, the load would be affected. It's just another guess but still worth checking.
Jan 21, 2014, 07:37 AM
#280
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haven't done the log for fuel temp yet... but look at this
Top pic is with load1byte selected...bottom is with load calculated selected in Evoscan...
THIS is where I'd like to see my car on the load scale... this is how my old Evo load scale ran on a MAF tune. and THIS car was only 450whp.
Top pic is with load1byte selected...bottom is with load calculated selected in Evoscan...
THIS is where I'd like to see my car on the load scale... this is how my old Evo load scale ran on a MAF tune. and THIS car was only 450whp.
Last edited by MacMan; Jan 21, 2014 at 07:41 AM.
Jan 21, 2014, 11:33 AM
#282
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Req. 41
1.2*x
in my rom it's 1.8. THERE'S THE PROBLEM, TAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU~~~!!!!
OK. so what do i change them to. I see in another thread, someone says to make them both 1.5, is this correct?
Last edited by MacMan; Jan 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM.
Jan 21, 2014, 12:28 PM
#283
Max load is calculated like that.
1byte=8bits,
in binary terms it's a "word" (00000000,00000001, 00000010, etc...)
so 256 possible values including zero
max value is 255
So load conversion factor:
255*1.2=306 max load
255*1.4=357 max load
Yes I'd put them at 1.5. In SD it doesn't really matter because you still can adjust load curve with VE tables. But with a stroker and big turbo, more load will be somewhat easier to tune, and more realistic vs MAF tune.
1byte=8bits,
in binary terms it's a "word" (00000000,00000001, 00000010, etc...)
so 256 possible values including zero
max value is 255
So load conversion factor:
255*1.2=306 max load
255*1.4=357 max load
Yes I'd put them at 1.5. In SD it doesn't really matter because you still can adjust load curve with VE tables. But with a stroker and big turbo, more load will be somewhat easier to tune, and more realistic vs MAF tune.
Jan 21, 2014, 12:33 PM
#284
Evolving Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: FL
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max load is calculated like that.
1byte=8bits,
in binary terms it's a "word" (00000000,00000001, 00000010, etc...)
so 256 possible values including zero
max value is 255
So load conversion factor:
255*1.2=306 max load
255*1.4=357 max load
Yes I'd put them at 1.5. In SD it doesn't really matter because you still can adjust load curve with VE tables. But with a stroker and big turbo, more load will be somewhat easier to tune, and more realistic vs MAF tune.
1byte=8bits,
in binary terms it's a "word" (00000000,00000001, 00000010, etc...)
so 256 possible values including zero
max value is 255
So load conversion factor:
255*1.2=306 max load
255*1.4=357 max load
Yes I'd put them at 1.5. In SD it doesn't really matter because you still can adjust load curve with VE tables. But with a stroker and big turbo, more load will be somewhat easier to tune, and more realistic vs MAF tune.
Last edited by MacMan; Jan 21, 2014 at 02:16 PM.