MAF Scaling
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: L.I. New York
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAF Scaling
Hi guys,
I'm running V7 ROM 96530706.
I noticed current scaling is different then what's in the base file
96530706-TephraMod.bin
I have a Perrin intake and thought this intake would not require any MAF scaling adjustments.
1st time I looked at since I began learning how to tune my car.
Can anyone shed light as to why this may have been changed?
Should I put it back to stock or leave it?
96530706-TephraMod.bin is on left, mine right
I'm running V7 ROM 96530706.
I noticed current scaling is different then what's in the base file
96530706-TephraMod.bin
I have a Perrin intake and thought this intake would not require any MAF scaling adjustments.
1st time I looked at since I began learning how to tune my car.
Can anyone shed light as to why this may have been changed?
Should I put it back to stock or leave it?
96530706-TephraMod.bin is on left, mine right
#2
Evolved Member
You might be better-off changing the scaling in that table to "uint8".
That eliminates any scaling definition variations that may have crept into the scene over the years. The table is actually a sort of pulse constant correction, not g/s airflow, hence the uint8 notion as a universal scale. Probably help get back to a known correct table value set too.
That eliminates any scaling definition variations that may have crept into the scene over the years. The table is actually a sort of pulse constant correction, not g/s airflow, hence the uint8 notion as a universal scale. Probably help get back to a known correct table value set too.
#3
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (12)
Once you put it back to uint8 and copy over your settings, if oh put it back to the "MAF Adder" scaling, it will make it so it's a litlle easier to make MAF adjustments. With the MAF adder scaling, a 10% change in the scaling will be close to a 10% change in fuel trims.
#6
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: L.I. New York
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a bit confused. Set Y axis to unit8 rather then MAF(Adder)?
Also,
I logged a run with stock #'s for MAF and AFR's from UEGO were quite a bit leaner.
13 vs 11.5
I'm assuming prior owner removed honeycomb from MAF, because I never saw one in there. Just the little U shaped sensor element is present.
Maybe this is why my #'s were set a bit higher then stock?
My AFR map and AEM log are pretty close with modified MAF scaling values.
If that's the case, can I assume MAF is scaled correctly?
Also,
I logged a run with stock #'s for MAF and AFR's from UEGO were quite a bit leaner.
13 vs 11.5
I'm assuming prior owner removed honeycomb from MAF, because I never saw one in there. Just the little U shaped sensor element is present.
Maybe this is why my #'s were set a bit higher then stock?
My AFR map and AEM log are pretty close with modified MAF scaling values.
If that's the case, can I assume MAF is scaled correctly?
#7
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
I'm a bit confused. Set Y axis to unit8 rather then MAF(Adder)?
Also,
I logged a run with stock #'s for MAF and AFR's from UEGO were quite a bit leaner.
13 vs 11.5
I'm assuming prior owner removed honeycomb from MAF, because I never saw one in there. Just the little U shaped sensor element is present.
Maybe this is why my #'s were set a bit higher then stock?
My AFR map and AEM log are pretty close with modified MAF scaling values.
If that's the case, can I assume MAF is scaled correctly?
Also,
I logged a run with stock #'s for MAF and AFR's from UEGO were quite a bit leaner.
13 vs 11.5
I'm assuming prior owner removed honeycomb from MAF, because I never saw one in there. Just the little U shaped sensor element is present.
Maybe this is why my #'s were set a bit higher then stock?
My AFR map and AEM log are pretty close with modified MAF scaling values.
If that's the case, can I assume MAF is scaled correctly?
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post