Seijuro

Help?

I'm probably missing something simple, but comparing logs to my fuel maps, they do not correlate like I think they should. I'll post up a log and my fuel map.

In the log, I've clicked on one point in the RPM curve. The corresponding data for the other variables is in the list on the left. I chose this point because it is at basically 4000 rpms. At 4000 rpms, I am logging an AFRMAP of 10.3.

So when I go and look at my fuel map at the 4000 rpm row, my 10.3 AFRMAP falls very close to my 10.2 cell. Looking up then at LOAD, this is 120 LOAD.

However, looking at the logs, I don't have any values for LOAD that are anywhere near 120. So how exactly do I know where I am on this chart at a given point in a log?

Evoscan Log displayed in Data Log Lab. 93 Octane, ~10psi, 3rd gear, ~65% throttle.


In this screenshot from Evoscan of the same moment, ECULoad, Load 1Byte, and Load MUT 2Byte Mod are all overlapping.


Fuel Map


Also, to try to answer the question ahead of time; Currently, my high octane and low octane fuel maps are matching. I have it set like that right now, because I'm trying to nail down correlation between the data in the log, and the data in ECUFlash.

Ceddy

Are you logging 2Byte Load Uncompensated?

The Fuel Map look up uses 2Byte Load IAT & Baro Compensated under most conditions. That could easily account for a 20% difference in Load.


Also you are at part throttle, Accel/Decel Enrichment and other Fuel Compensations may be effecting things.

Also if coolant temp isn't fully warmed up, I think it enrichs fuel, but not 100% sure on that.



Edit:

Get rid of: Load Calculated, Ecu Load, Load 11bit4.

And log: 2Byte Load, 2Byte Load Baro, 2Byte Load IAT-Baro.


Fuel Map uses 2Byte Load or 2Byte Load IAT-Baro.

Timing Map uses 2Byte Load Baro or 2Byte Load IAT-Baro.

Seijuro

Thanks,

I'm using EvoScan 2.6. I definitely don't have 2Byte Load as an option to log.

I'm using OpenPort 1.3x. Mitsubishi MUTIII is checked. ECU is EFI.

I'm going to start searching around to try to answer my own question but is this something I need to add/configure, or is 2Byte Load new to a newer version?

EDIT:

My answer might be inside

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...te-thread.html

reading...

donour

iTrader: (6)

This is a slightly offtopic, but we (the community) should probably do a better job of documenting this.

For example, I found that ignition uses IAT+baro comp load for 96530006, but uses raw load for 94170015. These are, of course, the two roms that tephra v7 folks are using for evo 8s.

EDIT: this time of the year temp+baro load and raw differ by about 30% for me.
d

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

From what mrfred found in his disassembly is that ignition uses baro+temp corrected for IAT <77F. Over that, baro comp is used.

Maybe when you compared the two ROMs, the IATs were different?

donour

iTrader: (6)

By about 15 degrees F. temp+baro load was ~250, raw load was 320. I tested back to back. 96530706 and 94170715.

EDIT: I'm definitely not trying to stir the pot, here. the working range for compensated load is way different than raw at 6000+ feet. I logged both as well as afrmap and timing_map. The different load values are so far apart that it is immediately clear which is being used for lookups.

d

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

What I am asking is what was the IAT when you tested the 9417 ROM. Was it over 77F? If so, then baro comp load should be used. Was the IAT < 77F when you tested 9653? If so, then baro+temp comp load should be used.

I just want to make sure that that wasn't why you saw the difference. I wouldn't imagine one ROM would have different logic for ignition than another, but I guess it's possible.

donour

iTrader: (6)

nope and nope.

Here's what I found:

96530706: timing uses baro or temp+baro load, fuel uses raw
95170715: timing and fuel use raw.

d

Seijuro

Okay so I added data to the end of my 96530006.xml file that I got out of the 2Byte thread. I then opened the MUT table in ECUFlash and changed 2 of the values in there accordingly.

In Evoscan, I altered "Load MUT 2Byte Mod" from 0.3125*x to 1000*x/256

Am I missing anything?

l2r99gst

iTrader: (2)

Very interesting...would you happen to have the logs with the IAT in them?

Seijuro

Well that didn't do it, now my MUT 2Byte Load is reading in to the thousands.

EDIT: I see that I misunderstood and this change is for 2 byte RPM.

Which brings me back to square one as it seems I was logging 2 byte load, which was reading 156 while the target AFR corresponds with a load of 120.

I think the fact that these do not exist in my Evoscan, except perhaps 2Byte Load if that is the same thing as MUT 2Byte Load, is my problem. I haven't been able to find any info. yet as to how to actually log these.

donour

iTrader: (6)

No, but I can record some. I'll try to this week.

d

03lances

iTrader: (14)

So anyone know (or care? lol) how far off ecuload is from actual load? My base lancer ecu has not had nearly the dissasembly as the evo and I cant log 2 byte load but am told the ecuload is the closes we can get to the actual load.

Seijuro

My understanding is that the only difference is 2 byte load is able to measure Load above 160.

I've checked dozens of my logs, and 2byte load and ecu load are returning identical values 99% of the time.

In the 2nd chart I posted, that line just above 150.. That's ECULoad, 1byte Load, and 2byte load all stacked on top of eachother. So unless you're going to reach loads above 160, you don't actually need 2 byte load.

The real issue is that these values are irrelevant. Apparently there is barometer and temperature corrected load, which is the real load that the ECU uses.

That's not a logging option in Evoscan 2.6. Now maybe all these guys are using one of the 2.7 beta versions, and that's the difference.

It would be awesome if someone could take a screen shot of these 2Byte Load Baro and 2Byte Load IAT-Baro so those of us with 2.6 can create them.

hediki12

my mapped afr and timing follows wat ever my 1 byte load is... all the time ive logged so i never looked into compensated vs uncompensated. reading over your thread im starting to think that your asking why isnt the actual afr matching your mapped afr? like `5000rpm and 250 load mapped afr 10.1 and your wide band is reading 11.3. is that what you mean? if so then the answer is they rarely if ever will match up. maybe close but not going to be exact. let me know if thats what you mean.