Boost Map Difference
#1
Boost Map Difference
I was comparing the stock boost map in ECUflash to the stock boost map in Access Tuner Race. There is something that confused me and I would hope someone can clarify it.
In ECUflash the BTEL tables at 4000 rpm reads 155 at WOT, the BCLO table reads 80, the reactive solenoid is at 100 and the passive solenoid is at 55. The ECU calculates boost/load target by adding BCLO to BTEL. In our case, 155+80=235 boost/load target. That usually give 22.xx psi at 4000 rpm at sea level.
Now let us look at the ATR.
The ATR stock map (Installed_Stock_Mode_GSRv101) sets the target load table (BTEL in ECUflash) at 248 at 4000 rpm at WOT, the Boost Control Offset (BCLO in ECUflash) table is set at 80, the Fine Wastegate Duty Cycle (reactive in ECUflash) @ 78, and the Coarse Wastegate Duty Cycle (passive in ECUflash) @ 43.
1. Why are there differences between the two? Isn't this supposed to be the same stock map?
2. Is the Cobb map using lower WGDC (coarse and fine) to compensate for the higher load target, ie, 248+80=328? It is not possible for a stock EVO X to hit that load number. We know that when the logged load is lower than the target load, the ECU will add up to 10% WGDC. So Cobb lowers the actual duty cycle to compensate for the 10%.
Does anyone have an explantion for the differences between the two stock boost maps?
In ECUflash the BTEL tables at 4000 rpm reads 155 at WOT, the BCLO table reads 80, the reactive solenoid is at 100 and the passive solenoid is at 55. The ECU calculates boost/load target by adding BCLO to BTEL. In our case, 155+80=235 boost/load target. That usually give 22.xx psi at 4000 rpm at sea level.
Now let us look at the ATR.
The ATR stock map (Installed_Stock_Mode_GSRv101) sets the target load table (BTEL in ECUflash) at 248 at 4000 rpm at WOT, the Boost Control Offset (BCLO in ECUflash) table is set at 80, the Fine Wastegate Duty Cycle (reactive in ECUflash) @ 78, and the Coarse Wastegate Duty Cycle (passive in ECUflash) @ 43.
1. Why are there differences between the two? Isn't this supposed to be the same stock map?
2. Is the Cobb map using lower WGDC (coarse and fine) to compensate for the higher load target, ie, 248+80=328? It is not possible for a stock EVO X to hit that load number. We know that when the logged load is lower than the target load, the ECU will add up to 10% WGDC. So Cobb lowers the actual duty cycle to compensate for the 10%.
Does anyone have an explantion for the differences between the two stock boost maps?
#4
BTW, did you get my PM
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
richardjh
Evo X Engine Management / Tuning Forums
5
Feb 19, 2011 04:37 PM
LaXGSR
Evo X Engine Management / Tuning Forums
4
Jun 8, 2009 12:50 PM
pltek
Evo X Engine Management / Tuning Forums
4
Mar 17, 2009 07:33 AM