^Well done foust, thats what I was thinking. That way you could refer to 'old' numbers if need be with ease.

 

yeah...

no whenever someone posts latencies they will need to clarify which scaling they are using :S

 

My 4.69V cannot be increased from 3.825?
Have i done something incorrect ?

 

piccy?

 

 

oh i see..

no its stored as a single byte (so 0xFF being the max)

0xFF = 255
255 * 0.015 = 3.825

So 3.825 is the max you can put in that field..

 

Hopefully this will get rolled into a proper ECUFlash release (along with everything else everyone has been using for a long time already), so that we don't need to clarify which algorithm we scaled with

Great find yet again!

 

yeah well I am not sure what todo about that..

I guess we need todo the "correct" thing - its just in the future when posting latencies people will need to say 0.015x or 0.024x

 

I have both tables in my EcuFlash. Though it is a bit redundant.

 

It's not really reduntant, this bit me the other day when I tried some base settings and the idle was way Rich, now it makes much more sense and I can convert the settings down to the new values.

 

Super old thread. Nobody uses the "wrong" settings anymore.

 

Might seem like a silly question, but if 3.825 is the max, how did you manage to get FIC 1100's tuned (with a 5.904 4.7v value)?

EDIT: Nevermind, apparently all "posted latency" are in the old value system. For the next intrepid explorer, x/.024*.015

 

Does this also apply to Evo 8/9?

See post here for reference of values after scaling changed.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...l#post11336652