For a stock-frame turbo? ETS and AMS were the first people we called. AMS wasn't interested at all in making one. ETS was (and still is) too busy to get it done, despite Michael saying that he'd like to offer it.

 

for 2008 Evo 10:

<table name="Knock Sensitivity Load Threshold" address="561a0">
<table name="RPM" address="62890"/>
</table>

<table name="Knock Background Noise Multiplier" address="59da8">
<table name="RPM" address="61ae8"/>
</table>

<table name="Knock Background Noise Adder (SINGLE GAIN) #1" address="5fe82">
<table name="RPM" address="61ae8"/>
</table>

<table name="Knock Background Noise Adder (SINGLE GAIN) #2" address="59d80">
<table name="RPM" address="61ae8"/>
</table>

<table name="Knock Background Noise Adder (TRIPLE GAIN) #1" address="5fe6e">
<table name="RPM" address="61ae8"/>
</table>

<table name="Knock Background Noise Adder (TRIPLE GAIN) #2" address="59d94">
<table name="RPM" address="61ae8"/>
</table>

- Bryan

 

no, its with their new turbo kit. isn't the only thing it'd be missing to work with a stock fame a 3.5" to 2.5" coupler? I just figured they'd sell you one if you asked. guess not if you already tried that =/

 

I have compared X and RA maf scaling tables. In all points X = 1.11 *RA.
Then I have compared X and RA tube diametr in the maf location -
S(x)=1.11*S(ra), S - the lateral section area.

I think that rescale maf for a new tube very simply.

 

You're assuming that a T3 turbo would sit in the exact same position as the stock one. That is not the case...they need to make the larger turbo fit behind the motor and the inlet port will be at a different angle. The BOV setups are usually not similar to stock, either.

 

3.5 inch MAF is easy to make. Just grab a JM Fab fange and weld it on 3.5 inch tubing. Take 15 minutes. For reference at 580 whp on dynapack it is at 4.4+ volts already. Some room but some of you guys are making 700+ whp and not sure if it will go much past that at all. I would think that 4 inch resolution would be poor and another issue is that even at 3.5 inches the MAF scaling maxes out in the 4.5+ volt ranges. The rest has to be done with Inj scaling.

 

This is very true. I have done some experimenting with lying to the ecu about injector and maf scaling. Properly calibrated, a 3.5" maf can max out the flow table currently in ECU flash (depending on filter and velocity stack etc). Cobb has another table they call maf compensation that is not the same as the one we have, that somehow adds air on top of that, but it is not a very friendly table to adjust.

I have scaled FIC 2150's as low as 1170 (on E85), and other than having to idle in open loop, the driveability is fine. This was done to keep a 4" maf within the resolution we have available. It was a pain in the ***, but doable.

Likewise with the 3.5". You can scale the injectors down and have the car be very driveable, but because of the ECU's minimum duty cycle limit the car needs to stay in open loop below 1500 rpm. (I don't hink its pulse width because if you scale them large enough, they will lean the car out enough to not run) Wether a 3.5" maf idles in closed loop well or not seems more dependant on what kind of fuel system you have than anything else. The return lines on the X are kind of small, so it seems like it has trouble getting rid of excess fuel at low voltages. This makes calibrating the maf a pain, but again its doable. I currently have mine idling in closed loop with 2150's, and other than tending to hang out around 16:1 its fine. (It's always wanting to pull to much fuel because of the return line issue). I did lower the threshold for switching to open loop at the 500 and 1000 rpm blocks to 5 load above idle to eliminate an off idle stumble because of lean idle. It fixed it pretty well.

 

Eric - have done my minimum IPW mod? FIC2150's should be ok running around 1.15ms (instead of the default 1.28)

but yes you will still need to run in OL for idle (maybe not on E85 thou)

 

good info, subscribed.

 

Yes, I've done that. I still run it in open loop at idle though because the idle is much more stable than in closed loop, where the ecu is always chasing its tail around those big injectors at 60psi base pressure.

 

what are you tuning with again?

 

Who?

 

Aparently I don't have the minimum ipw on my laptop. Logging today I noticed that my ipw was 1.28. I guess I forgot to move my newest definitions to my laptop....

Based on what I am seeing for ipw though, having a minimum of 1.15 versus 1.28 should make low rpm/maf volt fuel trims a lot more stable. I'm not sure if it will fix it all together though because of the fuel system I'm running, but it will be nice to find out.

 

Here is a picture of my 3.5" maf that David (MDR Performance) fabbed up for me. We also put this exact same intake on Jeremy's (SSP) car. The lower photo is the 4" maf intake that we tested as well. I thought the 4" was grumpy to tune, but maybe with Tephra's 1.15 minimum pulse width patch it would not be such a pain.
3.5"


4"

 

60 base? The Bosch 044 is working fine at 85+psi?