Originally Posted by TouringBubble (Post 8233816)

I have never run in to this, so it's new to me. The standard "ECU Load" has been correct for every Lancer I've tuned. You may have an odd ball ROM ... I dunno.

Yes, with a higher MAF size value, load values will increase ... both max Load% reached and Load% values referenced while driving. This is what moves the cruising load up higher.

I've used artificially high MAF values to get the car to run richer with larger turbo setups. If your case is that it's not lean enough, then move the MAF value back down and test. This will at least get your fuel maps closer in line with your actual AFRs. Or, you could reference the MAF hz value hit at the problem RPM and correct the airflow there.

With the turbo Lancer, there is a lot of "lying" to the ECU to get it to run right. Standard practices that we learned on the Evo don't always apply as the ROM isn't meant for boost. Injector and MAF values often have to be skewed. In pains me to do it every time, but there really isn't a choice.

Originally Posted by TouringBubble (Post 8234058)

While I understand what you're working on, I don't think that is the issue. You're looking to remove the load limitations on the ROM, which is set at 160 (I think). the load issue on the Lancer really has nothing to do with a limit, but more to do with the calculations for load not compensating for boost.

Basically, WOT on a Lancer is 100% load, tapering a little toward redline. Add 7 psi, and you get like 105% load. It's not hitting any kind of load cap (as far as logging or referencing load values) ... the values logged just aren't being calculated in a way that causes a rise in load%.

I think the real solution would be to re-write the load calculation formulas so that it mimics the Evo's, with 0 at 100% load and boost rising above that. If you could swing that, you'd be the hero of all turbo Lancer owners. =)

Originally Posted by RoadSpike (Post 8235013)

OK some questions and maybe answers?

I'm tripping out here trying to figure out what in the world is going on with the rpm and load axis for the fuel table. When I mapped out where the load and rpm go I found they are in line with that water temp load and air temp comp load table jscbanks found so they probably aren't right.

When I looked at the fueling sub routine, i think at least ;), I found the axis's are

Load = 6954
RPM = 692e

So now i'm looking to as what the heck those address you have in there now.

Current Load Axis = 6784
Current RPM Axis = 6706

Originally Posted by 03lances (Post 8235448)

I was able to install my wheel bearing today so I am back on the road and can test anything whenever Roadspike :)

Originally Posted by 03lances (Post 8235558)

I tried adding the code you posted in #22 into my XML file for my rom thinking it would display the MUT table in ecuflash but no go.

Originally Posted by RoadSpike (Post 8235611)

What happened?

Edit:
Try mine but stuff is being messed with as i learn about this rom.

Originally Posted by RoadSpike (Post 8237114)

Some news:

So as I've been following jscbanks fuel limit and load limit thread I can say with certainty the lancer rom also clips the maximum fuel and load variables to a byte which would cap them like the evo at 380load.

I'll keep looking for the clip variable for load and ipw on the lancer rom. I did notice an interesting thing on the evo rom vs the lancer rom. In the fuel load limit sub routine I saw that the evo has a sort of multiplier table it uses referencing an unknown variable where the lowest was 85% and the maximum was 199% of the value. This could be the fuel load cap you guys are experiencing. If it is then the easiest thing to do is use the instructions i gave earlier and uncap the fuel load limit and load limit. I'm pretty confident they will work as expected now.

Next goal is to get into the maf hz routine and see if there is some odd ball cap there but for now it is looking as if these are it.

Originally Posted by 03lances (Post 8237752)

Nice!!! I dont really understand what this means yet but Im gonna do some research so I will lol. Long day today, what should have taken maybe 3-4 hours took 10!!!! Just got home, Gonna flash that first thing in the morning and try it and post results {thumbup}