just wondering why don't people merge 0-40 to have more resolution elsewhere in the map as I've noticed most maps have these areas with the same numbers, will there be drivability issues just starting with 40 on the map, or just 0 then 40 and taking out all the columns in between?

 

I have studied the disassembly for some time now, i haven't found a reason against doubling the size of the maps.

They just need to be moved to another place with their scaling maps.

But maybe there is a limit in cell numbers i haven't found.

 

I merge the lower stuff since it idles at 30 and runs above that. Adding resolution can help but in some cases it doesnt matter as much as I used to think. Adding it in the RPM side definitely helps around the normal trouble areas (5750-6500). Load seems to be a mixed bag and typically I scale it according to what mods the car has. SD cars can benefit from some scaling changes if you keep the load vs kpa different (i.e. the 4 bar with JDM 3 bar setup).

 

so if my load cells from 0-40 are the same i should be fine just running one load column, 40 and it will interpolate between 0-40 right? I just wanted added resolution as I have a massive jump in timing from 80-100 and it seems to knock there.

also deepnine, by doubling size of maps do you actually mean adding extra columns? so instead of say 19 you have like 24?

my car is scaled to 320 so i've lost a few cells in between and wanted to compensate.

 

Correct, you can sack 10-30 if you'd like. It just coincides with our speed limits here, but I typically drop 10 & 20, leave 30, drop 40, and jump to 50. Most cars cruise around 50-60% load at 55mph or so.

 

Making the map PHYSICALLY bigger isn't a problem - but not really necessary IMHO.

 

This is interesting, subscribed for later viewing pleasure!

 

Some of the cars we have been doing recently with SD could probably use more RPM but not necessarily anymore load cells since I am cheating on that end with the 4 bar.

 

I merge them all the time. I would love some more resolution: more RPM for fuel and more load for timing.

 

While I agree with you, having larger maps would be nice. That way you don't have to worry about what other maps are using those axes.

 

Except the EVO VIII has 2 or 3 less load columns then the EVO IX.

If you rescale the EVO VIII for high loads, it makes for a pretty rough map and having a few extra columns would be a very nice feature.

Particularly for the high altitude guys. You can each 380+ load EASILY on a stock IX turbo with minimal mods and E85 at 4500' in elevation.