NefMoto

This should allow for a fairly close rough scale for bosch sensors in larger housings. Some fine tuning may be required, but so far the results look promising. You can specify the offset of MLHFM, or allow the program to find it automatically. When specifying the offset, make sure to follow this format:

0x[MLHFM offset]

Please, check the results before flashing, and report any problems or observations.

MAFadjust for Bosch sensors, by maZer.GTi and ddillenger

Notes:
- Fixed 16bit overshoot bug
-Fixed Hitachi bug, now results for hitachi should be ok
-New Version will write create txt file for copy and pasting into winols or tunerpro
-Please remember to correct the checksums prior to flashing.
-Failing to specify an offset for your MAF transfer function
 will result in an automated search. Please verify results prior to flashing.
-When specifying a percentage scale,
 use the change in surface area, NOT diameter.
-Unless specified, calculations are for Bosch sensors.
 For Hitachi, please remember to specify that in your command.

Usage: mafadjust [yourfile].bin [old_diameter] [new_diameter] [0xMLHFM_offset]
Usage: mafadjust [yourfile].bin [increase_diameter_percent] [MLHFM_offset]
Usage: mafadjust [yourfile].bin [old_diameter] [new_diameter] hitachi

Usage examples:

-- 73mm MAF scaled for 83mm housing
mafadjust 8D0907551A.bin 73 83

-- 73mm MAF scaled for 83mm housing, MLHFM @ 0x10D72
mafadjust 8D0907551A.bin 73 83 0x10D72

-- 73mm Hitachi MAF scaled for 83mm housing, MLHFM @ 0x10D72
mafadjust 8D0907551A.bin 73 83 0x10D72 hitachi

-- MAF scaled for 30% larger housing, MLHFM @ 0x10D72
mafadjust 8D0907551A.bin 30 0x10D72


Have fun, please post here with any feedback or suggestions :)

thanks
it worked

result is very close to mine (rescaling by crosssection + calibrating by logs)

Big thanks for your feedback :D
If you have some tips to make this tool better just let me know :)

Works great! Do the numbers represent I.D.?

Very cool!  But is there a reason why this is for the Bosch MAF sensor only and not the Hitachi?

Lot more Bosch sensors in use than Hitachi. That, and Hitachi isn't as difficult to do manually.

It'll be added though. Bosch just took priority due to the difficulty in calculating the areas of reverse flow.

Very cool, Andreas! :)

thanks! I will try as soon as possible :)

The reason I ask is because my ori MAF housing has an O.D. of 70.12mm on my digi caliper. I have a 225 MAF housing with an I.D. of 69.92 mm with an O.D. of 79.82mm so I'm a bit confused.

All measurements are ID.

Thanks :D

Very cool!  Thx

Mazer did the heavy lifting.

 :)

I'm not as computer literate as most on here but application seems to pop up for a second then disappear. Not sure how to run this type of file.

run itfrom command promt (WIN+R > "cmd")

OHHHH that makes perfect sense thanks.

What fine tuning is suggested after recalculating the MAF with this?

hello guys,

I installed the executable but I can not get it started.
I use cmd windos xp.

can you help?

thank you very much

thanx, it works grate

A+ utility. thanks man :)

any chance you can make an option to spit out something I can cut/paste directly into a map?

just plaintext of the whole row?

guys, please, I ask you for help.

Cut and paste the output from your cmd.exe box.

Please, not a screen shot.

using the cmd says:

command not recognized.

cmd message:

mafadjust not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or file bacth.

Is it in your current working directory?

I can not figure out where it is installed mafadjust.

the file to edit is located in C:

it has no setup
you must running downloaded file

simple way for those who doesnt know command line syntax
copy it to drive C: (or your OS system drive)
and your bin too

then run cmd
and type into it 'cd \'

after that use syntax at 1st page

you should know where you *downloaded* it to.

move it to the same dir as the file to edit.

Hi Nyet,

Newest version uploaded (1.2). This will create a xxx_mod.txt with the scaled transfer function inside so you can copy and paste it right into winols :)

Excellent! Thank you!

Has anyone run this tool using a 83mm RS4 MAF? I'm curious as to what kind of g/s are being pulled in on a K04 car running that setup.. Open element and RS4 MAF.

Why would you need to scale an RS4 MAF? This is used when putting your sensor in a larger housing. If you are using a factory sensor/housing, you just use the transfer function for that MAF.

I ran this on a 90mm MAF setup to compare my buddy's file to what this would generate... The result is definitely wrong, just not sure if its a bug or something I did. I posted the cmd prompt below and you can see it ran successfully.

(http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/AudiSportB5S4/ECUx%20Logs/MAFScalingStephen_zps2b8624a4.jpg) (http://s427.photobucket.com/user/AudiSportB5S4/media/ECUx%20Logs/MAFScalingStephen_zps2b8624a4.jpg.html)

(http://i427.photobucket.com/albums/pp352/AudiSportB5S4/ECUx%20Logs/CMDPrompt_zpsdf2340d4.jpg) (http://s427.photobucket.com/user/AudiSportB5S4/media/ECUx%20Logs/CMDPrompt_zpsdf2340d4.jpg.html)

Yes its a small bug, you need to specify the offset of mlhfm as parameter like 0x10234d

example: mafadjust Stephen_90MM.bin 73 90 hitachi 0x10234d

But you should read what mafadjust telling you, if you scroll down a little bit you will see the tool is telling you map looks not like mlhfm.

Just saw this, thanks for the reply!

What do you mean in your last sentence by "you will see the tool is telling you map looks not like mlhfm."

Scroll down through the output, you will see a prompt telling you that mlhfm is looks incorrect.

Just tried this tool. Using a stock M box with Hitachi MAF settings. I ran the .exe and then looked at the graph of MLHFM. It looks the same as AudiSportB5S4. Large jump in the center of the graph. I have attached my CDM window and the picture of the resulting graph. The data in the .txt file is the same as well.

Guys, please specify the offset of MLHFM and it'll work flawlessly. I was against having an auto detect function to begin with. This is just a tool to make things a bit easier.

I did in mine, Its in the CMD prompt window. 0x14254

Unless I have the address wrong?

To be honest, I always just scaled Hitachi manually.

Bosch is just trickier as it's got the region of negative flow. I used it on a Bosch M-box without incident, but not Hitachi. Thank you for bringing the problem to our attention, It'll get sorted.

I am already running an 85mm maf and have nice 1% fuel trims, but i wanted to try the tool out to see what it produced. Very cool idea. I will be sure to use it if I have to scale a bosch unit.

yeah like everyone said, dont bother trying this on your hitachi maf file.. it'll wreck it...

Gotcha okay.. I was hoping to get some insight on how to get the scaling a bit more towards reality on this 90mm MAF my buddy is running on. I'm afraid just changing the MAF scaling alone will throw off other maps if the load goes too high though.. Currently @ WOT he only pulls in 200-210 g/s up top which I think is contributing to his problems running rich as the rpm climbs.

actually i was wrong, i was using me7check without it unrar'd "unzipped" which was working fine on one pc, but on my desktop it was not fixing the file, i actually unzipped it and it repaired the other files after, ill report back after i re try the scale and let you know, please keep me updated as well!

New version uploaded! Thanks to you guys I was able to find the bug when used on Hitachi MAF's.
Redownload and use, should work now! :)

Also, added a new option for TFSI Maf (PWMMAF)

Usage:
mafadjust.exe 115ab.bin 65 72.8 0x1c50e6
mafadjust.exe 115ab.bin old_inner_diameter new_inner_diameter offset_MSHFMTPH

Great news! I wanted to compare what it produces to the scaling I have. Thanks for the excellent tool.

Thanks for nice feedback! :)

thanks also!

hello guys,

You can change this little program for me 3.8.
Have the conversion values ​​for 256, rather than 512?

thanks in advance.

Hello, this tool can do M3.8 too. Just try it same way like me7

Hello,

thanks for the reply.

I tried in every way but does not work with me3.8.3.
With ME7.5 works perfectly.

I can do some particular task?

Very cool, thanks for updating!

If you increase the area why does the value initally decrease then when you use the utility?

MLOFS is non zero.

do the math yourself and you'll see why. shift the whole thing down by MLOFS, scale, then shift it back up. The regions that were negative when shifted will be MORE negative scaled, and less positive when MLOFS is added back in.

alternately, you can leave it in place without shifting, and leave MLOFS zero, and then scaling the MAF is always a single operation

Hi, it work with MSHFMU (Ford ME9.0) ??

Thank you

Upload the File and write the offset for the linearisation map. I will take a look what i can do :)

Okay thank you:

Factor 0.1
16 bit hilo
Address: 1C4C6E 129X01
Sign

I scored a free 3" MAF housing from an A6 so I had to put it on my car and give this program a try. Worked excellent! Car has never run better!

Thanks a bunch for this utility guys!

Hi,
I used mafadjust on a 7.3.1 Alfa Romeo 147 GTA
the output values appear incorrect:

MLOFS is 200 kg/h (2000 in map), and the program does the calculations as if it was worth about 59..

Example: diameter 70 to 78 mm (+24,16%)

Minimum value in the map is 1385 (138,5 kg/h)
1385-2000 = -615
-615 * 1.2416 = -763.6
-763.6 + 2000 = 1236.416

The program says 1281

Maximum value in the map 14791
14791-2000 = 12791
12791 * 1.2416 = 15881
15881 + 2000 = 17881

The program says 18364

What is wrong?

Upload the file and the command you used, and i will take a look.

Offset of map is 13808
old maf id: 70 mm
new maf id: 78 mm
surface increment: 24.16% (correct)

Here the command line

C:\mafadjust>mafadjust ss.mod 70 78 0x13808

increasing MLHFM with 24.16% from 1479.1kg/h -> 1836.4988571429kg/h
increasing done, generating output
starting to write results to Binary File ss_mod.bin
starting to write result to ClipBoard File ss_mod.txt
done!

C:\mafadjust>

Up!

For me the map looks very good and should work, did you tested?
If you want to know how the values are calculated just study the code :)

I used this corrector on my file, but if I use the specified offset my file gets 1kb too big for some reason (513KB). If I manually copy the new values into the map, everything works.
I do have another question about scaling, I have tried using a 225hp maf scaling for my 150hp ecu, and dont get any maf reading. If I compare the 2, they are not really alike. I find the last 5 values of the 150hp version (top) to be strange, what is the function? This is a 018P ecu, but my 018AA and 018AR show the same style. The BAM (below) keeps a more lineair increase all the way to the end, but starts with smaller values and ends with larger. Anyone cares to explain me the difference in style, or is it just wrong adresses  ??? ::) To be more precise, I would like to know what the meaning is of those different style values, and if I need to adjust them when scaling.

Upload the file you are trying and post the command that you are using to scale it.
And i try to help.

For example, this attached AA bin. I use the command " mafadjust 018AA_ori.bin 59 69 0x10C46 "
This leads to the attached mod bin of 513kb  :o
I then copied the content of the 1x512 map and pasted this into my ori bin, then I get a 512kb bin that works. It is strange that it becomes 513kb in the first place though!

Actually, you are looking at 524288 vs 524289 (windows sucks ass).

Looks like a bad bug in the script. Somebody should fix it

Yeah that's what I thought. The scaling itself works fine  ::)
Could be linked to the fact I split the (fake) 1024kb bin into 512kb with TunerPro.
**oops I found my MLHFM adress to be wrong after all, that answers my first question :-) Correct adress is @ 0x10C3C in the 018AA bin

Fixed, mafadjust have a small autodetect map function, on me7 you can try to run without entering mlhfm offset, in most cases the tool will find the correct offset.

mafadjust.exe 018AA_ori.bin 59 69

increasing MLHFM with 36.77% from 944.3kg/h -> 1291.5289571962kg/h
increasing done, generating output
starting to write results to Binary File 018AA_ori_mod.bin
starting to write result to ClipBoard File 018AA_ori_mod.txt
done!

Guys, pay attention to the output! If you get an error, or a message such as:

selected map looks not like MLHFM, please check after process

post the output file here so we can fix it!

I used the same method on MED9 to scale up MSHFMTPH by 76.37mm^2/65.92mm^2 = 1.34218 (34.218%) for a new larger MAF housing. The car runs fine, but when I log mass air flow the maximum value is still the same? With the OEM MAF it would max out at 363.76 g/s, and now with the bigger MAF and the rescaled MSHFMTPH, it still maxes out at 363.76 g/s?? Shouldn't the larger MAF be reading more flow after the scaling?

epy

You are logging with VCDS right?

I am logging with the Meastro cable, which I think is the same thing. I also have VCDS. Should I log a different set of channels? I think it is accurate when it says it is maxed out because my fueling also gets off with O2 corrections maxing out at +25

Why would you expect the reading to change? You have the same engine/setup correct?

The reading should be the same up to the max value.  The larger MAF should have a larger range and be able to read a larger max.

Specifically. The voltage or frequency at which a given mass flux is measured is less for a larger MAF such that the max voltage or frequency would represent a higher mass flux value.

But the airflow hasn't increased?

Yes it has. I maxed out the smaller MAF. So I installed a bigger one so that the sensor is no longer out of range. But they both max out at exactly the same mass air flow value enemy as I continue to accelerate as the rpm's increase. Then the fueling goes lean because the mass air flow is increasing but the MAF is not measuring it. So the car adds too little fuel.

Sensor value absolute maximums are 364.08 on VAGCOM and 499 on ECUx.

That is interesting. So it is just the logging tool which is maxing out. Funny thing is I was using my Maestro cable for my "vag com logging" and it maxed at 363.76. I thought it was the same as a vag com cable when if came to logs. But as you indicate, as soon as I switched to my actual Vag Com cable, the max value I top out as is now 364.08. Wtf? I guess Maestro cannot be used as a log cable without caveats.

Can I change these maximums ? ???

You'll have to run the MAF underscaled.

Since the maximum is only in the logger, is the ECU seeing real values? If so, what is the limit in the ECU?

Yes the Maximum is only for logging and diagnostic.

iirc around 900 g/sec, which should be loggable by ME7L

Nye:

Stop thinking locally. This is a GLOBAL initiative!

Not everyone is tuning ME7 bruh!

haha

So who's hit the hard MAF limit? I want 900g/s!

So is the ECU seeing the correct info? Or is there a cap in the ECU also?

EPY

Data acquisition package like INCA would log well beyond the range of VCDS and such tools. But cost puts it beyond the reach of most people :(

I'm using this tool to learn how to scale my maf when I decide to upgrade my turbos/or go STK. I keep getting 2 errors with the file. I've done it both ways with and without the offset. What am I doing wrong? File is the community stage 2 file which I renamed ONLY for maf scaling purposes(I'm too lazy to type the whole thing in cmd)

Did you correct the checksums after the mod?

Sorry for the late reply, but no I didn't correct. thought it was done automatically. I went to download the plugin for tuner-pro but its 122 euro now? thats almost 150. is there a different option?

You didn't bother reading any of the checksum stickies in the checksum forum?

Or, say, anything in the s4wiki?

Or even my sig?

I was actually trying to remember who's signature had the link to the checksum checker/corrector(yours) but couldn't find it. So thanks for posting, I only really have time for about an hour each night to read up and learn (2 jobs) so I apologize that I have been shortcutting it.

.

Is mlhfm the only thing that needs to be changed in regards to scaling the maf???

Did anyone ever try this on a 95 mm MAF with Bosch sensor element? It seems that the generated
MLHFM is way out of what it is supposed to be as for me at least the MAF values get way overscaled
and throws load calculation completely out of whack and by scaling it back down i am almost at the
same values as with the OEM 83mm MAF but then obviously the sensor can't really read much more
than in the OEM housing.

Did you solve this?

I am experiencing the same thing, although I manually calculated them, but the difference between the values given with mafadjust.exe is very small

It was turbulent air. The plastic housing deformed and there was a huge leak on the bottom part
which could not be seen and it was sucking air in like crazy there. Since then i replaced it with a new
one and calculated for myself and that has been giving good results for the last couple of months.

ok, thanks.

I am using an aluminiun housing and have no leaks,

I down scaled it a bit and for now its all good.

I am basically running an MLHFM calculated with a spreadsheet instead of the tool,
I think the offiset (MLOFS) handling is buggy in the script but I did not have time to look at it.

Can u share the Spreadsheat please?

Hi All
Do u start the MAF scaling and end scaling with the calculated percentage or will start and end scaling be divergent?
The reason behind my question is that my lowest value on the scale is 3.5 Kg/hr but when I do a log
the Air mass sometimes drop below that value to around 2.xx kg/hr. Can someone please explain why this is happening.
I used the Bosch sensor in a 83mm housing and did the scaling at 52%. Normal intake diameter for the mk5 gti is 67mm.

Hi all. i tried to scale my 1.8t 225hp bam file from 73mm to 86mm maf case and mlsofs 200 and bosch oem sensor with this tool.
The script run ok and the file was created with some issues. In new file the lowest values are smaller than original file and after they are higher than them. I thinked all new values must be higher than original values. Did i wrong?

Original 1,8t 225hp maf has plastic frame+steel grid, which means crossection is smaller than S6 maf(instaled only steel grid), see attached picture. When rescaling MAF, should i have evalute area of plastic frame, or just measured inner diameters?

Always ID

Air does not flow through solid plastic :P

Sorry for my english(it's not my native language), maybe not cleary asked. That i wanted to say: BAM maf (left picture) has aditional plastic frame inside maf, which means real cross section area is smaller than identical ID tube cross section area (as you wrote - "Air does not flow through solid plastic"). Im going to instal new maf without plastic frame, so rescaling only by ID works fine and difference by plastic frame will not affect anything?

Few mm +- will not make any harm. Don't bother with that

thanks

Hey, How can i get this script? arturbrojek@gmail.com

Hi all,

Fisrt of all I want to thank everybody involved in the creation of this tool. Waiting for hardware to test the results in the car but looks great.

I am converting from a 1.8t AEB maf (67mm ID measured) to a VR6 ABV maf (78mm ID measured). 35.53% cross section area increase.

The program does it's job correctly, but when comparing the rescale file obtained with the program, to the map in a stock vr6 file, there is a discrepancy in the maximum reading possible:

- Rescaled maf file shows max 912.63kg/h
- Stock oem VR6 files show max reading 988.5kg/h

I assume this has to do something with the reverse flow capabilites of 1.8t maf that VR6 does not have. I also read it may have to do with the offset in VR6 map (0) and the offset in 1.8t map (-200).

Does somebody know or can confirm, just for knowledge, the reason this discrepancy between the rescaled map and OEM map happens?

Thank you so much. Best regards!

Why this original exe file gives a positive for malware ?

Discovery was made 2020.
Here is the twitter post by the guy who discoreved it.

Can you develop a bit please? From what I read maybe even the creator of the file may not know, the code is publicly available and mazer has been a good contributor to this forum.

Thanks mate