NefMoto

For some reason this is treated as guarded info. Ironically I only sought out a solution because of this lack of info. I have run mafless on my shop car off and on for various reasons for years yet never done it without faults and losing cruise control/esp/etc as well as less than stellar fueling plus limp mode so you have to stay off an n75. The fueling thing is easy to sort with throttle mapping as documented on this site. Thanks to masterj (http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=531.msg73910#msg73910), he got me thinking at looking at it again in an effort to solve just because it shouldnt been an unknown at this point 15 years into our platform.

Im not saying this is the only way to do this, the best way or without any possible fault. I have tested it in a limited capacity but it seems to work perfect to achieve my goal. If you have a better way, don't post and just say that (looking at you prj), tell us what you do and why.

mbox:
1b9e2 - KFMLDMN threshold for B_minflr diagnosis HFM/HLM change entire map to 0
10d69 - CWBGMSZS change from 2 to 0
1819c - CDEHFM maf code word change from 1 to 0
18802 - CWDHFM maf code word  change from 0 to 1
and finally, the one map you can change alone to simply remove the illusive p0102 fault and sensor error limp but will not have cruise and esp without the other 4 changes...
10716 - CLALM maf voltage signal error class change from 3 to 1

With a 5120 setup and properly calibrated throttle maps, I really like how smooth the car is on this setup, for the first time ever with very simple changes.

[applaud]

Thanx for sharing.

Very nice info. Thanks!

in me7.5 i change a few bytes to prevent sending this b_error to CAN and zeros CLALM
doesnt know if its right way but ASR/ESP working good, no issues at all.

Masterj seems to have found the solution on 7.5 and it's a little different. This combo was the only one I found via trial and error with referencing the FR that accomplished getting boost control and cruise to work. My car also isn't standard at all, but I tried to remove other possibly influencing variables, delects and hacks. I will test this on a ko4 or ko4 car asap and report back.

The same hack for ME7.5 can be used here. It's just a TDMLMN hack IIRC.

I tried his exact hack and on my car I didn't have cruise or boost control. What do you see that I could do without? 

I never looked much into mafless on narrowband.

I have nothing constructive to say-haha.

This is the best way to do this hack. Good job.
Proper way is sensor in inlet manifold ;)

ok maybe im asking a stupid questions but why we need a load calculation by map sensor in the manifold?
seems that all working good - load calc, trims, o2 reg etc
and what a good point to start from? dissasembling some of 1.4 ECUs like AXP or BCA which uses map sensor to calc load?

Because on part load there are several inaccuracy issues with load calculation via throttle plate.
Also the secondary load signal is not terribly accurate in all weather conditions.
Transients are not picked up as well either.

You are basically running alpha/n multiplied by pressure pre-tb... It's no substitute for speed density or mass-flow.

Is this can message error prevention done by cwmsrcan?
What is the exact name of b_error signal?

I was messing around with this for a little bit tonight
When setting CLALM from 3 to 1 I was still getting p0102, setting it to 0 instead eliminated this.

Is there anybody willing to give up the address of CLALM and location of B_error for ME7.5 (518AK). Or even just a simpler explanation of this process. thanks in advance  

I think the address of CLALM should be 0x1C4CF in 518AK, if I did my math right.

Round of applause for this guy. I was never able to pull this off with just codewords and maps. I had to do an assembly hack

Actually for ME7.1 you have to do more than one

You don't, single byte.

Have you got around to trying this yet on a K04 car? I don't think I'd do it, but curious as to how it works out! I have driven a MAFless 2.7 before, the only diff I could tell was when coming to a stop it seemed to idle hunt a little bit until you were fully stopped. It is super nice to clean up the engine bay, that's for sure.

The only way this will work remotely correctly is if you have setup all the throttle plate calculations properly. If you can do that, you can tune a MAF.

Not even remotely a good reason to go MAFless.

i run my 1.8t stroker without maf because the car just don't want to run with a maf .
Car run great like stock ,i have maf reading ,use lamfa for fuel and everything seem ok for now ,but can't seem to delete maf code ,zeroed clalm but it's always here  :-\

Also not a good reason.

you are right ,but it's work  ;D

Actually, you are right. Figured out another way. Single byte + map change.

There's more than one way to skin a cat ;)

Map change? No.
Single byte code change and error class delete.

What byte?

Depends on ECU firmware. Different for every file. It is a code change. A patch.

I still fail to see the point unless you add a real MAP and inject the result into load.

What ecu?

Sorry, I did. Same results as on my single turbo car. I just unplugged that maf and changed these and it ran with no errors or feature loss.

This, but this is for those that are simply choosing to not have a maf or dont have one. A number of big turbo guys would like to go MAFless and set the car up on a per use basis quickly at the track and such.

Dude. Stop...

Everyone uses the cars different and has different goals. Race guys can use this who want to drive to the track better, asthetics guys can use this for many reasons, the crazy project guys can use this when they run their 4 turbos and 5 intake pipes or whatever they choose. How about a guy who maybe wants to swap a 2.7t into something and keeps motronic not because there is one less thing to figure out on the dune buggy hovercraft. You are obsessing over this with hostile, unconstructive negativity for an ecu and hardware change. Not very nye spirited imho.

All that can be done correctly with correct load using two MAP sensors.

Makes no difference on WOT, makes a lot of difference part throttle with changing conditions.

I like your method of the added map sensor. One day I will give it a try on my personal car.

Are there ASM hacks needed to use a second map in place of the MAF?

Most definitely.

No error class delete  ;)

Just one assembly change and one map change or 3 assembly changes.

You can just hack the assembly so the error never really happens so you don't have to delete the error class.

... cmon dude :/

In the interest of making progress:

The only way I know of is to feed MAP sensor voltage to the MAF input, adjust MLHFM/KFKHFM to reflect voltage -> pressure, then use assembly code to drop the result directly into ps_w in BGSRM (instead of the current code, which is to integrate (rlroh-rl)*fvisrm).

Then (obviously) code out any MAF related diagnosis, and hope that rlroh et al aren't used anywhere else. I have not done this work. This is just theory based on the FR.

I'm sure there are other ways.

If you know of them don't bother posting if the only purpose is to prove you know more than everybody else.

Some people didn't read post #1  :-\

I was referring to using a real MAP sensor, not the alpha-n hack.

And I am referring to the people who keep referring to better methods very loosely.

I dont give a shit about that, if I'm honest. What matters is if they publish their work or not.

The problem arises when they don't, and you can't even verify if it is "better" or not.

Bottom line: real speed density SHOULD (in theory) be more accurate than alpha-n.

In practice? Who knows unless the result is reproducible.

Some interesting stuff going on in here!

Doesn't the Motronic substitute the PS_W value directly for the contrived MAP value past a certain throttle % anyway (once WDKUGDN is exceeded, I think)?

Could this not be made to happen more often in some manner that doesn't throw loads of other stuff out?

ps_w is used pretty much everywhere for fueling... and, in fact, for calculating load.

So it really is a case of just hacking real MAP output into ps_w.

At least, that is my (purely theoretical understanding) of what prj is suggesting.

Of course, without publicly testable code, it will remain theory.

Ahhh, sorry, I'm misremembering my acronyms, there are so many! pvdks_w I think I mean, the pressure in the boost pipe from the boost sensor :)

What I meant to mean above is; doesn't the manifold modelled pressure (PS_W / PSP_W) get replaced by the actual measured pressure in the boost pipe after the ecu goes over to the "unthrottled" mode, as in past the point at which the ecu is programmed to think the throttle has no effect?

Could this be a hacky way to achieve the MAP -> PS_W we seek here, mechanically by plumbing the boost sensor into the manifold, and hacktastically by telling the ecu it is always in unthrottled mode?

OH! Ok, I see what you are getting at. That seems like it should work, except there might be a lot of places where upstream throttle plate pressure is expected to be different from MAP...

Not saying it isn't possible, just a bit more unsure of the repercussions vs straight replacing ps_w.

No. It never does this.

For hints on how to do the conversion, look at 2.5NA Jetta ECU's...
They have MAP and MAF and can run without the MAF from manifold sensor...

I am not interested in posting this publicly. Besides, it is a new implementation for every ECU.
So far I have done 1.8T, 2.7TT and R32.

How do people overcome slower map vs maf signal response when in mafless? Any hints on which maps to tackle in ESUK module? Initially when transitioning from idle to wot I see a big lambda correction request of ~30% for a fraction of second. Anyone encountered similar situation?

I was under the impression this was one of the downsides of no maf. I believe you need to adjust the throttle plate maps, so the ecu can predict in advance (as best as it can) what the airflow is going to be.

log with a maf and correct air over throttle maps based off actual air flow

Hi
Are there any news on this ps_w  thing?
If we can just can change ps_w to max 5120 it would be great.
I have also seen a r32 working with map instead of maf.

Think so? Maybe somebody should discuss it here on nefmoto (http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=3027.0title=). Might even result in a link to it (http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning#Primary) in in the s4wiki.

Cray.

If you're talking about the KFMSNWDK & KFWDKMSN then they're fixed long time ago. My AFR overall is ok in whole rpm range on wot and idle. Problem now is with these lean conditions when letting of gas pedal (as in throttle plate close). I thought I could workaround them by lowering KFVAKL in ESUK module (wall wetting) on deceleration, but that did not help a bit (see attached log).

You have no MAP sensor, only boost, so there is no way of accurately determining partial filling.

Rick

Thanks goes to fukenbroken for pointing me to b_statmd variable. So I guess what prj said about easier fix is actually true. Basically if someone wants to remove maf here's what you have to do: set CLALM error class all bits to 0. Then apply one patch to logic in CAN module (look at the attached image).

Hopefully this is finally completely open to the public without anything hidden.

How does this solve the no MAP problem?

Yup, that's exactly how to do it.

However, if you are actually doing it correct with two MAP sensors, then you do not need to do this, as the ECU is still running from the primary load signal.
So E_lm is never set, except for if when something happens to the MAP sensor (if you configured the DHFM module correctly, to diagnose the sensor instead of the MAF)...

I have few questions though. I tracked few things from DHFM and want someone to correct me if I'm wrong.
1. Throttle plate diagnostics @ GGDVE-GLPWDK13? Haven't logged it but looks like when b_ehfm = 1 it sets the b_dkp1e & b_dkp1np and I guess they should set error for throttle plate signal (DDVE-DK1P)? Same goes for the GGDVE-GLPWDK23, no?
2. Situation @ BGSRM-BPIRG. When b_hfm = 0, then psmx_w is not 4, but rather map FPVMXN2. Does that look ok, or we should fix it back to 4 for mafless?

E_lm is not the bit you need to modify.

As for the rest, I don't care how you are doing the alpha-n solution. Alpha-n is for losers, like running the ECU permanently in limp mode.

There are public A2Ls for the "MAP sensor only" ME7 ECUs, so you can disassemble those and figure out the "factory" way to running a secondary (or, in fact, now primary) MAP. Search for "SY_DSS=1" in A2L tags. I was planning on researching this, but didn't get to it yet. It's also a good idea to search for the magic "DSS" abbreviation in the FR to get an idea of how it is supposed to work. ME9 FR shows some more detail.

Although hacking GGHFM, DHFM, etc seem like an easier way - but that's still a lot of work.

The only thing you use GGHFM and DHFM for is diagnosis, unless you want to roll your own.
I don't see the point when everything is already there. Simply make MLHFM linear and fill KFMLDMX and LDMN with sane pressure values, so that if sensor is screwed it will switch to the pre-throttle one.

The MAP signal into load calculation has to be done differently of course, that's all custom code - you will have to rewrite BGSRM.

hi, can you give some help seting e_lm to off ?
my cruise control works ok , no error in engine , but i have esp light on and error saying please check engine ecu fault codes.
i have done the 5 modifications in the first page .
thanks in advance

I'm in the same situation, i'm running mafless well, the car is perfect, run faster... but the ecu is in limp mode,esp light on and not working, 50/50 brake etc...

I think i need the patch to apply for a ME7.5 .

Is there anyone here willing help me to understand what to do to interrupt the can signal, or this E_lm thing?
Thank you very much

i can pm me or message me on fb marty fragale

No. Just no.

Please stop spreading this idea that MAFless is somehow magical.

IT IS NOT.

It's not magical but i'm running mafless and i need to correct this limp mode without esp and brake fully working  ;)

Add a MAF, problem solved.

This is not an answer and solution.

I have intake filter and turbo of 101mm (4") ... i don't wanna use pipe reduction to mount a little maf moreover scaled.

All the great street cars with world record on drag race or 100-200 , 100-250 are running mafless... so... it's not as bad as you are saying.  ;)

My car have 701,4 HP, 666 WHP and 723 N of torque.  ;D

I don't think is going bad  ;)

You'll never solve all of the other problems without a proper MAP sensor.

Or, if all you care about is trap speed and dyno queen numbers, then thats that.

IMO that isn't what proper tuning is about.

If it was, we'd all run standalone, drag radials, and solid rear axles.

But that's only the half of the truth. They also do not run Alpha/N!

Precisely.

use 100mm HFM instead ;)

(http://x)

Does anyone of you could tell me what is this Alpha/N please?

I wonder what would happen if you simply googled " alpha n" ?

Alpha-N is also sometimes called “TPS maps” because the only sensor that is used for determination of fueling is the Throttle Position Sensor. (And measured RPM, or how fast the motor is spinning) Fuel and timing requirements for the engine are expressed as a function of RPM and TPS.

Right ? Ok thank you ;)

Not true. Just because an engine management system is mafless, does not mean it's automatically alpha-N.

No. Exactly why I hate this thread and I hate the kind people who are argue about how great mafless is... since it is very likely they are also clueless.

Google speed-density.

And, if you bothered to actually read the rest of the thread, you would have noticed mention of adding a real MAP downstream of the TB and using it to generate a load measurement in the ECU.

Hi, I've read all post in this topic, and the other one (consistent) dealing about mafless. I agree that Mafless don't bring more power, it just allow to run without upgrading maf sensor. But After all those reading I still few comfusion. If I do use Masterj hack, what is the right way to correct AFR in WOT condition? and if I put a map in TB, I can do an estimation about the airflow that come into the engine at x mbar, and as I have the linearisation of map sensor I can "approximately convert mv to airflow"? or it need more works? HFM do integrate IAT sensor right? so it will throw IAT sensor fault code no?

This seriously cannot still be debated, can it?

Mafless is a dumb term that someone else started, so it stuck.

Disconnecting the MAF on a system that uses the MAF as it's primary load input is stupid, end of story.  You're taking away the one thing that lets the ECU accurately see the air mass entering the system and derive load from the transfer function (MLHFM).

Once the primary load input is removed, the ECU which can no longer see what is going on fall back on limp home tables which are a function of TPS vs RPM also known as Alpha-N, this is at the most basic level and combined with other tables to account for (limited) basic load calculations.  IAT/MAT sensor is in the manifold and is a correction after the fact.  The pressure sensor (people here call it a "MAP" sensor which it is not) is PRE-THROTTLE.

If you understand the consequences of tuning Alpha-N style with boost (or even NA to a point) you generally will understand why it is the last thing you want to do vs having an actual load calculation (Speed density) or sensor (MAF) if you have a choice.

There is no Speed Density available on most ME7.1/7.11/7.5 (some ECU version have MAF + SD, or just SD - I'm not sure what ME version they are), the code is physically missing and can not be just "turned on" so the only thing this thread is really about is how to disable the ECU's warning/limit tables and force the ECU to stay in limp mode to allow for limited tuning known as Alpha-N, and as such is a dumb thing to do.

If you don't exactly know WHY that is, you should seriously consider learning so before switching to this method.

I don't understand why people can't seem to comprehend this point.

I don't understand why people can't accept the peoples that wanna go mafless or wanna learn how to do the hack for limp, brake 50/50 and esp instead!

It seems you (all)  take this something like to much personal... but it's not... and you  have to respect other people's thoughts.

Because those people invariably are too stupid or ignorant to actually post a coherent motivation.


I respect intelligent, well informed, coherent thoughts. I take wilful ignorance personally because it is never a good thing for anyone.

When throttle is WOT, isn't the pre-throttle pressure sensor very close to being a MAP ? If so, then any driving conditions below WOT, where the 'MAP' is not really a MAP, are less important to MANY people, ignorant or not.

Do you also look down on old school muscle car ppl when they have access to all the EFI systems but choose to stick with carbs? Is there an ignorance at play there as well?

edit: my point I tried (horribly) to make with that last statement is that cars were tuned without all these sensors in the past and were hailed as perfectly fine. Mechanically tuning a carborater and distributor can be just as fun as hitting keys on a keyboard. The act of tial and error tweaking 'backup' maps can be considered a combination of the two.

Different ppl have different experiences that mold their motivations. Consider the ppl (and there are plenty of them out there) that have had bad experiences with replacing sensors after sensors. Sure you could bark at them saying they just didnt find the root cause, but their perception has already been molded. You can't expect them to weight all their previous, personal experienced against words from a screenname on a forum and be converted right then and there. Some are willing to run on blind maps just to stay away from fragile (in their minds) sensors.

I run a MAF. But prj has given enough hints that make me interested in rerouting/copying udslsum_l into uhfm_w. Still alphaN but avoids all the limp headaches. Then just need 2nd map (3rd for me :) ) sensor and then make it's voltage reading feed uhfm_w. <- this is the secret . sauce. Or is it as simple had changing maf connector to map connector and Bob's ur Uncle? I know I doing tomorrow.

ABSOLUTELY. If you get this working, even I would consider running no MAF.

You're wrong... there is nothing personal at all about this. The only reason you would use that an an argument is because you don't understand what maffless means and how much worse it is vs the correct options.

No one here cares if you do or do not hack the ECU into limp mode, believe me.

No it is not.  The sensor is primarily used for boost control.


I would say that is a really broad statement to make.  Why would conditions below WOT where you really WANT to have the best resolution and actual load calcs less important to people.  That makes absolutely zero sense.


I do.  Carbs are stupid and unefficeient.  And the only reason these days to run a carb is if you're so set in your limited ways and unwilling to learn and make the switch OR if your racing/class guidelines don't allow anything else.  Any other reason means you're just leaving efficiency on the table and behind the times.


That is a horrible point.  Imagine where we would be (not just in motorsports) if people thought "ah, it's good enough"

Typically one wants to set up controls based on the direct variable of interest (mass air flow), and resort to a secondary variable (manifold pressure) or (God forbid) a tertiary variable (throttle plate angle) only if there's a compelling reason to do so, e.g., sensor technology just isn't there, maybe response to transients isn't great, something like that. 

Purely philosophical argument; some carbs (Dellorto's!) are cool just because they are (and make great throttle bodies for home-brew FI, best of both worlds).  Depends on the intended character of the vehicle in question.

Got a lot of interresting answer. So I do understand that you are fed of people thinking that mafless will make more power, but this is not my case. I need to tune a big turbo application and when I hit full boost my MAF is maxed out and I don't want to buy a bigger MAF sensor (even if I know that this is the best solution). I agree that the pressure sensor read pressure pre-throttle and at part throttle it won't be really accurate but the car I want to tune like this is not really made to go shopping, I use it to drag race so I am WOT 90% of the time this is why I don't care of part throttle and I don't want to buy a biggest MAF. Actually I don't have skill level to disassemble and add extra feature, so I can't do any variable redirection.
I didn't want to hurt anybody, so let me apologize if some of you has been hurt, I like to learn so I ask...

I don't understand what you people think this is personal.  No one here cares if you want to tune the ECU in limp home mode. 

If it works for your application, go ahead and do it.

I tune 30r, 35r, 6266, 6262 etc mafless with large (890, 1000, 1700, 2200cc) injectors all the time. I can honestly say id rather setup a maffed car over mafless.  lots of fine tuning for large throttle with no maf. most times ill install a maf to get air over throttle maps close then remove the maf after, patch up dtc's and can hack. Mafless works but you are sacrificing resolution over all and requires a lot more fine tuning vs a mafed car. 

Uhm, you are not supposed to be "tuning" KFMSNWDK or KFWDKMSN. They are simply the amount of air the throttle flows at an angle and the inverse map of that.

This is a constant value depending on the size and angle opening of the throttle valve. The RPM there is mostly unneccessary and is there to correct for intake tract resonances. Basically KFWDKMSN/KFMSNWDK is for the throttle plate like MLHFM*KFKHFM is for the MAF. Nothing to tune there, you take the values for the TB you have and put them in, done. The throttle maps simply encode the intake tract effects into them, but they are very minor - in many ECU's not used at all.

If you are changing those maps on your alpha-n cars you are doing it horribly wrong and do not understand load capture on the ECU :(

Call me retarded but isn't the MAF input to the ECU simply just a voltage signal?
Don't MAP sensors output a voltage signal as well?
Why would one not be able to log the MAF reading along side a standalone MAP sensor and find a correlation between the 2? Alter the MAF maps to follow the MAP sensors curve instead of a MAF sensors curve and adjust and tweak as necessary?

Pressure != mass air flow

They are two completely different things. converting pressure to mass air flow requires a few other measurements.

Exercise: name them.

One shows flow, other shows pressure. You could say flow has RPM and engine data embedded into it.
Also, none of these cars have a MAP sensor, the pre-tb sensor is not a MAP sensor.

Now, on cars with actual MAP sensors - if you log airflow and RPM, and translate it to air/hub, then alongside it log MAP, RPM and IAT, you can fill a 3D MAPxRPM map, which tells you air/hub at a certain RPM and pressure ratio and then you still need to correct it by IAT. This table is called a VE table. I recommend you read up on how speed-density works.

This is very much simplified though. Because the MAP signal is much slower and more imprecise compared to the MAF signal - partly due to needing a lot more filtering and because it has to be sampled at a constant time relative to the position of every firing cylinder (as opposed to MAF that can be sampled continously or at an arbitrary interval), the transients in a SD system are usually compensated by an alpha/n blend.

Considering that the MAF has a 3D correction chart that utilizes RPM and load, I'd be willing to bet that some kind of interface could handle the conversion fairly easily. Might have to give it a go.....

I agree although;
Low air flow (ie throttle plate closed) equals vacuum and therefore a low voltage signal. Remarkably similar to a MAF signal.
Mid airflow (ie part throttle) equals somewhere between vacuum and boost, once again a rise in voltage should be able to be correlated between the two.
WOT will vary between no pressure/vacuum and max boost. As airflow, and as a side result pressure, increases,so does our MAP signal voltage.
The only place where I see this system causing some issues is WOT at max boost pressure.

Sorry, but you don't have the slightest idea of what you are on about. Just drop the subject.
You are searching for a "solution" to a "problem" that you invented based on false premises.

ME7 is a speed density ECU, all that is needed is measure pressure directly, modify the asm code a little and tune the VE tables, job done.
It is a problem that has been solved.

Unless you are willing to share the coding changes and how you made the maps, people like me who aren't programmers have to find viable alternatives. My idea would work perfectly well. Use a standalone module to emulate a steady voltage signal modified to simulate a MAF signal is very feasible with something like an Arduino system.
Once again, share or stop insulting people trying to attack the situation from a different perspective.
I don't want to run a MAF because I hate them. Plain and simple. I don't care who you are or how good you are, placing even a minor restriction in the intake leaves power potential on the table and speed density systems are much more forgiving.

Converting to speed density is not easy, period.


If you aren't a programmer, there is literally no way you can change ME7 to be speed density.


If this worked, you COULD do it all in a map trivially. But you can't.


Ridiculous. Just about every part of this statement is wrong.

If you could emulate the MAF signal with an external device, there would be no need to dig into ME's programming.

I honestly couldn't care any less if you agree or disagree with my opinion on MAFs. You like them, run them. I don't like them so I'm finding ways to not run them.

You still need a real MAP (not a pre-tb pressure sensor), RPM, IAT, and a VE table, all three of which still need to be calibrated, and you still need to be a "programmer" to write the algorithms.

Yes, you can do it using a MAF as a reference, and go through every possible RPM/IAT/pressure combination.


Why is it that everybody that hates them doesn't have an objective reason for "hating" them? It defies explanation. Speed density is a huge hack. MAFs were invented to get around it.

Simple basic programming is much easier to learn than disassembling Bosch's programming and altering it.

Many people who have dealt with MAFs limitations and high failure rates despise them, much as as I do. They are finicky, prone to change reading values over there lifetime, shock sensitive, etc etc.

Also when I stated standalone MAP, I was obviously not referring to the boost sensor.

Modern hot film MAFs are no more or less prone to failure than any other sensor, including IAT and pressure sensors.

Incorrect. If that were true I wouldn't have a stack of those bastards from replacing them for random side jobs. Car runs like crap? The go-to is always unplug the MAF.

Either way, why all the negativity toward someone trying to do something different and new with the platform? We have obvious expert trolls who like to strut around professing their expertise without bothering to share any of it. I learn by doing, and I will do this. Why? I have a need to run a filter directly on my big single and refuse to pay a massive premium for blow through MAFs that require massive amounts of time tuning to get right. Speed density, which is NOT a hack by any means, is my answer. Whether it be ME or complete standalone. The former is within my budget at this time so that is the route I intend to take.

Quite possibly the easiest of ALL sensors to replace in a car....

You're going to add a piggyback which is going to introduce at least 4 or 5 additional potential error modes. Reliability is not going to get better, especially if you intend on using it in many other cars.

If not, and it is a one-off, knock yourself out (if only in the spirit of learning/experimentation; there is nothing wrong with that). But don't fool yourself into thinking you've designed a better or more reliable system.

I triple checked all my posts. Never once said I knew it all or that my idea was better or more reliable.
I even stated in my very first sentence in my reply that I was speculating and thinking 'out loud' about my idea.

Want to run proper SD?
Either Learn to disassemble or fit a standalone.

Want to only run 1/4 mile races? Run it alpha/n.

End of story, your useless offtopic banter does not add in any way to this thread.

Or I'll do it my way

What a fun thread.

Nye hates it though, which makes no sense. The thread is titled "me7.1 2.7t mafless error solution" and thats exactly what it supposed to be about... ::)

Would somebody care to give me a little pointer how this patch is achieved? (see attached, posted earlier).

I posted the solution in another thread

Found it, thank you!

http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=2636.60 in case someone needs it

whats the lowest duty one can have with 2200cc? is there a way around the 1.7ms?