erroob0977
Full Member
Karma: +12/-0
 Offline
Posts: 66
|
 |
« Reply #240 on: December 21, 2012, 12:02:31 PM »
|
|
|
Would you mind sharing your Mlhfm?
Here's what I'm using now, It's for the HPX sensor in a stock hitachi 73mm housing (except modified for the slot style flange) and stock air box with the front lower triangle cut out. It's scaled as close to real values as possible, using a KFKHFM set to all 1's for now. Be careful with it, do some part-throttle pulls and watch fuel trims/WB AFR before doing a WOT run. I have only tested this curve up to about 3.25V (320 g/s), and I kept it almost linear after that point due to the flow characteristics/restrictions of the stock air box (based on the shape of the stock KFKHFM) with the intention of fine tuning the rest of MLHFM when I get there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
2004 A6 2.7T 6MT: Built motor with SRM RS6/K24s on E85
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #241 on: December 22, 2012, 12:54:09 PM »
|
|
|
Yours is quite a but different. According to yours, I definitely would have been running lean up top. I am going to take the MLHFM posted, and multiply it by the difference in diameter and use that in one of my first start files. I am also going to break down and order the LCD display for my Zeitronix so I can see the afr at all times instead of only when I am logging.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
britishturbo
|
|
« Reply #242 on: December 22, 2012, 12:59:23 PM »
|
|
|
Yours is quite a but different. According to yours, I definitely would have been running lean up top. I am going to take the MLHFM posted, and multiply it by the difference in diameter and use that in one of my first start files. I am also going to break down and order the LCD display for my Zeitronix so I can see the afr at all times instead of only when I am logging.
You should always always have a display for your wideband. Its one of the most critical tuning aids. You won't regret it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #243 on: December 22, 2012, 01:00:37 PM »
|
|
|
I know, I know, I know  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #244 on: December 22, 2012, 01:05:49 PM »
|
|
|
Here is my calculated MLHFM for the HPS in a 3" tube. The first column is the Erroob's 73mm, and the next is mine calculated off of his. I multiplied his values by 4.383561643835621, the difference in diameter.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #245 on: December 23, 2012, 12:07:21 AM »
|
|
|
Here is my calculated MLHFM for the HPS in a 3" tube. The first column is the Erroob's 73mm, and the next is mine calculated off of his. I multiplied his values by 4.383561643835621, the difference in diameter.
Technically, you want the difference in cross sectional area... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #246 on: December 23, 2012, 11:08:58 PM »
|
|
|
Technically, you want the difference in cross sectional area...
This is one thing that I've never got resolution on, I can't find it now, but I remember a thread where people were talking about the MAF scaling of Tony's stage 3 tune and MAF scaling in general, and it turned out that scaling by a ratio of the maf diameters, rather than by the maf cross-sectional area like one would think, yielded the right results. If I recall correctly, you were a part of that conversation. Your current opinion is that MAF scaling should be done using a ratio of the cross-sectional area, and not a ratio of the diameters? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #247 on: December 23, 2012, 11:24:38 PM »
|
|
|
In theory, yea, it should be cross sectional area. In practice, it seemed like diameter had better results, but I have no idea why.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #248 on: December 24, 2012, 01:57:50 AM »
|
|
|
I do remember the thread where you said you got better results using diameter. I also tried diameter versus area and I got better results. That could be due to the fact that the scaling came out lower so I wasn't pegging the MAF as bad.
I shouldn't have to worry about that with the new MAF, so I will try it both ways to see which one is a better start.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #249 on: December 24, 2012, 02:12:31 AM »
|
|
|
That could be due to the fact that the scaling came out lower so I wasn't pegging the MAF as bad.
Not just the MAF  ps_w and rl_w as well.... ps_w being the main culprit for me, now that I have had a chance to play with prj's KFLF hack. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
ME7.1 tuning guideECUx PlotME7Sum checksumTrim heatmap toolPlease do not ask me for tunes. I'm here to help people make their own. Do not PM me technical questions! Please, ask all questions on the forums! Doing so will ensure the next person with the same issue gets the opportunity to learn from your ex
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #250 on: December 24, 2012, 03:54:22 AM »
|
|
|
Any of you guys planning on trying the real scaling adjustment of ps_w/rl_w?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #251 on: December 24, 2012, 12:32:14 PM »
|
|
|
Not just the MAF ps_w and rl_w as well.... ps_w being the main culprit for me, now that I have had a chance to play with prj's KFLF hack. I kind of snickered when I saw him post that in the other thread. I stumbled across that in my hundreds of logs and had been doing it that way with good results. What I noticed was that no matter what I did the car would lean out around 5k no matter how much fuel I added. I looked at the MAF readings and noticed the more I added to KFKHFM the worse it got...thinking I was making it better, instead was making the readings higher and higher. I ended up looking at my first few revisions and noticed the fueling wasn't as bad when KFKHFM and had a thought....maybe reducing KFKHFM is another way of underscaling the MAF. The more I lowered the map the more in line the fueling got. I also remembered a thread where somebody said lower the values in MLHFM and add in KFLF to equalize fueling when underscaling the MAF. I used that method with KFKHFM and things lined up really well. With this new MAF I was hoping to not have to lie to the ecm anymore about how much air is coming in. I am not 100% sure but I think with my hitachi in the 85mm maf, if the readings got over 380g/s the fueling went sour. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #253 on: December 24, 2012, 12:58:08 PM »
|
|
|
Any of you guys planning on trying the real scaling adjustment of ps_w/rl_w?
I am going to run the stock M-box scaling that maxes at 22psi or whatever it is. I run past 22psi all the time and fuel just fine. I don't think my fueling problems were because the ECU cant see how much boost, but properly meter the air coming in. Maybe I am not as far advanced in my tune yet to have the MAP limit problems, so until I see it as a problem I don't see a need to change it. Plus I don't really understand what is going on in that thread just yet, |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
marcellus
|
|
« Reply #254 on: December 24, 2012, 01:00:15 PM »
|
|
|
YOU TRICKED ME! I didn't see one lick of WOT in that pull!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
