|
IamwhoIam
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2013, 07:06:10 AM »
|
|
|
Does the stock sensor read vacuum? If so move it to behind the throttle body so it sees both positive and negative pressure
And start disabling implausible pressure sensor codes  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I have no logs because I have a boost gauge (makes things easier)
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #31 on: April 12, 2013, 07:18:41 AM »
|
|
|
And start disabling implausible pressure sensor codes That's the least of the problems ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
adeyspec
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 131
|
|
« Reply #32 on: April 12, 2013, 08:00:37 AM »
|
|
|
Was just an out there idea, not something I'm looking into just threw it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #33 on: April 12, 2013, 08:05:20 AM »
|
|
|
And all this work (which I am absolutely positive that anybody looking to delete their MAF doesn't have the ability to do)... for what? I have yet to find a single good answer to the question.
This alone tells me the correlation between wanting to delete your MAF, and not knowing how to *basically rewrite the load path* in ME is 100%.
Anybody who has the ability to do that level of modifications to ME certainly would know better, and would certainly not be posting here about how to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #34 on: April 12, 2013, 09:02:21 AM »
|
|
|
Well, I am doing it, because on high horsepower cars the maf just pegs.
I did it on the 2.2T 5 cylinder, and I am gonna do it on ME7. But properly, by using a proper speed density calculation and replacing the MAF with a MAP sensor.
As for posting on how to do it, not going to happen in the foreseeable future. 99% of people who think they need this actually don't and don't understand the downsides of running no MAF.
How about re-tuning your entire VE table every time you change something, as simple as a camshaft or a box in the exhaust?
How about needing a steady state dyno EVERY time to calibrate the VE table in the first place?
How about getting lean startup issues on a hot car because your IAT sensor gets heat soaked?
How about getting massive acceleration enrichment problems because the MAP signal is way slower than a MAF?
And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tbm
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #35 on: April 12, 2013, 10:13:26 AM »
|
|
|
Well, I am doing it, because on high horsepower cars the maf just pegs.
I did it on the 2.2T 5 cylinder, and I am gonna do it on ME7. But properly, by using a proper speed density calculation and replacing the MAF with a MAP sensor.
As for posting on how to do it, not going to happen in the foreseeable future. 99% of people who think they need this actually don't and don't understand the downsides of running no MAF.
How about re-tuning your entire VE table every time you change something, as simple as a camshaft or a box in the exhaust?
How about needing a steady state dyno EVERY time to calibrate the VE table in the first place?
How about getting lean startup issues on a hot car because your IAT sensor gets heat soaked?
How about getting massive acceleration enrichment problems because the MAP signal is way slower than a MAF?
And so on.
I agree with your all items except the below: How about getting massive acceleration enrichment problems because the MAP signal is way slower than a MAF?
MAP is faster and less inertial than MAF. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
catbed
|
|
« Reply #36 on: April 12, 2013, 10:23:26 AM »
|
|
|
Yes, RPM x Throttle (Alpha N).
The charge sensor is also considered, but only at high throttle opening. So with all normal driving you are only driving from alpha-n which is not very good on a turbo engine.
Even if you have wideband to correct the mixture, your ignition timing is still all over the place...
With this, if you were to tune the airflow over throttle plate map according to MAF readings and then disconnect the MAF, that might work better no? I understand MAF is better, just curious. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #37 on: April 12, 2013, 10:25:48 AM »
|
|
|
I agree with your all items except the below:
MAP is faster and less inertial than MAF. You are wrong, I can say that for sure, because I have experience writing mass-flow and speed-density code. speed-density needs much more acceleration enrichment than mass-flow. MAP signal is much slower. In fact I had to quadruple the transient enrichment maps. With this, if you were to tune the airflow over throttle plate map according to MAF readings and then disconnect the MAF, that might work better no? I have no interest in limp mode hacks when I have the ability to write my own speed density code in the ECU and use a MAP sensor in the intake manifold. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 12, 2013, 10:27:42 AM by prj »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
adeyspec
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 131
|
|
« Reply #38 on: April 12, 2013, 10:57:36 AM »
|
|
|
So my suggestion was doable?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2013, 11:39:13 AM »
|
|
|
So my suggestion was doable?
I don't move the existing sensor, I add a second one. Everything is doable, the question is, can YOU do it or not. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
jibberjive
|
|
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2013, 12:06:51 PM »
|
|
|
Well, I am doing it, because on high horsepower cars the maf just pegs.
I did it on the 2.2T 5 cylinder, and I am gonna do it on ME7. But properly, by using a proper speed density calculation and replacing the MAF with a MAP sensor.
I've got your solution for pegging the MAF on high power 2.7t cars. If you don't want to port your code to the 2.7 ecu's, I can get you the details via PM if you'd like. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
adeyspec
Full Member
Karma: +0/-0
Offline
Posts: 131
|
|
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2013, 12:11:19 PM »
|
|
|
Well beyond me being able to adapt it to happen. But fair play for making it doable. Bar ditching a load of inlet pipe work I can't see the benefit on the audi. In previous cars I've built on standalone I've gone alpha n on NA cars then speed density on NA and boosted applications. Would love to be able to do it, just so I can but that's about it. Maybe in a year or too of researching the me7, big props for pushing the me7 that far though
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tbm
Full Member
Karma: +2/-1
Offline
Posts: 176
|
|
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2013, 01:19:22 PM »
|
|
|
You are wrong, I can say that for sure, because I have experience writing mass-flow and speed-density code. I respect people who can develope such code because I develope code in higher level program language. But physically MAF is more inertial sensor because it works based on heating effect of inside wires in sensor and as we know actually heating is very inertial process. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 12, 2013, 04:26:34 PM »
|
|
|
I respect people who can develope such code because I develope code in higher level program language. But physically MAF is more inertial sensor because it works based on heating effect of inside wires in sensor and as we know actually heating is very inertial process. MAF reaction peak to peak is 15ms on HFM5. In reality it is much faster as you do not have peak to peak spikes. The reaction is <3ms usually. MAP reaction in the manifold is much slower. It is nothing to do with the sensor. I have implemented speed density code and I have implemented different types of mass flow code. MAF is faster each and every time, MAP is slow to react to instantaneous changes, period. It's actually the biggest lie in the world of standalones, that speed-density is quicker to react - it's not. Even old hot wire MAF's react much quicker than a MAP signal change. If you had ever written code for a air charge calculation, you would know that. Nothing more to say from me here - you can keep typing your yadda yadda, it won't make it true. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
