59eurobug
Newbie
Karma: +0/-1
 Offline
Posts: 10
|
 |
« Reply #90 on: October 24, 2016, 09:34:19 PM »
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #91 on: October 25, 2016, 02:32:52 AM »
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
59eurobug
Newbie
Karma: +0/-1
Offline
Posts: 10
|
|
« Reply #92 on: October 25, 2016, 01:26:08 PM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vwaudiguy
|
|
« Reply #93 on: November 25, 2016, 10:47:02 PM »
|
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 25, 2016, 11:21:41 PM by vwaudiguy »
|
Logged
|
"If you have a chinese turbo, that you are worried is going to blow up when you floor it, then LOL."
|
|
|
EuroXs4
Full Member
Karma: +15/-31
Offline
Posts: 209
|
|
« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2017, 09:44:44 PM »
|
|
|
Is mlhfm the only thing that needs to be changed in regards to scaling the maf???
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 07:17:18 AM by EuroXs4 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rnagy86
|
|
« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2017, 02:55:26 AM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
armageddon
|
|
« Reply #96 on: July 25, 2017, 03:24:32 PM »
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rnagy86
|
|
« Reply #97 on: July 25, 2017, 11:43:13 PM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
armageddon
|
|
« Reply #98 on: July 26, 2017, 04:27:16 PM »
|
|
|
ok, thanks.
I am using an aluminiun housing and have no leaks,
I down scaled it a bit and for now its all good.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rnagy86
|
|
« Reply #99 on: July 27, 2017, 10:30:21 AM »
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vanrhj
Full Member
Karma: +0/-5
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #100 on: October 11, 2018, 03:04:20 AM »
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vanrhj
Full Member
Karma: +0/-5
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #101 on: October 11, 2018, 03:14:39 AM »
|
|
|
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
Is 33.24% enough scaling on a 85mm maf housing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vanrhj
Full Member
Karma: +0/-5
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #102 on: October 14, 2018, 12:10:08 AM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vanrhj
Full Member
Karma: +0/-5
Offline
Posts: 55
|
|
« Reply #103 on: October 14, 2018, 03:33:25 AM »
|
|
|
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
[/In maestro do u start scaling and end scaling with the same value or must one be a negative value and the other a positive value?quote] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
vvt18
Full Member
Karma: +2/-74
Offline
Posts: 139
|
|
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2020, 05:25:25 AM »
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
