|
Snow Trooper
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2016, 01:43:34 PM »
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2016, 01:46:11 PM »
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2016, 02:14:47 PM »
|
|
|
I still fail to see the point unless you add a real MAP and inject the result into load.
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. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2016, 10:44:48 AM by Snow Trooper »
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
prj
|
|
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2016, 09:42:53 AM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2016, 10:43:01 AM »
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
vwaudiguy
|
|
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2016, 11:31:29 AM »
|
|
|
Are there ASM hacks needed to use a second map in place of the MAF?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If you have a chinese turbo, that you are worried is going to blow up when you floor it, then LOL."
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2016, 12:24:04 PM »
|
|
|
Are there ASM hacks needed to use a second map in place of the MAF?
Most definitely. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo
|
|
« Reply #37 on: April 04, 2016, 09:30:23 AM »
|
|
|
Map change? No.
Single byte code change and error class delete.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #38 on: April 04, 2016, 10:39:15 AM »
|
|
|
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 :/ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #39 on: April 04, 2016, 11:55:58 AM »
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 04, 2016, 11:57:58 AM by nyet »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #40 on: April 04, 2016, 11:59:18 AM »
|
|
|
Some people didn't read post #1  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #41 on: April 04, 2016, 12:01:04 PM »
|
|
|
Some people didn't read post #1 I was referring to using a real MAP sensor, not the alpha-n hack. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Snow Trooper
|
|
« Reply #42 on: April 04, 2016, 05:33:18 PM »
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
cartoons?
6A 61 72 65 64 40 76 6C 6D 73 70 65 63
|
|
|
|
nyet
|
|
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2016, 05:42:34 PM »
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mark_r33
Jr. Member
Karma: +0/-0
 Offline
Posts: 30
|
|
« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2016, 10:00:24 AM »
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
