lepich Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 I was doing my OL MAF scale after intake modification and found that usual technique does not work well to scale high MAFv numbers: usually I am getting 4.3-4.4 MAFv at redline, with 12psi of boost. However, for a scaling everyone recommends to have WGDC=0, which lowers boost to 6 psi at redline. Max MAFv there = 4.12. So, how could I scale it for 4.3V? Another question: Why do I need to have WGDC=0? If I'll scale OL with my regular WGDC? Will it be wrong? There are no bad people, just differeent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec B Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 i think you zero our WGD to minimize the effects of building boost (maf) too quickly..the zeroing out only helps the low-mid scaling. The high end needs to be scaled at full boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepich Posted May 5, 2009 Author Share Posted May 5, 2009 Thanks! You are the man:-) There are no bad people, just differeent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 When scaling MAF, you only want to look at data where d(MAF)/d(time) is small. Data where there are rapid changes in MAF should not be used. Scale the MAF in 3 steps: 1. Closed loop - 5-60 g/s. 2. Mid-range - 0% WGDC in 3rd or 4th gear logs. 3. High-range - normal WGDC using 3rd gear logs to redline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec B Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 How should we handle the IAT compensation tables when scaling? Should they be zerod out until you have it scaled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepich Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Yeah, I have missed 3rd step of my MAF scaling. Thanks! There are no bad people, just differeent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 How should we handle the IAT compensation tables when scaling? Should they be zerod out until you have it scaled? I used the stock IAT compensation table. My AFRs aren't that close to the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rao Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 My AFRs aren't that close to the edge. Wimp Rob IF YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR CAR YOU SHOULD NEVER DRIVE IT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepich Posted May 6, 2009 Author Share Posted May 6, 2009 Tried to scale MAF on a heavy rain , no luck. MAFv was way too low.. More water, less air, I guess :-). There are no bad people, just differeent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec B Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 I used the stock IAT compensation table. My AFRs aren't that close to the edge. The reason I ask is because the first hot day of the season (80+). My afr started running 1/2 point leaner than in did the colder weather (11.1 is my map and I was hitting 11.6 in the heat). My first thought is something is up with the comp table...since the temps cooled down, everything is back on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airboy Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 anybody notice that the MAF comp (IAT) table is different between models. Some have zero compensation (06 wrx), others have compensations that go in opposite directions as temperature changes. I don't think this table is meant to model the MAF sensor... http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/986/mafcompiat.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSFW Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Weird. Any theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickeyd2005 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I was planning to look into this after logging becomes available on the OP2.0 via microsd. It's just going to require too much data. I don't believe mine varies that much. IIRC, the last time I checked it was +- 0.2 AFR. It doesn't surprise me that the table is different between different intakes etc... However, the rom that confused me the most was the 07+ LGTs. Those roms have a zeroed out table. AFAIK, the MAF sensor and the MAF intake are the same as the 05-06 LGT so I don't know why the table is different. The only significant fueling difference is the 520 cc side feed vs 550 cc top feed injectors. My guess is that the 07+ cars have an incorrect IAT comp table because their AFR varies more with temperature than the 05-06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeracer Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 Tried to scale MAF on a heavy rain , no luck. MAFv was way too low.. More water, less air, I guess :-). Waste of gas especially with an aftermarket intake....Wait for a nice dry day.. "Gimme mines Balboa...Gimme mines".....Clubber Lang - Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeracer Posted May 9, 2009 Share Posted May 9, 2009 The reason I ask is because the first hot day of the season (80+). My afr started running 1/2 point leaner than in did the colder weather (11.1 is my map and I was hitting 11.6 in the heat). My first thought is something is up with the comp table...since the temps cooled down, everything is back on target. Thought you said it might have been the gas.?? No dice.... "Gimme mines Balboa...Gimme mines".....Clubber Lang - Mr. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec B Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Yeah..I am not completetly convinced it was the gas yet. Even though the problem has not returned, it has not been up to 85 degrees lately either. I also started to think that since I am running a FMIC and it theoretically should cool much better than the stock TMIC the temp compensation table (for both timing and maf) should need some adjustment...since (in theory) the FMIC should be cooling the incoming air charge much better than stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.