fixem2

iTrader: (30)

Can anyone verify the above question?

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

Not sure about the Evoscan scaling, the Mitsulogger scaling is identical to OBD-II so if its 0% its perfect trim, and has a range of -25% to +25%

You can alter the Evoscan scaling the same way (copy it from the mitsulogger definition)

Makes for alot less confusion between tools. the 100 value is a DSM throwback that I don't see often anymore.


But yes, thats about right.. If its 90, thats (APPROXIMATELY) about -5% or so.. if its 110, its +5% or so on an obdII trim equivalent.

SophieSleeps

iTrader: (19)

How do you alter the definition? I"d like to do that.

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

MJ,
Is this the code we would add/change in EvoScan (this is from the Mitsulogger xml) :

<Request LogReference="FuelTrim_High" RequestID="0E"
Eval="int(.1961*x)-25" Unit="%" Logged="y" Response="2"/>

<Request LogReference="FuelTrim_Low" RequestID="0C"
Eval="int(.1961*x)-25" Unit="%" Logged="y" Response="2"/>

<Request LogReference="FuelTrim_Middle" RequestID="0D"
Eval="int(.1961*x)-25" Unit="%" Logged="y" Response="2"/>

<Request LogReference="O2FeedbackTrim" RequestID="0F"
Eval="int(.1961*x)-25" Unit="%" Logged="y" Response="2"/>

subaruwrx420

iTrader: (12)

After reading almost the entire thread I have to say that MAF adjustment was much easier in the WRX. The table read in mass airflow (g/s), so I would look at fuel trims and simply multiply the value by the percentage it was off, depending on if I wanted to add or subtract fuel. I changed only a few MAF values at idle and crusing to get my trims to about +/- 5%. It made idle/crusie tuning fairly easy when I swapped injectors. The injector scale value really depended more on WOT target AFR, those were adjusted accordingly until I was within a small range of targe AFRs as verified by my wideband.

I still need to go back and read with more time to see if the percentage change method of adjutment was reached.

Thanks.

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

Another interesting thing is that according to EvoScan, I am not hitting the lower 2 MAF cells of 19 and 25. The lowest cell is 50. Any thoughts? I do have the Buschur cone filter, but not the MAF pipe.

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

MJ, Are the above address' correct? They differ from the XML data in EvoScan, but I think I remember reading something about how EvoScan had Transposed data.

Here is the EvoScan XML Data to compare :
Display="Fuel Trim Low" LogReference="FuelTrim_Low" RequestID="0E" Eval="0.78125x" Unit="%" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="200" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="200" Notes="" />

Display="Fuel Trim Mid" LogReference="FuelTrim_Mid" RequestID="0D" Eval="0.78125x" Unit="%" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="200" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="200" Notes="" />

Display="Fuel Trim High" LogReference="FuelTrim_High" RequestID="0C" Eval="0.78125x" Unit="%" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="200" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="200" Notes="" />

Display="Oxygen Feedback Trim" LogReference="O2FeedbackTrim" RequestID="0F" Eval="0.78125x" Unit="%" MetricEval="" MetricUnit="" ResponseBytes="1" GaugeMin="0" GaugeMax="200" ChartMin="0" ChartMax="200" Notes="" />

MalibuJack

iTrader: (5)

I don't know, I haven't actually looked at Evoscan in some time. The Trim data I had was gathered from the DSM Logger project

I've been using Mitsulogger for quite some time and they always looked correct to me..

fixem2

iTrader: (30)

Well I believe a new release is coming today or tomorrow. I will play with the values and then update. Just to clarify, when scaling the MAF we use O2Feedack for STFT and FUELTRIM_HIGH for LTFT, correct?

Chino1

iTrader: (6)

should i change my MAF scalings with my level of mods?

TBE
Exhaust Mani.
Intake
UICP
MBC

C6C6CH3vo

iTrader: (9)

Is everyone 100% sure load units is airflow, and not load?

And is g/s just a conversion the ECU uses to calc the actual qty per load (unit) (not per load unit value) to make respective IDC changes to fuel map value?

Most importantly, how does smoothing fit in all this? In my experience, small changes to smoothing bring great changes to WB sensor readings.

I need answers people, If not I will make another C6 thread Just Kidding

I'm about half way there, I just need to know what the smoothing variable changes in the scaling


Reason why is that I get a spike in mid to high airflow (peak load/boost) as DV diaghram collapses (don't ask) and just after a small value as WGA opens to modulate boost. This whole process occurs between say, 3800rpm - 4100 rpm but the sharp MAF readings override the fuel map giving resultant IDC changes

If I can just smooth it here by somehow desensitizing ECU response to airflow (just in this area) then from 4500 rpm - on A:F will be 12.2 - 5 solid to redline - no bouncing around up front

C6C6CH3vo

iTrader: (9)

Interesting to note that the smoothing value has a very intense and direct relationship to IPW (that is A:F, for some of you). I am now able to lean or enrich portions of the tune which, before, were not responsive using the fuel map.

And the load units does seem to correspond rather closely to hz*2