No_Skillz

iTrader: (1)

I just want to make sure, for a US 2011 (ROM ID 28690007), the values I need in the map are:

23 for IFMode #1
23 for IFMode #2
005D for DoMode

Then, for each mode, I go to Edit > Set Value and type:

0x23
0x23
0x5D

Is this correct?

Sorry for asking what is probably obvious. I've been playing with ECUFlash for a whole 2 hours now and just want to make sure I get it right before I do my first flash.

Golden

iTrader: (1)

Yep.

evoscan

iTrader: (-1)

Does anyone have a formula for Fuel Consumption on EvoX? Here is the Evo8 one:

US (mpg): [Speed]/(513*4*[InjDutyCycle]/100*0.015873)
Metric (Litres/100 Kms): x*[InjPulseWidth]*20*6/[Speed]/1200

Some things to note:
Mode23 JP/EU/AU EVOX:
two IAT? Can we get rid of one?

there are some inconsistencies on Mode23 2011 USA RA EVOX, are these correct?
Display="MAF Volts" LogReference="MAFVolts" RequestID="23808FA4" Eval="x/1024*5"
Display="MAF Airflow" LogReference="MAF" RequestID="23808817" Eval="x*2/100"

therocket

Golden, please do you have the correct logging addresses for 52680024 (last rom for USDM '08 X GSR)?
As you know, definition files themselves for all USDM '08 X GSR roms from 52680015 to 52680022 inherited from 52680015, while last 52680024 is different (in fact you also created the new xml file for EcuFlash), and in mode23 I cannot log proper values of many items in EvoScan with this rom! (mode23 is correctly enabled into the ROM, using your xml file for EcuFlash).

Thanks

Golden

iTrader: (1)

23808770 Load
23808748 2ByteRPM
2380871A PSIG / Boost
23808A4F Knock Sum
2380889C STFT
23804573 LFTF Idle
23804575 LTFT Cruise
238088AD LTFT in use
23808776 Load (MIVEC) and (Timing if IAT GT 75F)
238086F9 TPS
23809509 Accel Pedel Position
23808A0B TimingAdv
23808B57 ActiveWGDC
23808659 Intake Air Temp
2380863F Coolant Temp
2380865F Manifold Air Temp
2380A94C IPW
23808F54 MAF Volts
23809432 INVVT (Target)
2380943E EXVVT (Target)
2380946A INVVT (Actual)
23809476 EXVVT (Actual)
238087EB Speed
238086EF Battery
2380A911 Barometer
23808A55 knock_adc_processed
2380A943 knock_base
2380A93F knock_var
2380A945 knock_change
23808A63 knock_dynamics
2380812D knock_flag
23808669 Front O2
2380866D Rear O2
238045C5 Cruise Light
23808B55 WGDC Correction
23808B55 WGDC Correction
238087DF MAF Hz

therocket

Thanks Golden...
Do you know also the address of these items that were in the default logging values of Evoscan?

Passive WGDC
AFRMAP
Boost Error Correction
Octane
Gear in use
Load (Timing if IAT LE 75F)

In particular, I think Passive WGDC, AFRMAP and Octane could be useful.


Finally, can you post the formulas for the items you added, I mean:

23808A55 knock_adc_processed
2380A943 knock_base
2380A93F knock_var
2380A945 knock_change
23808A63 knock_dynamics
2380812D knock_flag
23808669 Front O2
2380866D Rear O2
238045C5 Cruise Light

In particular, the 2 O2 sensors.
Maybe they are already somewhere in the forum, but I didn't find them.


I think now I owe you some
Thanks

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Passive WGDC never ever changes from what is in your tables. (Error correction does not affect it, hence the name passive) So why would you need to log it?

Rear 02 is also useless because it has nothing to do with the running of the car whatsoever, unless you plan on using a wideband.

Gear in Use is only for SST equipped mitsus if I remember correctly.

Other ones are personal preference.

therocket

Yes, I know, but it can be useful if you log some runs with different custom roms, so you can directly check in the log file what boost/load you obtain with that passive WGDC point by point, without opening the rom itself. It can be useful also when you try to smooth the boost curve vs rpm.

Yes, for tuning purposes it is useless.
It was just for checking how Rear O2 signal moves versus AFR, for completely different reasons (cat efficiency data collecting on different vehicles).



While I'm here, another question about conversion formula of temperature (there was still this discussion same pages before but no conclusion at end): if the correct formula for temperature in °C is x-40, how can the formula for °F be 1.8*x-50 as in Evoscan 2.8?
°F = 1.8*°C+32, so °F = 1.8*(x-40)+32 = 1.8*x-1.8*40+32 = 1.8*x-72+32 = 1.8*x-40 and not 1.8*x-50.

About speed, at the end if kph = 2*x , I think mph = 2*x/1.609 = 1.243*x and not 1.26*x as in Evoscan 2.8.


Thanks
Bye

Golden

iTrader: (1)

I use 1.8*x-40 for F in all my definitions. The evoscan defaults threw me off when I logged an '08 once. I was like, "how come you never hit 180* F? Does thing thing have some kind of thermostat installed?" Turns out my definition was wrong. I was annoyed.

therocket

Hi Golden,
I've tried to find the address of the remaning items I asked you for ROM 52680024, do you think they have some sense...?

2380459F: Octane
23808872: Gear in use
238088F9: AFRMAP
23808B54: Boost Error Correction
23808F74: Load (Timing if IAT LE 75F)
Something between 2380A543 and 2380A547: Passive WGDC (I don't have enough references to find the exact value )

Please notice that I've found them just putting the addresses of all items in ascending order, comparing old (up to ROM 52680022) and new (ROM 52680024) values you wrote and looking at how much they were shifted... So, for sure something is wrong and I cannot test them on the car until tomorrow.

Thanks
Ciao

Hellfire0986

Big thanks to Golden for his definition files for EcuFlash.

I saw a few pages back the logging addresses for the 2011 Evo X with ECUID: 56890007. I tried to use the logging addresses on my 2011 with ECUID: 56890010, and it seems all the addresses were off.

I guess it makes sense given 56890010 inherits 56890009. It seems 56890009 and 56890007 have completely different definition files.

Does anyone know the logging addresses for 56890010?

Thanks again!

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Hellfire0986

Wow! Thanks for the quick reply. How are these memory locations found anyways if you don't mind me asking

Thanks again!

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

Golden.

evoscan

iTrader: (-1)

yes you are correct, I'll tidy that up in v2.9, can you confirm the transmission temp is still 1.8*x-50 though?

thanks, have you tried it and confirmed this formula is more accurate for MPH?