TephraMod V7
Nov 9, 2009 | 07:39 AM
#991
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 522
Likes: 2
From: mnt vernon ny
i dnt now much about using this but mayb your hitting stock fuel cut limit and you need to up it? https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...nge-638-a.html
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:04 AM
#992
Just divide the result of the current calculations by 14.5. There are already about 30 posts in this thread about "converting" to different display methods, but there is no conversion necessary.... it is just how you view the data, and is as simple as changing the equations.
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:05 AM
#993
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: Rewinding motors - Venezuela
i dnt now much about using this but mayb your hitting stock fuel cut limit and you need to up it? https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ec...nge-638-a.html
Wow, I'll take a look at this. I hope it's the issue
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:09 AM
#994
This 3rd gear pull was done at 26psi. There is a fuel cut at 6437 RPM. The load is huge. I don't know what is going on
Code:
11.1 1 12.54 257.68 241.25 100 5031.25 13.86 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 11.78 49.68 11.1 1 11.83 273.11 252.5 100 5125 13.79 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 12.29 52.48 10.7 1 12.06 290.49 270.94 100 5250 13.86 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 13.06 57.46 10.1 0 12.3 315.19 298.13 100 5375 13.79 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 14.08 63.8 10.1 0 12.38 336.03 324.38 100 5500 13.71 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 14.85 68.83 10 0 12.38 361.11 347.19 100 5656.25 13.79 75.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 15.36 73.2 10.3 2 12.3 365.2 357.5 100 5812.5 13.64 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.78 15.87 77.71 10.7 2 12.3 377.38 368.75 100 5968.75 13.57 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.76 15.87 80.19 11 2 12.14 378.53 370 100 6125 13.57 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.76 16.38 84.91 11.2 1 11.91 377.42 372.5 100 6281.25 13.57 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.76 16.9 89.76 11.2 1 11.76 378.7 377.5 100 6437.5 13.49 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.96 0.76 0 0 11.1 1 11.61 -11.34 365.94 100 5875 13.86 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0 0.21 6.4 37.33 18.4 1 12.3 183.43 184.69 100 6312.5 13.93 73.4 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.04 0 1.02 5.68 18.4 0 14.04 23.38 26.88 23.92 6343.75 14.23 77 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.88 0.66 1.79 9.66 13.9 0 14.04 45.71 46.88 23.53 6468.75 14.08 84.2 5.98 -2.06 0.1 0.06 0.7 1.79 9.61 12.3 0 13.34 56.66 37.5
Why are you logging loadcalc and 2 byte? Just use 1 byte and your logs will have much more resolution.
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:40 AM
#996
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 214
Likes: 1
From: South Africa
No, really... it is that simple (if you passed 7th grade algebra).
Just divide the result of the current calculations by 14.5. There are already about 30 posts in this thread about "converting" to different display methods, but there is no conversion necessary.... it is just how you view the data, and is as simple as changing the equations.
Just divide the result of the current calculations by 14.5. There are already about 30 posts in this thread about "converting" to different display methods, but there is no conversion necessary.... it is just how you view the data, and is as simple as changing the equations.
What I am trying to find out, is which equations in the XML file do I need to change, so that the values in the ROM file are displayed in BAR and not PSI.
I would much prefer doing it once in the XML file, than having to do a conversion every time I want to work on the PSI boost related tables.
Lot less likely of making a mistake, as I can relate to Bar much easier at a glance, than PSI.
Nov 9, 2009 | 09:13 AM
#998
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: Rewinding motors - Venezuela
There is probably enough time there to hit boost cut, but we can't tell because you didn't post the log timing. Check that and let us know if that is your problem (you can also just set the timer to 30000 ms).
Why are you logging loadcalc and 2 byte? Just use 1 byte and your logs will have much more resolution.
Why are you logging loadcalc and 2 byte? Just use 1 byte and your logs will have much more resolution.
And about the 1 byte load.......I don't know, I have been using 2-byte load since a long time ago and did not even bother with the 1-byte one. I'll take a look at that one
Nov 9, 2009 | 10:10 AM
#999
Thx, I do realize the calculation is pretty simple.
What I am trying to find out, is which equations in the XML file do I need to change, so that the values in the ROM file are displayed in BAR and not PSI.
I would much prefer doing it once in the XML file, than having to do a conversion every time I want to work on the PSI boost related tables.
Lot less likely of making a mistake, as I can relate to Bar much easier at a glance, than PSI.
What I am trying to find out, is which equations in the XML file do I need to change, so that the values in the ROM file are displayed in BAR and not PSI.
I would much prefer doing it once in the XML file, than having to do a conversion every time I want to work on the PSI boost related tables.
Lot less likely of making a mistake, as I can relate to Bar much easier at a glance, than PSI.
Timing is peaking at 11 on redline. It did not give me any problems before. I don't understand why I'm hitting such high load values, as they used to be around 320's.
And about the 1 byte load.......I don't know, I have been using 2-byte load since a long time ago and did not even bother with the 1-byte one. I'll take a look at that one
And about the 1 byte load.......I don't know, I have been using 2-byte load since a long time ago and did not even bother with the 1-byte one. I'll take a look at that one
By eliminating battery, STFT,MTFT,HTFT,O2,O2_2,LdCalc (or having it reference 1 byte load if you need it for map tracer), and switching Ld2Byte to 1 byte load you should see ~43% reduction in overhead (or ~57% more resolution in your logs).
Nov 9, 2009 | 11:47 AM
#1000
Evolving Member
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: Rewinding motors - Venezuela
I meant log timing as in "what time is it in the log". If you are hitting higher load than before you probably have a boost leak. If that is causing you to go over the boos cut feature for long enough, then kudos to it for letting you know something is wrong.
By eliminating battery, STFT,MTFT,HTFT,O2,O2_2,LdCalc (or having it reference 1 byte load if you need it for map tracer), and switching Ld2Byte to 1 byte load you should see ~43% reduction in overhead (or ~57% more resolution in your logs).
By eliminating battery, STFT,MTFT,HTFT,O2,O2_2,LdCalc (or having it reference 1 byte load if you need it for map tracer), and switching Ld2Byte to 1 byte load you should see ~43% reduction in overhead (or ~57% more resolution in your logs).
Nov 9, 2009 | 06:26 PM
#1002
so you cant use ecuflash 1.42 with an OpenPort 1.3? but the open port 2.0 is for the evo x?
if i got ecuflsh 1.39 and got a opnport 1.3_ would I be able to use the tehramod shiuld i just start off it thehamod 5? would i even be able to use 5 with the two 1.3s?
if i got ecuflsh 1.39 and got a opnport 1.3_ would I be able to use the tehramod shiuld i just start off it thehamod 5? would i even be able to use 5 with the two 1.3s?
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:11 PM
#1003
you can use openport 1.3 with any version of ecuflash.
Nov 9, 2009 | 08:36 PM
#1004
I have ECUFlash 1.42 with an OpenPort 1.3 cable, no issues reading or reflashing an 03, with windows 7 ultimate 32 bit.
