What variables affect 2 byte load calculation?
#16
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here. Any tables will be specific to 96530006.
First, load has nothing to do with injector scaling.
Raw load is based on MAF pulses between CAS pulses and is multiplied by the 1-D MAF Size value.
The baro voltage is scaled and then raw load is multiplied by the scaled value to get baro compensated load.
The IAT voltage is converted into a temperature, that temperature is then looked up in a table (333e) to get a scaling coefficient. The baro compensated load is then multiplied by that coefficient to get the baro+IAT compensated load.
These loads are only used for table look ups though, and are not part of the IPW calcs. Compensation for that is done separately.
There is an IAT based IPW correction coefficient table (36DC) that is separate from the load correction that is used to correct the IPW for IATs. The scaled baro mentioned above is used to correct the AFR for baro changes.
First, load has nothing to do with injector scaling.
Raw load is based on MAF pulses between CAS pulses and is multiplied by the 1-D MAF Size value.
The baro voltage is scaled and then raw load is multiplied by the scaled value to get baro compensated load.
The IAT voltage is converted into a temperature, that temperature is then looked up in a table (333e) to get a scaling coefficient. The baro compensated load is then multiplied by that coefficient to get the baro+IAT compensated load.
These loads are only used for table look ups though, and are not part of the IPW calcs. Compensation for that is done separately.
There is an IAT based IPW correction coefficient table (36DC) that is separate from the load correction that is used to correct the IPW for IATs. The scaled baro mentioned above is used to correct the AFR for baro changes.
#17
Evolving Member
But many people use Injector Scaling to compensate for a MAF that isn't calibrated dead on, so it indirectly effects Load. Mostly AFRs and Trims are used to calibrate, and these can be effected by MAF or Injector Scalings.
#18
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (6)
The question remains - how is it can 2-byte load be lower for a setup that generates much greater torque?
#19
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
And that's my thinking as well. I don't claim to know Mitsu's specific mass air logic, but I don't see how/why injector scaling would be involved in the load calc. In a nutshell, load is air mass per revolution, which is proportional to VE and torque output.
The question remains - how is it can 2-byte load be lower for a setup that generates much greater torque?
The question remains - how is it can 2-byte load be lower for a setup that generates much greater torque?
#21
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (6)
Yes, actually, we can take VDR out of the equation. For example, my still-being-tuned 93 octane map has logged a peak of 433 2-byte load at ~32psi from an HTA3582. The AWD car shows 420 load, and is dyno tested at 500+ ft/lbs at 39psi with an FP Black and E85. Even without VDR, I'm quite confident I'm not anywhere near the torque figure of the AWD car.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
#22
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (50)
Yes, actually, we can take VDR out of the equation. For example, my still-being-tuned 93 octane map has logged a peak of 433 2-byte load at ~32psi from an HTA3582. The AWD car shows 420 load, and is dyno tested at 500+ ft/lbs at 39psi with an FP Black and E85. Even without VDR, I'm quite confident I'm not anywhere near the torque figure of the AWD car.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
#24
Account Disabled
iTrader: (38)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 9,319
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yes, actually, we can take VDR out of the equation. For example, my still-being-tuned 93 octane map has logged a peak of 433 2-byte load at ~32psi from an HTA3582. The AWD car shows 420 load, and is dyno tested at 500+ ft/lbs at 39psi with an FP Black and E85. Even without VDR, I'm quite confident I'm not anywhere near the torque figure of the AWD car.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
Again, I realize non-mechanical factors like ignition timing come into play, but the load figures just seem too far off the expected pattern.
FWIW DLL showed 518tq a few hours early on the street
#25
Evolved Member
iTrader: (22)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Northern KY near Cincy
Posts: 2,408
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
I noticed that the "screw" on the bottom of the MAF will allow more air to bypass the sensors in the MAF. Thus, the AirFlow Hz will go lower.
I tested this when I was having issues with installing an HKS Suction intake.
I have since left the "screw" set to have the inside flush and all the way open. I noticed that my load values are not as high as those with similar mods.
I tested this when I was having issues with installing an HKS Suction intake.
I have since left the "screw" set to have the inside flush and all the way open. I noticed that my load values are not as high as those with similar mods.
#27
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (6)
No, by default I understand load as a calculation of those variables that relate to mechanical efficiency. None of those should include user manipulated variables. I just didn't want make assumptions about Mitsubishi's logic.
In my case, it's probably just that since I am presently tuning an octane limited fuel, I seriously doubt I can approach MBT at 30 psi. Where that is evident, the mechanical efficiency is there, but the combustion efficiency isn't due to the octane restriction. That would lead to a high mechanical load being indicated, but torque being moderate on account of the fuel limitations, so it makes sense when one thinks about it that way. FWIW, Drifto and I both observed much greater indicated 2-byte load since installing the same CNC ported heads, so that is significant within itself.
In my case, it's probably just that since I am presently tuning an octane limited fuel, I seriously doubt I can approach MBT at 30 psi. Where that is evident, the mechanical efficiency is there, but the combustion efficiency isn't due to the octane restriction. That would lead to a high mechanical load being indicated, but torque being moderate on account of the fuel limitations, so it makes sense when one thinks about it that way. FWIW, Drifto and I both observed much greater indicated 2-byte load since installing the same CNC ported heads, so that is significant within itself.
#28
another data point is that my dynojet numbers at 38psi were 539tq through the stock ecu/mas but I don't have a honeycomb anymore. Removing the screen dropped my load about 20 IIRC. My load on those pulls were hitting 452.
FWIW DLL showed 518tq a few hours early on the street
FWIW DLL showed 518tq a few hours early on the street
#29
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
Another thing to point out, the load calcs look to be based on the ideal gas law.
Nothing in life is ideal.
Two cars could have the exact same inlet air mass, and make the same power, but if the inlet conditions are different and the ECUs approximations to account for those differences are not accurate, you will see different corrected loads.
Also, EVERYTHING has manufacturing tolerances. For all we know, the MAF could be calibrated at 500Hz to +/-5% and yet at 2000Hz, there could be 20% variance between meters.
Nothing in life is ideal.
Two cars could have the exact same inlet air mass, and make the same power, but if the inlet conditions are different and the ECUs approximations to account for those differences are not accurate, you will see different corrected loads.
Also, EVERYTHING has manufacturing tolerances. For all we know, the MAF could be calibrated at 500Hz to +/-5% and yet at 2000Hz, there could be 20% variance between meters.
#30
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
As many have said already, anything that alters the Hz reading from the MAS sensor's original calibration can and will affect load numbers (not to mention manually chaning the calibration with the maf scaling tables). A simple air filter or intake pipe can have a pretty big difference. A 20% error up or down at a 400 load level is +/- 80. It doesn't mean the mass airflow is different by +/- 20%, but the calculated mass airflow (load) is.
Different baro and intake temps also can change the load numbers dramatically as well, but that should (as long as intercooling is similar in the two cars) correlate with torque.
Last edited by l2r99gst; Jan 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM.