Chrome V3, need a place to organize my thoughts

[aaronatstate]

So I set my MAF settings back to stock. What do you think I should target for the VE scaling table now? There is a big difference between the Evo and stock 3/S values.

Since the stock MAF size is 80% of the Evo, the stock MAF adder is 45% of the Evo, and the stock VE Table is 160% of the Evo values, I'm not sure where I should start with the VE Table. (stock values on left in picture below)

Like I was getting a little bit lean of what the target AFR was. Say I was targeting 11.0, and I am getting around 11.3 with the Evo MAF settings. Just trying to understand a good starting point so I'm not super rich, or super lean, since the values have changed A LOT.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]So I set my MAF settings back to stock. What do you think I should target for the VE scaling table now? There is a big difference between the Evo and stock 3/S values.

Since the stock MAF size is 80% of the Evo, the stock MAF adder is 45% of the Evo, and the stock VE Table is 160% of the Evo values, I'm not sure where I should start with the VE Table. (stock values on left in picture below)

Like I was getting a little bit lean of what the target AFR was. Say I was targeting 11.0, and I am getting around 11.3 with the Evo MAF settings. Just trying to understand a good starting point so I'm not super rich, or super lean, since the values have changed A LOT.

[/quote]

Make sure you're logging the MAF signal too so you know which values to correct.

Say you're getting 11.3 at 1600hz and you want 11.0 there needs to be 2% (11.3/11.0 = 1.02) more added to the VE smoothing table in that cell next to 1600hz. That should get you on target for the next pull.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""Monochrome""]Make sure you're logging the MAF signal too so you know which values to correct.

Say you're getting 11.3 at 1600hz and you want 11.0 there needs to be 2% (11.3/11.0 = 1.02) more added to the VE smoothing table in that cell next to 1600hz. That should get you on target for the next pull.[/quote]

So the higher the value in the VE smoothing table, the richer it will run? So I'm probably going to be pig rich on the first go since the values are so much higher than the Evo values. But I assume the size will offset that some.

Also, do you have the stock V2 bin file, and your EvoScan 2.9 file? I got a new computer from the last time I did any logging, and seemed to have lost both the stock bin file, and your EvoScan file.

Edit: Looking at Adam's info on his MAF, which has the better sensor in the stock housing, he uses the stock size and adder, and sets the VE table at 100, so I think I'll start there.

http://chromedecu.org/?product=chromed-jester-maf

I also logged in on the Chromedecu site, and found out I could just download the V2 files so I have them again

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]So the higher the value in the VE smoothing table, the richer it will run? So I'm probably going to be pig rich on the first go since the values are so much higher than the Evo values. But I assume the size will offset that some.[/quote]

The MAF size only plays a part in Load calculation so that shouldn't have too much of an impact unless your fuel table is really rich in the upper areas and now the load values touch the cells up there.

The MAF adder is added to the MAF Scaling table so that should be a larger impact. If you edit that table to view Hex16 in the scaling, the values for a stock motor are 0x0040. BTW if you're curious the MAF adder values for a 3496cc engine are 0x0078 and for a 3800cc Engine it's 0x0080. (You're welcome Steve)

Any reason you don't want to swap the stock MAF back in? Are you getting more than 2400hz worth of HP out of your setup?

[Monochrome]

BTW I took out the Startup post from this thread and created a new sticky thread in this section. The posts about the tables will go in that thread.

Also finished the startup tables post. Many many many more tables to talk about....

[DCIV]

You said the enrichment tables were wrong. I have Messed with these tables to try and cut out extra fuel as I smell fuel heavily only on start up.

What do I need to change in v2 to make it correct and basically 0 enrichment?


Coop

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""Monochrome""]The MAF size only plays a part in Load calculation so that shouldn't have too much of an impact unless your fuel table is really rich in the upper areas and now the load values touch the cells up there.

The MAF adder is added to the MAF Scaling table so that should be a larger impact. If you edit that table to view Hex16 in the scaling, the values for a stock motor are 0x0040. BTW if you're curious the MAF adder values for a 3496cc engine are 0x0078 and for a 3800cc Engine it's 0x0080. (You're welcome Steve)

Any reason you don't want to swap the stock MAF back in? Are you getting more than 2400hz worth of HP out of your setup?[/quote]

So the stock Evo Value is 0x008C (140), and the scaling is very similar to the stock 3/S MAF. Wonder why the Evo has the highest value

I updated my tables to have the stock values, so I'll start there and see what we get.

As for switching to the Evo MAF, I can't remember if I was higher than 2400hz or not. I don't think I would've gotten it unless I needed it though. But this was a long time ago, so I don't remember Running 13t's around 20ish psi with E85. I'll get some logs this weekend and see where there MAF readings are.

I have my stock MAF, and just spliced the Evo MAF connector in, so I can switch back no problem.

[aaronatstate]

Chart for timing differences. This would only apply to vehicles running the 1G Cam/Crank setup. Looks like timing adjustment is just 0.0005*RPM. Based on the latency differences from Stealth316.

[mjannusch]

Probably not enough to make any difference reliability wise, as most tuners dial in more advance anyways. Just be a little less aggressive on a 1G.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""mjannusch""]Probably not enough to make any difference reliability wise, as most tuners dial in more advance anyways. Just be a little less aggressive on a 1G.[/quote]

It was enough on the piss poor 91 octane they have here in Arkansas. I would just see increased knock, but not severe knock. Probably not enough to make a difference, but wasn't worth the risk, that's why I switched to E85. Went back to the stock values basically after the switch, so advanced just like you say.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]The MAF size only plays a part in Load calculation so that shouldn't have too much of an impact unless your fuel table is really rich in the upper areas and now the load values touch the cells up there.

The MAF adder is added to the MAF Scaling table so that should be a larger impact. If you edit that table to view Hex16 in the scaling, the values for a stock motor are 0x0040. BTW if you're curious the MAF adder values for a 3496cc engine are 0x0078 and for a 3800cc Engine it's 0x0080. (You're welcome Steve)

Any reason you don't want to swap the stock MAF back in? Are you getting more than 2400hz worth of HP out of your setup?[/quote]

Nice. Got a question on the MAF adders. If a 3.0L = "40" and a 3.5 = 78, shouldn't a 3.8 =~97 instead of 80? Assuming the scaling follows a pattern. I also dont know if engine efficiencies are taken into consideration in this equation as well.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Nice. Got a question on the MAF adders. If a 3.0L = "40" and a 3.5 = 78, shouldn't a 3.8 =~97 instead of 80? Assuming the scaling follows a pattern. I also dont know if engine efficiencies are taken into consideration in this equation as well.[/quote]

Doubt it cause a 2.0T is 140...

[ChargerX3]

This is all over the board.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Nice. Got a question on the MAF adders. If a 3.0L = "40" and a 3.5 = 78, shouldn't a 3.8 =~97 instead of 80? Assuming the scaling follows a pattern. I also dont know if engine efficiencies are taken into consideration in this equation as well.[/quote]

These values are pulled from ROMs running these parts. Now you understand my difficulty in finding a scaling.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""mjannusch""]Probably not enough to make any difference reliability wise, as most tuners dial in more advance anyways. Just be a little less aggressive on a 1G.[/quote]

Exactly. Very very easy to tune and the effect is so minor. Never been an issue in the hundreds of cars running out ECUs.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]These values are pulled from ROMs running these parts. Now you understand my difficulty in finding a scaling.[/quote]

I see your frustration. Plus in my case the maf isn’t even the same for the 3.8’s. They used the drop in one so that’s got to throw off the calculation.

[Jeff V.]

03-06 Montero 3.8 used a -482 Karman MAF.

[ChargerX3]

What about the 2007+ like my 3.8 with MIVEC heads and other VE improvements over the previous gen?

[Jeff V.]

07+ used a hot wire cartridge MAF. That's why I bought those OEM MAF adapter frames.

03-06 was this weird transitional generation that used an M32R CPU, and throttle by wire, but it had a very limited CANbus, Karman MAF, the low resolution cam/crank sensors and 3 dual-post coils.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Jeff V.""]07+ used a hot wire cartridge MAF. That's why I bought those OEM MAF adapter frames.

03-06 was this weird transitional generation that used an M32R CPU, and throttle by wire, but it had a very limited CANbus, Karman MAF, the low resolution cam/crank sensors and 3 dual-post coils.[/quote]

Exactly it’s a different size and style maf. I’m not trying to be a difficult but are 3.8l MIVEC builds going to be properly represented in this equation?