funstick

scalar= maf table maximum value in grm/sec. table value divided by 256 x scalar euqlas table entry value. for exapmle!


scalar is 120

counts ---table value-------------grams/second
1------------20----------- 20/256 x120=9.375
2------------30-----------30/256 x 120= 14.0625
3------------40-----------40/256 x 120= 18.75
4------------50-----------50/256 x 120= 23.75
5------------255--------255/256 x 120 = 119.256
so on and so forth now watch this equation folks heres the mathmatical limit.

255/256 x 255 = 254.0000039etc etc etc ahhhh

Grumpy

Glad to see you read my sticky from last year.

Now you forgot that the displayed gm/sec value is only correct for an unaltered oem setup.
Once you begin changing, the engine's breathing ability, these numbers start reflecting less and less what the actual air flow is.

funstick

if you change the lv8 scalars for each table problem solved.and please show me where in your maf calabration sticky you actually demonstrate the maf opps math involved.

87400tpi

Rbob pointed that out to me awhile back.With the lv8 scalars changed the 165 can recognize/calculate airflow above 255gr/sec.

V8Astro Captain

iTrader: (1)

I'm not sticking up for anyone, but it seems like everyone wants to argue the fine points of maf lately...

so here it is
It's not as pretty, but it's right there in writing...

87400tpi

That proves the ecm is not stuck at an artificial 255 limit,anything over you will lose control.I have been told not to touch the maf tables then gumpy shows how to rescale them,hmmm

Grumpy

Try entering a value of 257.
The limit for what the ecm can handle is a value of 255.
But, as I have said numerous times now, the 255 as gm/sec is only valid with an unaltered intake, and engine. You can only report so much with that value, and then you are in an Aplha-N strategy.

It's not a matter of losing control. It's a matter of lose of resolution. If you need me to explain it to you, feel free to ask.

Go back far enough and you'll find all sorts of errors. Things change as the knowledge base expands.
It's easy to walk in AFTER the work is done, and point out errors, that were made.
As far as I can tell, it wasn't until I spent the time to sort thru the MAF stuff was anything done with editing it. Your recent discoveries are actually old news to anyone that's been keeping up with the board.

Care to point out where I have said not to alter the MAF tables since, I wrote the MAF Sticky?. That was 6/02 almost a year ago.

Grumpy

Nice seeing that someone is keeping up with things.

funstick

im not trying to be an arsehole. but the way its spelled out is wrong. also its confusing.

87400tpi

That is a great technical rebuttle
I'm not walking in nowhere claiming fame.But you'll have to try harder to discount me than that.You just need to respect the facts of my data.I'm not going to keep pointing things out for you.I have stood the test of 300+post.You are the one changing things as the knowledge expands.Let me throw one bone out there,the mafs "resolution" is relative to the scalar.Change the scalar and change the airflow calc.Rendering your 255 gr/sec theory bust.

funstick

the stock code cant calculate more then 255 grs/sec deal with it. if you rewrote it for 16bit math you could goto 512grs/sec.what you would have to do is create a few new maf tables. preferably 17 row 2d tables.

the math would look something like this.

scalar 255 using 8 bit math it seesm feasable.
counts----table entry------------scalar-------------grm/sec
100--------130----130 x2/256 x 255 = ---------------258 grm/sec

change that scalar to 255

counts-------table enty-------------scalar---------------grm/sec
100--------255-----255 x 2/256 x255= -------------- 508 grs/sec

can you tell me how to rewrite the code to show this to be true ?my thought is to just go ahead and use a Table doubler as a pre conditioiner to all table values. the table calcualted values however work out to be 16 bit values. im not sure how the ecm will do the math at 6000rpm. are there enough clock cycles to do it safely ?

then again. if we double the number of tables and cut the counts from half of what the used to be in each table we come back with more resolution and the abaility to use a bigger maf with out the los of the abaility to calcualte for PW correctly. but then the injector constant will have to be cut in half as well.

87400tpi

I never denied that fact.I said it does'nt matter,more or less.

Grumpy

OK, then ask a guestion.
Yes it is correct.
Your turn to deal with it.

Grumpy

Facts of your data?.
What that your stuck on doing things the old way?. A year ago I published what to do to correct the MAF tables correctly, and your still ranting about using the injector constant to trim in your BLs.

Sorry but your agruing with old data.
And you constant misquotes are just getting silly.

;---------------------------------------------
; PWR ENRICH AIR/FUEL PCT CHG vs RPM
; *** WOT ***
; TBL = (%CHG x 128) + 128
; VAL = (bin-128)/1.28
;---------------------------------------------
; %CHG TO AFR RPM
;---------------------------------------------
LC515 FCB 143 ; 11.7 000
LC516 FCB 143 ; 11.7 400
LC517 FCB 143 ; 11.7 800
LC518 FCB 143 ; 11.7 1200
LC519 FCB 128 ; 0.0 1600
LC51A FCB 128 ; 0.0 2000
LC51B FCB 136 ; 6.3 2400
LC51C FCB 136 ; 3.1 2800
LC51D FCB 128 ; 0.0 3200
LC51E FCB 118 ; -7.8 3600
LC51F FCB 118 ; -7.8 4000
LC520 FCB 118 ; -7.8 4400
LC521 FCB 118 ; -7.8 4800
LC522 FCB 118 ; -7.8 5200
LC523 FCB 118 ; -7.8 5600
LC524 FCB 118 ; -7.8 6000
LC525 FCB 118 ; -7.8 6400
;--------------------------------------------

Now if you want to be able to only use that table from the region from where the MAF runs out of resolution to accurately determine air flow, and hence fuel the motor, that's fine, but I'd hardly call that having enough resolution to be accurate with it.

And to continue.

;----------------------------------------------
; 3200 RPM
; Deg Spk ld val
;----------------------------------------------
LC0C0 FCB 134 ; 47.1 32
LC0C1 FCB 134 ; 47.1 48
LC0C2 FCB 134 ; 47.1 64
LC0C3 FCB 131 ; 46.1 80
LC0C4 FCB 119 ; 41.8 96
LC0C5 FCB 117 ; 41.1 112
LC0C6 FCB 108 ; 38.0 128
LC0C7 FCB 88 ; 30.9 144
LC0C8 FCB 74 ; 26.0 160
LC0C9 FCB 65 ; 22.9 176
LC0CA FCB 65 ; 22.9 192
LC0CB FCB 65 ; 22.9 208

Heres the timing table from the ARAP bin. notice that it stops at an LV8 of 208.

I've noticed you've not mentioned changing the LV8 scaler in any of your comments, so your also out of resolution for be able to fully control the timing at WOT other then with the PE adder with gets right back to the original problem.

So if you want to use a MAF system fine, I could care, but to say it's better then, another isn't at all accurate. Unlike your postings where you claim one is better then the other, all I've done is let the facts be known. Granted maybe in brief, but that's just the way things are in this format.

There is a difference from lose/out of resolution to NO resolution.
Seems like you've missed that point.

87400tpi

Ok this is what I have been saying.For years the direct quote is 255 gr/sec is the limit to the entire maf system.That is not true,as we all can agree.end of story.Grumpy I can answer that if you really want.I would love to converse on a technical matter.You are a smart person.I thing this is a classic misunderstanding.
I do want to get something clear.I never said maf was a better system.Look back at my post.
I understand what you are saying,traxx.I just should have never revealed who I was.If you want to ban me that's up to you.Keep in mind I have not broken any msg board rules.The last thread might have been too spirited.My reason for posting on this board is to help peolpe.What I really like is to help noobs and people that has gotten 0 responses.That is when I feel good.This has turned too heated though.It seems like sometimes when I help people others say my method is wrong.I have disagreed for over a year on three points.

1.The maf tables is the heart of fine part throttle blm correction
2.The CORRECT method for idle blm correction is maf table 1
3.That the pe table COULD be the limit for the entire maf system,not the 255 gr/sec.

All my data has prove those truths to be self-evident.No I don't have to share any of my data.Nor did I state these facts for them to get picked to death.I did post these thing for maf users to have the option to try some methods that worked for me.I guess you guy's dont want me posting here.I can take a hint I guess I'll back off from the diy-prom board,I can help people in many of the other forums.

funstick

when i do it the way you describe in your tunning article which BTW doesnt explain how the MAF table values are calculated from hex or decimal into grs/sec it doesnt work out. not being rude just pointing out something that even after you read it maybe you didnt pickup on.


i often have to reread things 30-40 times to make sure that i put across exactly what i thought i did. its hard to take something out of my Head and put it into type that everybody else can understand. i suspect you have the same problem.

Grim Reaper

Edited by Glenn91L98GTA due to lack of technical content.

funstick

thanx glen. the purpose of this post was to explain how the scalar affected the table entrys. the only time youd need to mess with the scalar is if your lean in a specific area/table and the table entry has been maxed out. raising the scalar raises the values. but even with a scalar of 255 you can set it to 1 grs/sec its just a more cousre reading you lose the decimal place.

Grim Reaper

Fun, you just keep digging and explaining.

The more information that people who've dug into the code can provide, the better. You've been here awhile and have a good understanding of a number of calibrations and ECMs. You are doing well to enlighten people about the MAF System and finding those "gotchas".

I think there's a lot more knowledge at DIY Prom now to "guide" people threw the MAF Scalar tables. (Though I still say people should have some experience under their belt and play with other things before they tackle the MAF tables).

Have fun Fun.

Slow89Iroc-Z

OK so how do I mod the tables outside the limits of the scalers?

funstick

i dont really know. the best thing to do double the number of tables and increase aviable table entrys to run a bigger maf. the stock tables arent gonna cut iut. the bigger issue is room. the $6e cal i packed tigh as hell. so this leave the $32 and $32b. if you ask me the $32b has less bugs and was an update to the $32. there enough room in the bottom of the $32b code to add like 30 2d 17 coloum tables. so this is to the advanatge.

anybody willing to help code this project up please do !!!

87400tpi

Glenn,I did start burning around 18 months ago.I would say in that there was sometime I was working on my maf system 40 hours a week,easy.So I have learned alot on how to get a great tune.You know I am picky so I wanted everything correct.Just imagine how much I have learned since I started.I did fight w/ people for a long time on those 3 points I laid out .I used the maf tables against the experts advice(even you glenn).But all the data until that point was indicating I needed som maf table tweeks.This was before anyone else,little was known then.So I fought over a (now)well known fact.I have gone against the grain alot.But I feel like I deserve some credit for the current maf movement.I have been a major force on this board.Just look back and read my post.I have been always in pursuit of greater maf knowledge.I was the one that kept poking around until someone helped me with the code https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...&highlight=kvu Then I needed more info so https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...light=RBob+maf Those are two great post.I feel at this point I am one of the top 165 maf system tuners.I also feel like nobody here will acknowledge that.

Grim Reaper

Edited by Glenn91L98GTA due to lack of technical content

Slow89Iroc-Z

Glenn, Grumpy....you guys are just pathetic....grow up! You sound like a bunch of 2 year olds fighting about who is better...christ get a life!!!!

Grim Reaper

Edited by Glenn91L98GTA due to lack of technical content

ski_dwn_it

Guys, Please give it a break! For crissakes.....here is another thread ruined by arguing who is responsible for what. Funstick posted an informative post that people can relate to and is easy to understand...then someone has to claim right to that information.......what a joke.

You guys who are always claiming to be the master tuners, please show us your engine specs and what ETs you are running.....I'm just curious. I asked a few of you for them a while ago, I think it would be interesting to see, surely you have to be at least a second or two ahead of equivalent setups with all the precision in the tunes you are packin. Its funny here no-one on this board posts their specs or ETs....why? Credibility or lack of?

I thinks the mods should rename this section to Bickering Section.....or the whinners sections, for those that are best at it. If you said something that someone else repeats at a later date, why not just back what was said and say something to the effect that about a year ago I said the same thing, just in a sorta different way, good to see it brought up again for the people that might not have seen it the first time.......then add something worth while to the conversation, instead of bickering and causing the thread to stop dead in its tracks.

Ask yourself, when you spend the time to share information that you dig up truely for the first time, spend the time to share it, then have someone shoot it down and cause the thread to be a pissing match....how would you feel about it. You guys have no idea how many people do not come to this board because they are treated like crap and can't stand the whinning that you guys do. Its a shame that you guys behave that way you do, do anything that you do truely come up with, is really overshadowed by your childish behavior. Everytime I mention for someone to come here, and share what they have, they say Yeah right, so I can get drug through the dirt and made an *** of. I have better things to do than try to reason with the unreasonable.

Is there a reason you guys have to feel like your constantly in control of what is said here? Surely you have lives outside this right?

Please let discussions continue, with regards to MAF or SD without injecting post stopping, disrupting material. Those that are here to learn would greatly appreciate it. If I want to read BS or bickering I will read the tabloids, or watch Jerry Springer.

Grim Reaper

To all. I want to apologize for the pounding and humiliation I did to 87400TPI/kvu/formula5/Tim in the post aboves.

Remainder edited by Glenn91L98GTA due to lack of technical content.

ski_dwn_it

Very impressive glenn.

And what are the specs of the engine that you are testing, just out of curiosity. I think from the logs I posted on the other posts you can see that I too am pegging the MAF meter out of the shoots. Can you share with us your planned tuning stategy? I think it would be interesting to see the outline of your plan of attack. I shared mine, right, wrong, indifferent. I got emails saying that it helped some, perhaps your methods or planned thought process could help further.

Again, let me this place a FUN enjoyabe place to come and share. Its ok to ripp on people from time to time, it just has gotten out of hand lately (past year or so) where people are completely tuned off, and majorly on the defensive. I think through attrition everyone else is either silent or not coming anymore do to the past flaming frenzy. All that is left are us few knuckleheads that are too stuborn to leave and let someone else have the final word. LOL

Glad to see some people making an effort!

87400tpi

Ski my 406 will be all forged and solid roller.I have been wanting to add a supercharger.But I have to do it bits at a time. I will eventually have a drag car.I will have timeslips in about 2 months.As you know I have a sticky track in my backyard(Gateway International).I am building my car for 3 reasons.To light drag race.To pull down .95+g.Last is to have all systems efficient.Theat means from the prom all the way to my xover frequencies of my 2XXXwatt rms stereo being dead on.

I really don't see what I did that deserves talk of a ban.Glenn I have been into prom burning for a long time.I was burning before I gotten my equipment,ask aarons91rs.You can admit it or try to discredit me.All I have tried to do is learn maf tuning.Now that I know enough,I can help others.How do you think I feel?.I was grilled hard for adjusting my maf tables.Now it is a known fact.I had to argue just to use the maf tables.You did know about them,I did give credit to greg westphal and rbob.Remember my exact words glenn.I want to be acknowledged as ONE of the poineers of maf.Not the one that discovered everything.I have some things I discovered still close to the vest.I really don't think anyone here want to hear it.I guess you guys here are not capable of learning too?No matter how much I learn about anything,there is so much I will never know.Nobody knows everything ,not you,not grumpy,nobody.Do you think it is possible I have learned something you don't know?I'm not trying to be rude ever.Before,yes I got very rude and I was wrong.But I got tired of people telling me not to adjust the maf tables.In fact thay told me I was wrong for touching the maf tables.That did get me upset.Because it was the only way to do things the right way.Grumpy and you always told me you can adjust the maf tables but it is wrong and I'm creating a time bomb.Now you guys are the masters and I am the grasshopper,hmmm.Really glenn I really expected you to respond to my email via email.But I guess that email upset you ?I just cant understand why you guys just don't like me?

funstick

enough. youve ruined my thread.

Grim Reaper

Sorry Fun. I reveiwed my past posts and edited all the non-technical. My bad.

MonteCarSlow

One word: pride

funstick

im not being an *** but he hasnt pionered anything. not a damn thing. ive got way mroe time on MAF then he does. i spend my spare tiem reading the hacks trying to make sense of it all. then i try out my various ideas to see if they work. then i post the info here where its free to consume. if anybody has spent time making maf tunning easier in the last year its been on a few of us. Rbob,Grumpy,ME. we may not see eye to eye in whats the best ststae of tune but we do know how to tell people when and where to mod tables. id be wiling to bet glenn has put more effort into maf tunning. the issue is weather your willing to poke around in the dark or turn on the lights and get it figured out. Engine tunning is not a black art . its a science. it does take intuition. but its still a sceince.



X amoutn of AIR

needs X amoutn of fuel.

end of story