Grumpy

How funny,

Forced air is different from pulled air.

Now we're into chemistry. LOL

And by the way, in oem form GNs use draw thru MAFs.

Grumpy

Why confuse matters?.
This has been about the funniest thread of all time.

funstick

i thought air was air. doesnt matter which way it goes into the sensor. as long as the sensor sees it.

oh and i did manage to do some testing with a maf v6. the only thing that gest affected by intake tract changes is the AE mode items becuase the reaction to chnages in airflow maybe be faster or slower.

about that maf resoultion thing. its really resolution.

ie

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 etc etc etc

thats resolution.

the last maf table in all the cals ive seen still has unused sensor bandwitdh.

something to think about fore the guys who Are maxing the maf sensor table out.uptill you hit 5.10v youve got resolution. check your sensor when its saying 255grs/sec on you rscanner are you getting you 5.10v i doubt it.

87400tpi

Unplugging the maf was an example.I'm not too familiar with turbo's.All I know is you can say what you want,I have countered everything up to this point.But I'm done,This is getting lame people come in stab and run.Nobody has proven me wrong.There has been alot of blanket statements and misunderstandings.If nobody but the maf guys get what I'm saying then I'm happy.I have created(long time ago) a method for getting a steady 128 integrator at idle.That was discounted,along with everything I say on this board.It's funny, if I have things so twisted then why have others sucessfully used my methods??It's just like ski,nobody can't figure out why his car runs so good,nobody gets what I'm saying.You guys are getting hung up on words and not the concept.Well I know I helped ski before,and others too.That is good enough for me.I have given back,that's all that matters.You would be suprised at the people that has asked for help by email because it's hard to talk maf here.The world is round.....

ski_dwn_it

We can all see your intelligent posts.....the know it all that never gives answers...

Again I will say if your not gonna put forth the effort to contribute, and possible say something wrong, then don't post at all........




















Don't need to post and possible be wrong...there is enough of that going on already.....There I said your smart azz remark for you.

black87c4

So......

The Max airflow vs rpm table, I was just thinking this was the maximum flow that the ecm should see and thought maybe it would set a code if you exceed it, so your saying at 4000 rpm the max i will see is 220 gm/sec (from my table) regardless if I'm actually pulling more than that or not???? So why have this table and what should you reset the values to, all 255??

I have to admit what Trax and Eric said is making sense to me, I don't know who's right but if the maf is not used during PE what is the table WOT % change to fuel/air ratio vs. rpm making changes from? Does it assume 255 and go from there, it's plus and minus values from what?

87400tpi

The maf output is not what pe is based on.It's the maf TABLES that pe uses as a GUIDE.I will say it again the ecm doesn't care if the maf sensor reads is at 255 gr/sec in pe.In pe you use a wideband and the %change a/f table.The % of change is relative to the entries in the maf table.The maf table can read 255gr/sec though and I can adjust the a/f ratio % change to what ever I want.That is what GM designed p.e. for.Not as some fudge factor.What scares you guys is this stuff makes too much sense(i.e. grumpy).If you don't understand I'm willing to explain.

I find grumpy's comments unfortunate and not tech related.In fact any reasonable person would agree his comments as an personal insult.I really hope this board will reconize this.All the maf post get locked because of stuff like this.Instead of locking the post,maybe you can deal with the offender.Then discussions can continue.My primary focus is to help people.

87400tpi

I have my own take on that table.But I'de rather not....

87400tpi

But to cap it off,the change in a/f ratio is relative to the maf TABLES not actual sensor output.If the maf is pegged who cares?I dont because P.E. gives me MANUAL control of the entire system.Not fudge factor more like switching from auto pilot.Poke holes in that boys.

ski_dwn_it

It is pretty funny you have to admit how they come and make a comment and then leave for 10-15 threads. Really shows they want to contribute and make this board worth while. If I were a mod they would be outta here

87400tpi

Bottom line,power enrichment is to take manual control of fuel and spark.It more or less overides the main spark,the maf to give manual control of system.

Grumpy

So now anyone that disagrees with you is insulting you?.
Geesh, give it a break.

I have yet to see where a thread has been locked because of my actions.

If your focus is to help people then how come you just are posting to 1-2 threads?.

Let's hear about what to do to get things right when they are wrong.

OK, you got by with changing the injector constant to get yourr BLs at 128, fine. Ok, lets move on. your the one with the various postings of just attacking and mistating others.

Lets see some data logs where you actually change AFRs and that's reflected in your WB readings. Or that you're not static with your injectors.

Eric Marshall

87400tpi,
I hear you. You're saying that by adjusting the maf tables, and adjusting the PE tables, you can do whatever you want with fueling, regardless of how much air is flowing. I agree that you can do whatever you want with the fuel. The only point I was trying to make is that the airflow is still used in the calculation whether in PE or not. Granted, the airflow may be irrelevant if you're adding a bunch of fuel with the PE tables, or especially if you're changing the maf tables around. I would rather do it with just the PE tables, but everyone has their own way. Remember, just arbitrarily changing the maf tables mean you are now lying about the airflow, unless you use an accurate O2 (W/B) to make sure your adjustments were right. The whole benefit of MAF is that the ecm knows the exact aiflow and can calculate the right fuel.

Ski,
I forgot what this thread was about so had to go back and read your first post . Great times by the way. I fully believe your accomplishment. Looks to me like you're running it lean and mean. You're probably generating about 500 flywheel horsepower. You could be down around .4 bsfc. 500hp x .4bsfc = 200lbs/hr fuel. 200 / 8 injectors= 25 lbs/hr per injector. It looks to me like you're using every last drop of those injectors. Good Job! If your injectors are running static though, you will get progressively leaner as the rpms rise. You said the w/b showed 12.8? Was that across the rpm range? or at the top end?

One benefit of going with bigger inj. is you can tune the a/f across the rpms because they're not static.

I don't do this much typing on the turbobuick board

Regards,
Eric

I promise this is all true to my knowledge, just like the Iraqi Information Minister...

ski_dwn_it

Ahhhh Yeah, yet another to the point definitive contribution to the world of tuning.....Thanks Grumpy! Defend it, its falling.......

87400tpi

It's nice your getting what I'm saying.If you agree w/ that then you might be able to get my point.You can fuel manually as much as needed regardless of the gr/sec.The 255 gr/sec theory propigated here is bust.GM design things this way.Pe is engaged before 255gr/sec is reached even in stock apps.The ecm does not care about 255gr/sec in pe.

87400tpi

I have also leaned that tuning the maf tables is the only way to get part throttle blms dead on.There is an underground movement that can agree with this.This has also been a major source of friction for what over a year ago.Try to dispute the latest replys.

ski_dwn_it

Eric, yeah this thing goes on and on.....LOL.

Anyways, I can't say for sure whether the ECM uses the Air flow in PE or not. But if you go back to my orignina comments early on in the discussion, you will see me saying I don't care about air flow, and honestly I'm leaning towards what 87400 is saying that maybe the ecm doesn't anyways.

For this reason....Once PE is engaged, the ECM refers to the PE table and runs that prescribed values accordingly. Now imagine if if you could go out from of the car and somehow restrict the airflow while still somehow keeping the RPMs increasing. The ECM the way I understand it, and I think the way 87400 is saying would still add the same amount of fuel even in the absence of the incoming air. With that you would see a richer mixture. Hope that made sense.

Yeah maybe my injectors are static, sure wish there was some more ET left in it. I don't think I am suffering ET though, since the WB is holding a steady 12.8 through the runs. And thus far they are pretty easily controlled with the PE vs RPM table as 87400 and I described earlier.

Grumpy

This is having control of the AFR.

Just a light pass, ie less then 1/2 throttle, but was at an easy RPM to do that math at.

3,000 RPM, has a potential for a 20 msec PW in batch mode.
Note the PW is 14 msec. so there is lots of room to have control. Just as a note, while at a glance it might seem rich, if you look at the MAT one then you can see where the fuel is being used for in cylinder cooling, since this was not just a short pass, but rather an extended excusion in boost.

Run Mph Rpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB IAC PE AE
10:01 99 3100 177 43 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.7 22 Y N
10:01 99 3100 177 44 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 99 3075 177 44 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 99 3075 177 44 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.7 22 Y N
10:01 99 3100 177 43 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.7 22 Y N
10:01 99 3100 177 43 149 196 20.8 14.19 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 99 3100 178 43 149 196 20.8 14.33 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 100 3125 178 43 149 196 20.8 14.33 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 100 3100 178 43 149 196 20.8 14.33 11.6 22 Y N
10:01 100 3100 178 43 149 196 20.8 14.33 11.5 22 Y N

Not to be confused with wondering if the injectors are static, or if there is enough resolution to be able to tune.

87400tpi

nice point,dude.

Ragtop89

Guys, keep on pushing the MAF issue.

I'm a new '89 MAF-monkey and I'm trying to comprehend and retain as much as possible.

Questions!

I hear talk of using a wide-band O2 sensor - do I need one?Where do I get one?
How do I hook it up?

Any advice on tuning and programming?
I've got Moates' scanning software and I've logged a quick run on my car - she's running a little lean I think.

Ski - I want to say I saw a post of yours stating that you disabled the knock sensor - what is the benefit of doing that?

If I have anything else to ask I'm hitting you guys up for advice.

Keep up the good work and long live MAF!!

87400tpi

real cars dont use knock sensors.Besides i disabled mine because there is no known knock sensor for a 406.The harmonics is way different than an internally balanced 350.If you do a search on the other subjects you highlighted there will be more info than we could post here.

87400tpi

Grumpy,if you want to insult me and my pal then just prove me wrong.Do it now,here.That way maf people can see the real truth.Nobody has proven me wrong.But I have proven regardless of the actual maf signal I can use pe to get desired a/f ratio,rendering you maf theory a bust.The ecm does'nt care about 255 gr/sec when you take manual control of the fuel system.End of story,you lose admit it.Here is some nice post from the experts:That is from traxx,sounds like he is saying the ecm can/does bypass the 255 reading .That support my position on the maf system.Hmmm grumpy,sounds like you found a way to control the ecm even past 255.So that confirms,the ecm does'nt care about 255 if you se the pe correctly.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...&highlight=maf gees,I wonder why that one got locked.

RBob

iTrader: (1)

Don't see anything in that thread to lock it, just a couple of 'banned'.

87400tpi, if you'd like to prove that in PE the MAF input is not used, zero out the entries in the last MAF scalar table and make a run. Then let us see (data logs) and know what happened.

RBob.

Grumpy

So all that money that GM is using on the C5 vette racing program for state of the art detonation detection is a waste of money?.

So the type of engine balance effects detonation detection?. can I hear an explaination of how, or a URL where this is mentioned?.

Grumpy

I've done nothing to insult you.
Why do you continually go there?. Someone just replies with some facts and you take that as an insult?. What ever.

Prove you wrong?, what are you trolling now?.
What real truth are you talking about?. SD takes a million or 10x the effort to tune?.

If you read some of postings from LONG ago, I mentioned the gms/sec wasn't an issue.

What your agruing about is anyone's guess at this stage.

Lets just see some data where you aren't running with the injectors being static. You're claiming that at 450 RWHP with stock injectors you have control of the fuel curve, OK, lets see it.

255 is a mathmatical limit in the ecm.
If with the stock intake plumbing you peg the ecm to 255, then the only means of moving the AFR is thru the Aplha-N mode. Which I've tried explaining to folks numerous times.

And in that posting of mine, how do you know what the gm/sec airflow is during that session?.

Grumpy

?????
What's that supposed to mean?.
I just posted some actual numbers showing what really matters.

Ragtop89

http://zhome.com/ZCMnL/PICS/detonation/detonation.html

I just read this and it explains why we would want to disable the knock sensor in a drag racing scenario but what about day-to-day driving?
What have you guys done to your engines to assist in the reduction of detonation?

Are you running high octane all the time?

ski_dwn_it

Grumpy, I don't know if your confused or just did not read all the thread, most likely just jumping on somones last words when they aren't even his.

FIrst.....I don't ever remember 87400 saying he has stock injector and they aren't static. I'm the one with not stock injectors, but #24s. And I never said they absolutely aren't static. People like Trax and Rrob and others have been going through calculation together with information I supplied on the posts. If you cared to see, you could have just read those posts, but its hard to poke holes in raw data and make childish comments about data, so I can see how you probably just skipped over it. Are my injectors going static? Maybe, but other than shortening the life of the injectors, am I being effected by it ET wise? Probably not is the concensus. (Oh yeah, that word ET came up again.....still haven't seen yours, waiting.)

Second, you posted the WB information, which was great to see something that actually pertained to the discussion finally coming from you rather than sarcasm. But let me ask something I did not quite get, and I am not ripping on you or the data, but you said now this is control of AFR, right. OK some of the things I noticed right away, with respect to the AFR. You are going ~99-100 MPH, so the load on the car is proabably pretty consistant, due to wind resistance etc. Second the rpms are within 50 RPM across the entrire RPM range you show. Now explain to me why if the load is always the same on the car, and the throttle position is held constant, and the RPMs ever change, why should the AFR be swinging as you clearly show it isn't. Of course the AFR is gonna hold steady, nothing is changing to cause it to....

Now if you would have posted a run from say 1500_4500 RPM and it would have held a constant 11.5 AFR then I would say you have something. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think.

As for posting my AFR readings, I do not have logs of it, I would have gotten some, but we pulled the exhaust off my car at the track last time after the first three runs and the WB02 is in the exhaust pipe just after the collector. I would love to share that data with you all, but I can tell you that its 12.8 +/- .15 across the boards. I have no reason to give out false numbers, so just like the data that you provided, we have to take your word for it. If you still choose to say that I am providiing false information, then your more than welcome to come see the car run in person, and just for you will put the exhaust back on. But I am not gonna be able to run 10s with my tiny exhaust on the car, so tonight its staying off. As soon as its back on I will post the data.

I posted also corky's AFR numbers for his 406 with 24# injectors. Again if you don't believe the numbers that is your choice.

ski_dwn_it

I would not suggest that anyone blindly disconnect the sensor without being totally aware of the side effect and having enough control to stay off the gas hard. In my car with the major compression it has, detonation with regular 94 octane is a definate. And something that is a trade off with the high compression. Now at the track I run rocket fuel as its commonly called, which is a mixuture of 94 octane gas, Toluene and automatic trans fluid (lubrication). As some of the scans I posted, you can see that at WOT there are no knock counts for the runs. So I am OK zeroing out the tables, but you have to be sure that there is none or you can slowly or quickly ruin your engine.

I plan on putting together a chip that has the tables working for on the street, so I can run it fairly hard without too much trouble/worry. And also working on a minimum mixture of toluene to gas, to maintain a knock free condition. That should also help performance, due to the fact that you want minimum octane for best performance, with no knock counts obviously.

Grim Reaper

Because kvu later started making flame posts with absolutely no techinical content that I deleted so I could salvage what technical was left in the post.

RBob, I hear you. I am working on a "conclusive test" that can be performed by anyone to show whether Tim (Traxion) is right (the MAF is a factor in PE provided it is not maxxed) or kvu (87400TPI) is right(the MAF reading is not a factor in PE, even if not maxxed).

Also, the effects of elevation on the A/F Ratio for MAF when in PE and a maxed MAF occurs. Stay tuned.

ski_dwn_it

Sounds interesting glenn......

Either way, wether Trax is right or 87400tpi is right I really don't think it matters for tuning WOT purposes.

In either case you are gonna adjust the PE % change to AFR vs RPM to get the desired AFR. That is a given.

How do you plan to test the hypothesis out? Lookin forward to the results in any case...

Grim Reaper

I'll be posting tomorrow. No "I'm right and you're wrong - nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah". Just the truth. It would be best if a person has a test bench 165 - to avoid possible engine damage. But even if you don't, as long as you have some simple eprom burning tools, scanner and WB O2. I just want to derive a test that everyone agrees is true with the results predicted for each scenerio and see if which prediction comes works out.

The whole trick with tuning is to know what is really happening so you can compensate appropriately. You can always "tweak the tune". Isn't what everyone wants to know is "where do you have limitations on an ECM and what methods exist to compensate"?

Ski, all of us (including Bruce) have your best intersest at heart. All of us want to make sure that you DON'T accidentally hurt your motor. I'd rather error on the side of caution, than error when "pushing the envelop".

And, oh yeah, "Go Canucks Go". Should be a good game tonight.

ski_dwn_it

Glenn,

Absolutely understand what you are saying. I just don't go for the constant ridicule from some. It really turns people off, it doesn't bother me one bit to be honest, I have thick skin, perhaps that is why I am not afraid to go against the grain and possible expose myself as being wrong from time to time. I have many employees that work for me. Never would I run someone down for trying something new, as long as there were good intentions behind what they were trying. Hell last week a guy ruining/smashed a machine that is gonna cost me ~$40k to fix, he was trying to get it to do something no-one had every tried before to get a better rate out of it, he had permission from his direct supervisor and him from me to give it a whirl. The test obviously failed and cost up a bunch of down time etc. We learned from the experience, and we will move on from their. If your afraid to try new methods and express new idea and even sometimes question what is known as gospel, the world would become very stagnant.

For the record I have nothing against anyone here on the forum. I only push back when pushed. My intent here is to spread a little more light for the MAF guys. I read many posts here and don't comment, for many reasons, either it sounds like someone already did the explaining if their was a question asked or I already know the answer have learned that technique or trick. I just pass over the post and continue to the next one. I see lots of SD posts and sometimes I will read through them, just for educational purposes and sometimes I will see stuff being said that I don't necessarily agree with, but I keep to myself and move along. That is just proper ediquate, everyone here deserves a little respect. If some of the people think that MAF is a waste of time and don't want to tune to it anymore, then why even read the posts pertaining to it. 99% of the posts I read are MAF oriented, because it pertain to me more. The SD ones I will read from time to time. I mean if some of the people know all the answers to everything pertaining to MAF and concluded that its junk in comparison.......that is their choice. If they aren't gonna help out with the discussion in a meanful way, then I will say it again for about the 100th time...then don't post anything.

Glenn, all the people here appreciate the fact that you are gonna perform this test for us. Its nice to see some people stepping up to the plate and helping.

I can speak for myself and I think for a lot of the other people that have sent me email this week, that its nice to see some discussion in regards to MAF tuning. If its possible, amybe the solution is to break the DIY tuning board into two sections. The SD and the MAF systems. That way the die hard SD people could keep to themselves and we would not interfere with them, and their ideas. But I think the easier more logical solution would everyone practice a little self control.

Thanks again Glenn for doing the testing.

Eric Marshall

Well, here's where the initial base pulsewidth comes from:
(BUA as example)

**************************************************
* CALC Base PW VAL'S
**************************************************
LDX L0095 Ref Pulses (RPM)

LDD41: LDD L00EA Load Gms/Sec into D
JSR LF2F0 Do 16 bit multiply, Gms/sec * Ref pulses
LSRD D = D / 2
LDX L00CE Total A/F Ratio Value
JSR LF2F0 Do 16 bit multiply





And if you're wondering what happens in PE:


***************************************************
* PWR ENRICHMENT TPS TRESHOLD vs RPM
* TYPE $32 ECM
*
*
* 400 - 4800 RPM, 5 LINES
*
* TBL = TPS% * 2.56
***************************************************
LD9D7: LDX #$C60E ; Pwr Enrichment TPS Treshold vs RPM
LDAA L0056 ; RPM/25
LSRA ; Div By 4
LSRA ;
JSR LF2C6 ; Call 2d Lk Up, (No Offset)
LDAB L0043 ; AF MODE WD
BITB #$20 ; b5, PWR ENR IS ACTIVE
BEQ LD9ED ; BR IF NOT b5
; ... else
SUBA LC60D ; TPS Hyst. Disable P.E. if TPS < 10
BCC LD9ED ;
; ... else
CLRA ;
LD9ED: PSHB ;
ANDB #$DF ; CLR b5, PWR ENR IS ACTIVE
STAB L0043 ; AF MODE WD
CMPA L82 ; TPS Ld Axis Var
PULB ;
BHI LDA28 ;
; ... else
LDAA LC60B ; If Ld Val > 50, Enab Pwr Enrich
BITB #$20 ; b5
BEQ LDA01 ; BR IF NOT b5
SUBA LC60C ; 10d, Hyst for Pwr En.
LDA01: CMPA L0063 ; Filtered ld value
BHI LDA28 ;
LDAB L0043 ; AF MODE WD
RAB #$20 ; SET b5, PWR ENR IS ACTIVE
STAB L0043 ; AF MODE WD
BCLR L0039,$80 ; CLR b7, (IN SINGLE FIRE)
***************************************************
* LK UP Pwr Enrichment Air/Fuel Pct Change vs RPM
* 0 -> 6400 RPM, 128 = NO CHG
*
* TYPE $32 ECM
*
* TBL = (Pct Change * 1.28) + 128
***************************************************
LDX #$C61D ; Tbl Addr
LDAA L0057 ; RPM/25
JSR LF2C6 ; 2d Lk Up, (No Offset)
TAB ; RESULT TO B reg
LDX #128 ; O% CHG VALUE
ABX ; ADD LK'ED UP VALUE TO NEUTRAL VAL
LDAB L00D0 ; CURRENT LK'ED UP AFR % Chg/Cool Temp
ABX ; ADD LK'ED UP VALUE
;
; MULT PCT CHNG BY CURRENT STOCH VAL
; (DIV RESULT /256
;
LDD LC3CB ; Get Stoch Ratio
JSR LF2F0 ; Go To 16 * 16 Mult routine
STD L00CE ; NEW AFR Value
BRA LDA5A ;
**************************************************
* END OF PWR ENRICH
**************************************************




The initial base pulsewidth is always based on airflow. In PE, the A/F ratio is altered to richen or lean the mixture.

For the ecm to calculate how much fuel to squirt, it has to know the amount of air, whether in PE or not. Even if you've altered the MAF tables, it still uses the airflow value from those tables in PE.


Regards,
Eric

Ragtop89

I LIKE that idea!

It'd help to eliminate the SD vs. MAF pissing contests.

87400tpi

This will be my last chance to explain what my my time with maf has led me.This 255 thing is all bogus.People just please read all my post then ask yourself what's wrong.I will stop this game soon.What I am saying is valid and helpfull.But I have a life and can't defend myself against X people,it's too time consuming.Really all you can do is try to discount my hundereds of hours tuning maf(can't discount ski's timeslip).Anyways,here we go.....
RBob,I thought this subject was too heated for you.Thanks for responding,I value your input greatly.This is the closest thing to what I'm trying to say.But not exactly.The maf input MAY be used in pe.But the scalar tables is the guide to pe,not sensor output(durring pe).So zeroing it out(scalar) would not be good.Closed loop is where maxing the maf matters though,not pe.But have you read my old thread with simon holby,I think?He runs propane From what I remember.His thread was a unique one.RBob please email me,I would like to talk off the record with you.One last thing here,If you look at the code you will see w/o the maf direct volt input the code can calculate airflow.


I have done worst than zeroing the last two tables.I have tried to flip them upside down.I have spread the gr/sec between tables to see what happened.I dont need to run test,I've ran them for a long time.Real world stuff not a calculation.The testing is already over.I have done things w/ a bin that would induce vomiting to some.BUT that is the only way to see what a table does when the program has no real documentation on use.The into article to prom burning sounded great.Get the software and the prom board will help.The prom board did help but I had to bump and grind my way here.I use to post "what does X table mean".I usually gotten a trickle of info intill I kept asking.Or I was told to search,search,search.Very discouraging for a noob.In the end I put my engine on the line adjusting most tables.I have gotten smoke from the exhaust before.I have had major detonation before.But I have been here to share what I have learned.Please listen grumpy,you do have a habbit of insulting people.But it's like my xgfriend,she will never understand that she acts incorrect in public.She just did'nt see what she was doing as wrong.There is alot of other that have been insulted by you,just ask around.Hmmmm,all I can say is I'm sorry for you if you use the knock sensor when tuning pe.Oh,this is not a discussion on the C5.As you say let's keep the pcm talk from the ecm talk,this is a third gen board not a fourth gen.It's about time you concede that 255gr/sec is not a drawback to maf,like you have preached in post after post.255 is a mathmatical limit in the ecm.
nice try to slip under the radar,but I caught that one.Backpedal,my friendI think I've adressed this.No need to collect data.No need for ecm bench test.I have damaged my motor finding out what the tables really do.Believe it or not,I can't just understand why peeps are so quick to judgement.Is it because it conflicts with general public opinion.Is it because it makes others understanding of maf incorrect?Is it personal or just a lack of understanding.At this point you can quote anything I said and I can counter it.That is because(once again)I have twisted most scales every way from sunday(165 ecm).I don't think there is one person on this board that can say that,honestly.

ski_dwn_it

Somehow even though it was my idea, and possible a good one in theory, you have to be honest to yourself and say, do you really think that some people could have the control to stay away.

87400tpi

I have proposed this about 8 months ago.It did'nt go over too good.But ski, I think we need to focus on the facts I have laid out.Don't give any wiggle room.I can go into greater detail too,so let's see them poke hole in my lastest statement.

87400tpi

correction, base pulsewidth is based on the entries put into the scalar by a human(along w other calcs).Btw,look at the parameters set when the maf output is faulty.The code CAN run regardless of actuall maf output,technically.

Eric Marshall

Yes, the program gets the airflow (gr/sec) number from the MAF tables, which are supposed to be calibrated to the actual airflow flowing through the sensor.

I realize that you can change the MAF tables to alter the gr/sec reading and therefore change the fueling.

I already pointed out the default maf table above to show you what happens when you unplug the sensor and set a code.

I also showed you the code that states, for a fact, that the MAF is used in the fuel calculation whether in PE or not (unless you unplug the dumb thing). Thats the only point I was trying to make.

Could you sum up the point you are trying to make? I'm confused now

Regards,
Eric

87400tpi

no problem,happy to because you seem reasonable, eric.There is a misconception that once the maf hits 255,the maf system hit it's limit.Read all my opponents post.Now what I'm say who cares about 255gr/sec.I dont care ,the ecm does'nt even care because you manually adjust a/f ratio in pe in relation to the maf tables(not sensor).So the point is 255 is not the ecm's limit but the sensors limit.P.E. can overide sensor input,more or less.So the "255gr/sec and the maf system can't fuel acurately" belief is false.The opposition has this myth in their heads when they reply.

Grumpy

Well then you also suffer from being insulting.

haha, great dodge.
Since I actually use my car alot, and can't check the quality of every tank of gas I get, I do use mine. Can you guarantee the quality of every tank of gas you get?. If you also look around there are alot of 148 ecm'd cars running the Kock Sensors and going fast. BTW, the 148 is used in the 89 TTA so it is applicable here.

When are you going to actually look at things in depth?.
Once you peg the MAF your in Alpha-N fueling, if 2+2=5 is close enough for you, well that's fine, but to insist it's anything close to right without even knowing where your tune is, just doesn't make sense to me. Again, lets see you PWs at load, and how your making these changes you claim. Just show me how you can get the HP you claim, with the injectors you claim, and have any room to tune.

Again, like I've invited others to think about is what is really going on with the MAF and how to work around it.
Now again, you might also remember that I post in a manner to help teach. ie motivate folks to actually get off their backsides and figure stuff out.

BTW, there are answers to all this.
Since you and a few others have taken to wanting to misstate things, and profess having all the answers, I've figured why should I give the answers out. I've done everything but spell out what's needed to be done.

87400tpi

You said the maf sysem has a limit.Once past that it's hard on the engine.Your wrong.You also said it's very hard to get a 165 maf car past the 12s in the 1/4.You was wrong.You can't admit it.But when you take your maf tables and twist them in a random fashon to see the effects,you can step to me.This stuff appears to be over your head,grumpy.Nobody has done the things I've done to those tables,period.

87400tpi

Just because you think that you should'nt attempt to cut people down.I thought the board frowns at any attacks on members,provoked or not.

Grim Reaper

A true experiment must be performed without any bias or attempt to skew the results. The important thing to do, before the experiment is initiated, is for all to agree what they believe the possible expected results should be based on different assumptions.

Also, it gives people to review what is being said and clarify what part they are talking about. It may be that both parties are talking about different situations (even though they think they are the same) and once you put the "test parameters" down in writing, it gives people an opportunity to clarify their position. Heck, the answer may become readily apparant to all, even before the testing is done.

But, it won't be me doing the testing and publishing the results. The "scientist" offering the test parameters must let others perform it - and repeatably. And, it needs to be confirmed (or denied) by as many MAF users as possible. Heavily modified engines, such as your own, bone stock engines and everything else in between. The more, the better. It is difficult to derive a "general rule of thumb" with a sample size of one.

Those results which EVERYONE can confirm can form the basis of a potential "general rules of thumb". Those results which people obtain "conflicting results" need to be looked at in more detail to determine "why the difference", which may lead to "under certain circumstances this will happen and under other circumstances that will happen".

No reading of a computer hack, or relying on someone else's test (wondering if they were truly iimpartial or whether they tainted the results". It must be done by all those that are concerned and repeatable by as many as possible. The exceptions can be looked at later to determine "WTF"?

Lastly, I don't think there is any need for different Boards. SD, MAF, TBI and users of newer cars/ECMs can all live and work together. There is a lot of common ground between all the EFI systems that are more "tuning oriented" than specific to a particular ECM or calibration.

AND, there are some unique situations specific to a particular ECM or calibration. What you want to find is if any of those unique charateristics present a limitation that needs a specific tuning solution. And lastly - what are ALL the particular tuning method alternatives to overcome a discovered limitation. Do all the alternatives work equally well, or does on method appear easier or better than another.

I honestly feel we can learn from each otherl and that we can all live with each other. Now, let's talk Superram vs. Miniram (j/k - no way I'm going there). :nono:

87400tpi

Glenn my methods have been tested w/o bias because I was learning the functions of the tables.It has been repeatable,ask ski,funstick,greg westphal and more if tuning the maf table 1 for idle works.Like I said there is an underground that thinks this way.That is because it works for them.

Grim Reaper

Great. I look forward to yours and everyone else's results that you will publish in the "experiment" I am setting up for you.

Cheers.

87400tpi

No disrespect, but I am finished with the testing.If you tell me the "experiment",I might be able to give some insight.My car is parked right now.Besides you are aware I have SD now(months now)?

I can explain my point of view better but I'm waiting for someone to dispute what I have posted of late.Glenn your right,I am talking about something different than everyone else.I really feel like you know in your heart I'm right in what I speak.If that is the case then glenn you have two choices.You can play the role of "I don't believe it until I see it".Or you can have faith in my words.Either way I'm content because I can tune the 165 ecm.Even happier because I am able to help others in need.This has evolved from maf guys trying to help others to me defending myself.I invite everyone to read all 300 post and tell me I'm wrong.Quote me directly please and I'll respond.I'm waiting.....

87400tpi

....

ski_dwn_it

Guys,

Here is a little more food for thought. I was looking at some old post I made and found my old dyno graphs from my 350 setup with the AFR heads, SR, and 219 cam.

I again was maxing exceeding the MAF 255g/sec during WOT, using the techniques that I described before of just playing with injector constant, etc I was able to achieve my desired AFR.

I guess I wanted to share some results of AFR control, since we were blessed to have someone else provide some. But only for a short people of time at the same RPM. This is mine across the entire RPM range. I don't think you could get it much better.

This is again with #24 injectors, and stock fuel pump. The car was down on power, due to the broken top rings that appeared to be like that since I owned the car. A few that saw them first hand said they believe that they were broken right from the factory. Who knows. I never saw a sharp decrease in performance, so I guess it had to pre-my-ownership that it happen. Every top ring was broke in two. Still the car ran 12s with 50% leakdown results.

Hope this helps so how effective you can tune WOT using PE vs RPM. I don't think you could get it much better.