Lil treat since it was just Halloween ;)

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Whats your peak MAF Lbs. Tom?

[Iam Broke]

I don't understand it, but it's fun anyway.

[rnjmur]

Once you figure out the differences, you can always make a drop down list to select fuel type (E-10, E-47, E-85) then use the function to change your airloads when it runs to correct for the MAF readings.

[Iam Broke]

Whats your peak MAF Lbs. Tom?

It was 42.1 lb/min (SAE) at 5300 rpm and again at 6500 rpm in the pull I sent you.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Yea, that's a lil skewed lol. I forgot how high you maf lbs were lol

Can you send me the log itself? Maybe I can do a AVG of the VE and MAF Lbs?

[Iam Broke]

Yea, that's a lil skewed lol. I forgot how high you maf lbs were lol

Can you send me the log itself? Maybe I can do a AVG of the VE and MAF Lbs?

Here's the .xls of all the data for the pull.

Remember now, the MAF relocate skewed me -7% on the LTFT's so with the stock MAF freq table I'm adding +7 in the correction table for the E48 (14% total), if it matters anywhere.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Ill try using maf alone, then maf - 7%, then a MAF/VE avg and see how it comes out. I will post the screenies.

It's going to be a bit tho, about to leave work and I have cars to tune when I get home tonight, so prolly later on or in the AM

We'll get something that can work for everyone sooner or later lol!

[Kelu]

I have various logs from dyno from a week ago if that might help you.

Many without nitrous, about 1-2 with nitrous, stock airbox.

[Terminator2]

It was 42.1 lb/min (SAE) at 5300 rpm and again at 6500 rpm in the pull I sent you.

42.1 X 0.86 = 36lbs/min corrected airflow. My car is showing about the same on VE and MAF both show about 32-33 lbs/min MAF is sometimes higher by 1-2 lbs/min.

Edited my calculation was correct my typing was not.

[Iam Broke]

I see said the blind man. Isn't it 42.1 * .86 for my 14% shift?

I might as well go back to my old way then. MAF freq * 1.14 and work the correction table from 1.0.

[Iam Broke]

Here's a faster pull from 10-14. Peak loads were in the 310's. Also E48 fuel. Same fuel trims as before if you want to compare them.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Ok, Ill save that one and compare as well. I should have some time this afternoon to play with it some mroe

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Alright, played with the 1st set of data again and setup the formula. Im going to try your log next using what formula's are currently there and we'll see how it comes out this time lol.




(The 328whp is the actual dyno/log Im using)

They cross at the right spot without fudging anything and it's "pretty similar" to the real dyno on this one. Its obviously never going to be dead on, but this is pretty close to what the real plot shows. Im going to try Tom's next

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Tom's - Literally changed NOTHING with the formula's, just input his data, rescaled the HP/Tq scale to 425 to show his whole graph and this is it:


This is using airload % to calc the Tq, then a average of the Maf Lbs and VE * a value (calculated based on the dyno/log above). The hp/tq crosses at the right point still while changing nothing. This HAS to be as good as we can do. 2 totally different setups, the gain in hp/tq seems to be on point with what we are guessing tom's car makes. Any arguements?


I have another log from the dyno day, VERY similar results to the 328 plot above, it looked almost identical. I think we got it

[T-Man]

Pretty crazy! Nice work Gents!

Excited to see what kind of "power" the 4dr is making

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

Im working on the automation stuff now, hopefully will have the dyno released by the end of the weekend

[omega_5]

This is using airload % to calc the Tq, then a average of the Maf Lbs and VE * a value (calculated based on the dyno/log above).

Try going with a pure VE setup... you'll probably find that the results are a bit more 'inline' with the norm. The MAF relocate will skew the numbers a fair bit.

[BackyardTurbo_FTW]

I first did a VE calc and that could be skewed as well. But it seems when people are getting higher MAF readings, the VE drops. So Im using a Avg of the MAF and VE data, seems to be working a LOT better.

[omega_5]

I first did a VE calc and that could be skewed as well. But it seems when people are getting higher MAF readings, the VE drops. So Im using a Avg of the MAF and VE data, seems to be working a LOT better.

In a car with the stock MAF location, I'd agree.... however, with the MAF relocated I've found that the reading are skewed 28-30%. Even with an average, the airflow reading can be out a good amount.

If you're intent on using the MAF data, I'd suggest using it as a correction trend curve, rather than combining it into the direct calculation.

[Iam Broke]

Looks a lot better to me. The second log look about the same? It was a faster run.