Chrome V3, need a place to organize my thoughts

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Oh great. Thats what i get for trusting you all these years. :ick:[/quote]

I just regurgitated the false info that was given to me.... I wish this stuff would have *clicked* for me back then.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]Not exactly. It’s an OEM MAF from another Mitsu and after disassembling the ROM for that vehicle the scaling for that MAF is the exact same as our stock ones.

So you guys running EVO MAFs have been duped and the setups you’re running for them is wrong.[/quote]

Ok, well they used the same 3s maf on a lot of different early 90's mitsubishi's. Does it matter that he used one over the other if he harvested the insides anyways, or am i looking at this wrong? Or are you saying one of the early stock mafs is able to handle higher Hz range without modification?

Tell me more about my duped Evo Maf im running. Whats wrong?

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Tell me more about my duped Evo Maf im running. Whats wrong?[/quote]

Yes how is running an Evo MAF with the Evo values wrong?

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]Ok, well they used the same 3s maf on a lot of different early 90's mitsubishi's. Does it matter that he used one over the other if he harvested the insides anyways, or am i looking at this wrong? Or are you saying one of the early stock mafs is able to handle higher Hz range without modification?

Tell me more about my duped Evo Maf im running. Whats wrong?[/quote]

you’re looking at it wrong.

The EVO MAF is physically smaller than the stock one. 3” circle vs a 4”x6” oval like the stock one. A stock MAF obviously flows a lot more air physically (forgetting what it can count). But we are running turbos and they just suck the air thru it so that hasn’t seemed to be an issue. Till you get to 550+ whp and a vacuum starts to build vacuum in the intake tubes.

As for tuning it, any ROM from a car running a stock shaped MAF holds the same scaling. Any ROM from a car running the EVO MAF holds the same scaling. Verified this in all the ROMs. In fact it seems to be there’s only two MAFs. One for 4cyl and one for 6cyl... 4s hold the smaller 3” and 6 cyl motors have our 4x6 ovals.

MAF smoothing is setup for the stock intake/IC setup so that doesn’t need to change unless you’ve changed that. Or have intake leaks....

MAF size.... I finally figured out what exactly this means. Originally I took this from the EVO guys as they were smarter than me and know more so what they said was truth. Maybe it’s a language barrier or maybe they were just wrong...

Well... 10 years later it finally clicked what this table does. I’ve known it’s used to calculate load but what does it actually mean? That’s what took 10 years.

MAF size is actually your engine volume.

Every ROM from a 3L motor has the same MAF size. Every 2.0 4 cyl ROM has the same MAF size. Every 3.5L motor has the same....

So what is load? Load is simply how much volume of air you’re sucking vs the size of your motor. 10 load is 1/10 the volume. 100 load is 3L of air in a stock 3/S motor. 200 load is 2x the volume of air than the volume of your engine.

So you guys running the EVO MAF changed your load values to that of a 2L motor cuz my beta testers told me that’s what they had to do to make it work. All that actually did was show the code less load. Meaning now you’re running higher timing advance because you’re lower in that table. It’s like you’re running a piggyback again.

I have a lot to share in this thread. Still working on part 2 of the engine starting tables. There’s a couple values holding me up but there’s a lot that has finally clicked. There’s so much more code in these ROMs too! Things like idle resistance fuel trimming and even alcohol correctioning!

Chrome V3 is going to be what V2 should have been and I’m ashamed it took me this long to dive into it...

[ChargerX3]

Ok, so I need to adjust my MAF size for my 3.8L Mighty Max then. Honestly I think i should just run the 3s maf as i probably wont ever hit that Hz limit. I just thought the Evo maf had better resolution, so i stuck with it.

So going forward we we need to adjust MAF size on to match the Load to engine size ratio needed. That should be simple for 3.0 builds, and 3.5 because you can pull from monteros correct? What about 3.8's though? They werent built until into the early mid 2000's and had a whole new MAF and ECU?

Im glad you are tackling this again.

[Monochrome]

I have the values for the 3.8 too BUT I’m working on a scaling so all you have to input is your true engine size. So guys with a bored 3.1L can just input that volume too.

[mjannusch]

That whole "MAF Smoothing" idea probably needs some work, or clarification at a minimum. What does it actually do - and why? The raw MAF Hz signal should indicate the mass airflow through the system, so there should be no correction factors involved beyond a MAF "calibration" if the output isn't quite linear with the actual mass airflow. Pipes/intake shouldn't change that.

[ChargerX3]

[quote=""Monochrome""]I have the values for the 3.8 too BUT I’m working on a scaling so all you have to input is your true engine size. So guys with a bored 3.1L can just input that volume too.[/quote]

I like this so long as you can lock down that scaling.

[aaronatstate]

I can flash mine back to the stock 3/S values and get some datalogs of Evo values vs 3/S values without changing anything else. It'll be Saturday though before I get it

I can also get a log of a stock MAF with stock values as well if needed/wanted.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""mjannusch""]That whole "MAF Smoothing" idea probably needs some work, or clarification at a minimum. What does it actually do - and why? The raw MAF Hz signal should indicate the mass airflow through the system, so there should be no correction factors involved beyond a MAF "calibration" if the output isn't quite linear with the actual mass airflow. Pipes/intake shouldn't change that.[/quote]

In V3 I renamed MAF smoothing to MAF correction as that made more sense to what it actually does.

The biggest frustration with this whole disassembly and why no one has done it is our own pre-conceived ideas of how we think this should work vs how it actually does.

Open ECUFlash, open your ROM and select the MAF scaling table. Right click on it, select Edit Table. Change the Scaling to Hex 8 then hit okay.

You'll note that the raw HEX numbers don't even do what it is exactly you're expecting them to do. The lower numbers aren't smaller and get progressively bigger.

This is because the code is nothing more than interrupts and correction factors between MAF pulses and injector pulses. The real challenge has been how to define these tables into data we can understand as users. This is how i know the GM code doesn't work exactly the way the Mitsubishi does and why the challenge to combine the two won't work the way we think it should.

If anything, think of the MAF Scaling and MAF Smoothing tables as two correction factors. The Scaling table is the CF for that MAF, the VE table is the CF for the car/intake itself. Hmm... now you got me thinking of a way to rename these tables.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]I can flash mine back to the stock 3/S values and get some datalogs of Evo values vs 3/S values without changing anything else. It'll be Saturday though before I get it

I can also get a log of a stock MAF with stock values as well if needed/wanted.[/quote]

Did this years ago in my DR650 99 VR4 build. I never shared it because I didn't want to start controversy.... (and also admit I was helping spread false info)

You're running an EVO MAF therefore the EVO MAF scalings values are correct. The MAF size value is wrong. The MAF VE tables are unique to your intake/intercooler setup.

[ChargerX3]

I feel like i should dive back into this again. I know its a steep learning curve, but part of me wants to get a better understanding of this instead of sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to hand me a PB&J.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""Monochrome""]Did this years ago in my DR650 99 VR4 build. I never shared it because I didn't want to start controversy.... (and also admit I was helping spread false info)

You're running an EVO MAF therefore the EVO MAF scalings values are correct. The MAF size value is wrong. The MAF VE tables are unique to your intake/intercooler setup.[/quote]

So basically I need to change the size and then adjust my timing and fuel maps since the location on the maps will change due to the load changing?

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]So basically I need to change the size and then adjust my timing and fuel maps since the location on the maps will change due to the load changing?[/quote]

You're best to change the MAF size, timing and fuel tables back to stock. Then retune the timing to suit your setup (maybe even add some timing back because you're probably going to lose some).

Think of the fuel table as your target AFR table. Set those values to what you want to see from your wideband. Use the MAF Smoothing VE table to get those values.

[Monochrome]

[quote=""ChargerX3""]I feel like i should dive back into this again. I know its a steep learning curve, but part of me wants to get a better understanding of this instead of sitting on the sidelines waiting for someone to hand me a PB&J.[/quote]

You can literally use my XML to build your own IDA file since my XML shows you exactly where each value and table is and what they do.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""Monochrome""]You're best to change the MAF size, timing and fuel tables back to stock. Then retune the timing to suit your setup (maybe even add some timing back because you're probably going to lose some).

Think of the fuel table as your target AFR table. Set those values to what you want to see from your wideband. Use the MAF Smoothing VE table to get those values.[/quote]

I'm gonna have to take a look at this this weekend. Since switching to E85 years ago, I adjusted timing and fuel tables. Not sure how they compare to stock anymore, because I had Chrome before E85. So I've made adjustments on adjustments

Which brings up another question regarding timing. Since I have the 1G cam sensor, I have to scale my timing in the first place. Is this something that will still have to be done in V3?

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]I'm gonna have to take a look at this this weekend. Since switching to E85 years ago, I adjusted timing and fuel tables. Not sure how they compare to stock anymore, because I had Chrome before E85. So I've made adjustments on adjustments

Which brings up another question regarding timing. Since I have the 1G cam sensor, I have to scale my timing in the first place. Is this something that will still have to be done in V3?[/quote]

Brett brought that idea in and I have yet to find any evidence to support it.... There is absolutely no lag time value for the crank/cam sensors in the code.

[aaronatstate]

[quote=""Monochrome""]Brett brought that idea in and I have yet to find any evidence to support it.... There is absolutely no lag time value for the crank/cam sensors in the code.[/quote]

It's not a huge deal to be honest. If you're taking the time to tune the vehicle, you should set the timing based on what you need anyway. I have an Excel file on my computer at home that converts the timing to what it needs to be based on the lag times.

I wonder if 1G ECUs just had slightly different timing values in the ECUs than later gens

[Monochrome]

[quote=""aaronatstate""]It's not a huge deal to be honest. If you're taking the time to tune the vehicle, you should set the timing based on what you need anyway. I have an Excel file on my computer at home that converts the timing to what it needs to be based on the lag times.

I wonder if 1G ECUs just had slightly different timing values in the ECUs than later gens [/quote]

The supposed lag must be in the chip itself. If that's the case then the H8 is already "tuned" for it.

Different timing tables might account for the different boost levels the 1Gs and 2Gs had.

[Jeff V.]

I've got the 1G non-flash code partially disassembled. I might be able to pull out the crank sensor stuff.