Here are my results (Scaling7):
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdqSIKq_IpwUEPiqs_ndEKUe1KcU7RT1M8PO2IaOsLfJUO4s58GiOsTNjRehy4EyTfIMzgXDaeWYX9y8owzYBde3uDlsRiS-fjSasfkLSuWnx8g0BvPWyVdWlpM88jQSPaTrBEPlNRipI/s400/OL_Scaling7.jpg)
The top row is MAFv, the second row is the current g/s. The third row is correction and the fourth row is new g/s values.
I only applied the change for MAFv for 2.42 and 2.54 as I wanted to see how it affects the scaling.
Here's my subsequent run (Scaling8):
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggU6teCe0bA4Z3X5xlK3Yc61XUm49e4CnZp-IT3KyJ7bSsbjHZzFb8kyhLM3PdmtzijnSa9f6AWQ_MOvIYK6NsfZaC_lM4DxvUobZiu14I8rkSW-Xvwjne9OvXYHO2hi8bVq6EQlwaHC4/s400/OL_Scaling8.jpg)
Well, it's quite disappointing as you can see:
13.61% to -4.18% for 2.42 (not too bad)
20.69% to -7.52% for 2.54 (hmm...)
Anyway, this time around, I've decided to apply all the changes because I believe due to interpolation, changing one value will affect the scaling for MAFv that are closeby.
Anyway, during my last run of logging, I've found that 50-70% throttle at 6th gear, the MAFv varies from about 2.03 to 3.01 so I'll just focus on this area. Analysing the logs, I've found that not all MAFv have sufficient data points:
2.03 - 9 data points
2.11 - 7 data points
2.19 - 31 data points
2.27 - > 50 data points
2.34 - > 60 data points
2.42 - > 70 data points
2.54 - > 80 data points
2.66 - > 80 data points
2.77 - > 90 data points
2.89 - > 100 data points
3.01 - > 60 data points
3.12 - 28 data points
Given the above data points for each MAFv, I've decided to apply the changes for 2.27 to 2.77. Note the more data points the higher the accuracy.
Let's see what the logs show after flashing this set of changes.
No comments:
Post a Comment