hear that, chey? you may not be as dumb as you think,.

 

I tried everything but, the stinky leg to get rid of that cel! It was running pretty good so I logged with it on. Well, I applied the logs but just did 2.77 down m-.96. 3.01 and up at m-1.02. Reflashed, fired it up and light disappeared. Went up the road to get to operating temps and it ran nice. Stopped at idle and nearly no fluctuations at all. In drive and in park. It really felt smooth. I only drove about 4 miles about 20 mins ago.
I double checked everything and was in no rush like last night sending you the wrong screen pics.
Here are the new screen pics.

 

The old MAF.

 

interesting.

 

So. You feel there is something wrong here? I'm going to do at least one more set of logs and see where the numbers are at. There is something about starting the MAF over 2.x. Cel both times that I plugged in values larger than 2.x.

 

Why did you do .96 if Baseline is telling you 1.08?

 

After Chase had me do halves the other night, I wanted to just try. I'm noticing that anytime the values start above 2, a cel is thrown. Just like before when I used Chases' tune and scaled the MAF. It bogged down and ran like I was towing a Scarab to the river. Cel. So I just decided to apply it this way. Now, it could be way off. However, it runs good and I'm baffled as to why it takes off from a dead stop so well. Not manual well but, better than I have ever experienced in this car.
This is why I am going to take additional logs. I will keep posting up data for everyone to help analyze and correct me when wrong. No doubt I'm still dumb but, I refuse to give up...........................yet.
But, but, but, but, I gots a goooood brain. You make Simple Jack hop-py.

 

LOLZ - when you say above 2 what do you mean? Volts above 2 or M values above 2?

 

No, not the m-values. On the stock MAF .86=1.96. We came up with .86=2.06. Then logged again with cel. I out of the blue after staring at it for awhile punched in m-value .96. I liked the curve and it ended up .86=1.98. Below the 2.xx threshold that is puzzling me. Just trial and error. Oh, the 2.06 with m-value .96=1.98. Just wanted to clear up possible confusion. I didn't start over, as that would have made 1.96=1.88.
Have to admit I'm not satisfied even after driving it. That is why I want to see the next set of logs before proceeding any further. Guess work isn't proof of anything which is why I'm still unsatisfied.

Just to ask and make sure. I'm looking for my m-values to read in the .98's or so?

 

M values should fall from .98 to 1.02 or so... that is perfectly acceptable.

 

Awesome. Wurd up, rock tha spot, Dr.Spock. Hoooootie whhoooo!
My second wind to keep going and suppress the feelings failure. Post back soon enough. Then on to these fuel tables..........................



Recommendations?

 

make sure you are logging what you are tuning. this sounds to me like you scaled the stock maf and flashed, then you threw some other logs you had already back into baseline, and scaled what you flashed using those logs.

so like you made datalog 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 on the stock map. and when you scaled your maf with baseline, you used data logs 1, 2 and 3. Then you saved the map you made with those m-values. then you scaled with baseline again using 4,5, and 6. and you changed the map you just saved using the m-values you just got.

that would be bad.

 

Is Chase correct?

You do have to go in order... log, scale maf, re log with new scale, re scale.

 

Not exactly. However, if I'm smellin' what you're stepping in, I need to take the bottom set of numbers in Access Race and make that the right side row in the MAF in Baseline? Then I should take new logs, rescale. That makes complete sense!

 

Nope - you can leave the scale alone in Baseline.

Just log - scale the airflow (not volts ) in the MAF, load in the tune and go log it... then (Get Ready for the the next tune) in baseline to get rid of the old info.... and load in your second set of logs and rescale.

If you need to call me tonight after I get out of work we can run through it.

 

Ok then. I did misunderstand. I did change the airflow, saved and then loaded that map. Logged again. Scaled that info and came up with that last set of m-values that I posted the screen shot. I guess I may need to call, I did what you said and I was expecting .98-1.02's. I did "the get ready for next tune".

 

Bump! I've been getting a lot of emails; but no feedback here. How is everyone doing with this?

 

I just got back from OBX. The car is running great where I left off. I will give you a call tonight or tomorrow. Or, is there a more convenient time?

 

Tonight should be ok - I will likely be drunk.... but I can tune drunk.

 

Well won't we be pair. I had the aura that I feel before I get a migraine, so I took a couple merepidine. I spending some time with the lil' man and will call after he's down.

 

Kane let me know when you will have some free time next week for a demo over the phone!

 

Will do mate.

 

After the MAF min change a P0335 CEL was thrown. However, I ran a log on the tune that has the MAF scale that I posted above .86=1.98 etc. This is the m-values for that log. Seems to be closer????
Post #572 is the MAF I'm running.

 

I don't even see a .86 on the image you posted... I are confused.

 

The .86 is in the MAF calibration referred to in post #572. Im running that MAF and those m-values I last posted are from running MAF in post #572. Make sense?