Neither did I .

I bought a car, decided there were specific things about it I didn't like and set on changing those things.
I did that by breaking stuff.
Then, I worked backwards to understand every process that went into making the part break and making the part not break.

I am a musician, not a scientist.

Tuning is exactly like music.

Bach didn't sit down with a theory book and harmonize chorale preludes using the "rules". What he did became the rules.
We extrapolate the rules from the music, not the other way around.

And sometimes - in fact every time - when the music is extraordinary, it is because it lives outside the rules yet somehow still conforms to our concept of order.



I. Have. Already. Done. That.


BTW - Here is a hint for that MAF curve:

Do you know why the bottom most value on the MAF scale can't be altered? Do you think that only applies to the bottom?
Why do you think the ends of the MAF curve are related? Do you think it is just a look-up table?

 

I assume this was what you were trying to point out from the very start - you could not possibly have been confused by the kinked line thing like the others were ?

Anyway - I have heard you talk about the above before but did not fully understand what you were saying . Also: I have not seen negative impacts from not doing it that way so didn't bother changing anything .

Perhaps you could explain how this works again here for the benefit of those watching .

Are you saying that the two end values ( IE 0.86v , 1.9461g/s and 4.69v , 365.211g/s ) should be left unchanged ?

 

I recall in one of Jeff's seminars very bad things happening if the lower value was changed.

 

what exactly ?

Maybe i'll just change it back to that way and see if something good happens ..... heh

 

I believe it can throw off the whole curve... something quirky about the way the ecu reads the stupid table.

 

Well, if that person not gonna come with anything constructive, then I'd prefer that he shut his face.

Must say that I'm disappointed when it comes to knowledgeable people sharing their knowledge in this forum and business. Coming from the audio forums you can see how people with 40years of experience sharing, explaining and give real suggestions how to solve a problem, and what might caused it. Still they make a living. See for example http://linkwitzlab.com/filters.htm This is not knowledge that comes easily.

Being egoistic is one thing, being rude is another. And it is possible to be honest and say that "I dont want to share that." But being straight forward, honest and polite seems to be a very difficult combination.

 

Just to let everyone know I appreciate the discussion. I dont have anything to offer but I am trying to learn.
OD

 

I recall MazdaManiac having made similar webpages, threads, and posts regarding the AccessPort, tuning the Renesis engine, solving fuel pump issues and hosting a DIY about it, etc., etc. The cool thing is that he has been doing it for nearly eight years around here and his threads/posts are probably in the archives for anyone who wishes to look it all up.

 

oh right- he wants me to fix something for him. probably should get to that today....

 

lol. You finally read that PM?

 

Oh, I see; requests for political favoritism and reputation management. Just as suspected.....

 

yeah- you want me to just merge the old with the MM?

 

That would be perfect. Thanks.

 

arg... an interesting thread somewhat derailed by my question! Apologies.

But its a subject that really interests me, as I am fascinated by the little extras that can be done.
If nothing else I have learned that the 5v MAF sensor is only set up to 4.69 volts at 365g/s

(I hope I at least learned that right)

Anyone know WHY the MAF sensor runs out below its peak voltage and why the full range isnt used? I believe all common MAF systems are 5 volt systems, so do individual manufacturers just use up the voltage etc they require for that usage?

 

Cause the OEM car will never get that high, why set it up for no reason? better to have good idle and cruise MAF data.

 

IIRC all he said was "some models can throw a check engine light if you change that value, and why bother changing it anyways as your car would draw that low amount of air at idle"

And I thought all you had to do to run the maf curve out to 5volts was just to change last value to 5 (in the ATR software anyways) ... then just run the horizontal interpolation to smooth out the curve ...

 

Do you remember how to do that exactly?

 

I never tried to do that in the AP...

Just tried, you can't....

Log Function TIME!!!!!

 

Hmm.
Me thinks, stand I might as the lone willow in an oak forest.

 

I do remember
First edit the value using the direct edit option
Use the H key to Interpolate horizontal the maf voltage
Your horizontal selection should be say cells from 4.06v to the 5v
You'll notice that the stock numbers are not that smooth, they decrease in value as you increment up to 4.69 volts.
I believe you want to see it nice a smooth .... something like .12v per cell would be nice I think.

Then figure out mathematically what you top maf value should be ... like 430 or 440
Then grab the maf airflow from your top value back down to 4.06 volts and do another horizontal interpolation.

 

Some interesting Trivia .....
In amongst al the BS from the last few days I discovered that the OEM maf scale has five distinct regions of varying scale .
first setting only - 0.12v increment 0.86v
0.04v increments to 1.41v
0.08v increments to 2.42v
0.12v increments to 4.41v
0.08v increments to 4.57v
0.04v increments to 4.69v

So Mazda obviously wanted better resolution down low . The reason for the resolution change up top is less obvious given that an NA engine would never get even remotely close to those numbers .

 

DING DING DING!! sorta

Of course, had you been paying attention, you would have known this from the discussion on the 5 distinct load areas used for LTFT.
Now, switch g/sec expected for volts and you will be on the right track.

Almost. You don't want a straight line and the top value has a relationship to the grouped areas (referenced above).

BTW - if you want some data for comparison, look at the MAF scaling for the STi. (It uses the same MAF as the RX-8.)

 

If by "paying attention" you mean reading every post you ever made then I have to admit ................... No , I don't do that .

The way I worked out how to deal with the LTFT load areas was very different and just shows that you can approach the same problem from different angles .
BTW - this way is better than the way I did it but remember I am mostly self taught on this stuff .

 

So, you don't even pay attention to conversations in which you are actually engaged?

Who isn't?

 

link ?