Quote:
Originally Posted by asshanson
I bought a section of plastic hose with male NPT fittings on both ends, and then a female/female adapter so I could plug in the gauge on the other end. I still have the hose, cost me about $15 to make at Fastenal. If you want, I could mail it to you, should only cost a couple bucks and save you some money (I wont be up there again until mid July). I just have to find it haha, let me know if you want it.
|
was just about to post here, see below. I don't think I will need the hose anymore, but I am not out of the woods yet
Finally some good news! Well what I consider good news lol. Sad kinda as nothing has changed but I think I know the problem (i think). Thank you to Bryan (razorlab) and Tephra as they both suggested this. Bryan gave me the MAFcalc and MAPcalc addresses and I went logging at lunch.
See the attached csv/zip if you are interested.
Basically, the MAFcalc averaged 19% higher throughout the 30min log. So in essence, if I am reading tephra's 3xMAP table threads correctly, the car was never using the MAFcalcs as they were always higher. So we could richen up the MAF scaling but it won't change anything as its just using the MAPcalc. SO essentially the car is running "speed density" in a way, the way of maxing out MAF scaling so you always look at MAPcalcs.
For those of you not familiar with the X, the X runs both speed density and a MAF based system. And from what Tephra has posted it compares both the calculated loads and takes the lower of the two.
So now that I have seen this I guess we are onto dialing in the MAP tables. I am thinking maybe we should put my ghetto ass stock intake/MAF back on and use stock MAF/injectors and their scaling and get the MAP close to that? Not sure how to dial the tables in honestly but one thing is for sure I need to add % to them. Maybe just do like a 10% across the board to start, not sure.
Stay tuned I guess.