9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions - Page 3

TT331FB · 09-07-2005, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86GT

I personally did not have any problems with the third order, but I do understand that the sixth order will give better resolutions. I did not implement it on the current versionbecause it is a night mare to implement. The difference that Eric is seeing is related to the order of the polnomial. I have found a way to add the sixth order to the EA and will do so on the next revision.

Spliting the orders based on the location in a MAF may not be the best approach. Im not to sure of the advantages of doing this.

Thanks Clint, I don't see this as a big deal. I agree that splitting the curve could be problematic. Assuming that a sixth order is a good fit should not be jumped to without actual calibration info at 5 MAFv to compare to.

TT331FB · 09-07-2005, 04:34 PM

Anyone see any problem with using MAF pt 30 MAFv as 4.99 instead of 15.999 typicaly seen? Why waste the point with a voltage not readable by the EEC.

86GT · 09-07-2005, 10:43 PM

As long as the 'MAF Voltage Maximum' value in the scalar is at 4.999 it should not be a problem.

Dale McPeters · 09-08-2005, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86GT

I personally did not have any problems with the third order, but I do understand that the sixth order will give better resolutions. I did not implement it on the current versionbecause it is a night mare to implement. The difference that Eric is seeing is related to the order of the polnomial. I have found a way to add the sixth order to the EA and will do so on the next revision.

Spliting the orders based on the location in a MAF may not be the best approach. Im not to sure of the advantages of doing this.

Clint,

How big of a deal would it be to have the 3rd & 6th order options available in the EA? Would it be to much of a nightmare to implement?

On the item of spliting the orders based on the location etc. of the MAF. It may not be the best approach but so far it is working fine.....at least until I can get the AEM setup and get everything changed over.....

Of course I would not recommend this to anyone else as my situation is a little different than others would be.

86GT · 09-08-2005, 08:15 AM

I am currently woriking on implementing the sixth order as an option.

Dale McPeters · 09-08-2005, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86GT

I am currently woriking on implementing the sixth order as an option.

Thanks Clint.

86GT · 09-08-2005, 09:06 PM

I have it completed now, but it need to be tested.

86GT · 09-08-2005, 10:40 PM

The new version is up on the web site. It now supports 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th order polynomials.

Dale McPeters · 09-09-2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 86GT

The new version is up on the web site. It now supports 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th order polynomials.

Thanks Clint, You the man.....

I will get it downloaded this weekend and try it out on a few
flowsheets that I have and on the GT.......

Dale McPeters · 10-05-2005, 06:53 AM

Clint,

I tried to download the latest rev of EA 2.6.6.6 last night and
it kept telling me that the zip file is corrupt? Got any suggestions?

09-07-2005, 04:34 PM	#22
TT331FB Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 53	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions Anyone see any problem with using MAF pt 30 MAFv as 4.99 instead of 15.999 typicaly seen? Why waste the point with a voltage not readable by the EEC. __________________ TT331FB - T3/.6/.63 turbos, Spearco intercooler, 302/331 Mexican Block,AFR 185 heads, 80mm MAF, 75mm TB, 50# injectors, Tweecer, Track Heat intake, Comp cams roller blower grind, MSD BTM, DIY-WB, Yokogawa video display,T-56 tranny, 9" 3.5:1 Traclock, 4x disk brakes, TCP most everything, shelby roll bar. First fire up 2/14/2004.

09-07-2005, 10:43 PM	#23
86GT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sacramento California Posts: 449	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions As long as the 'MAF Voltage Maximum' value in the scalar is at 4.999 it should not be a problem. __________________ EEC Analyzer A9M, TwEECer, 306ci, 73mm C&L w Tuner Tube, Cobra Intake, 42# inj, Edelbrock 6037, E303 cam, 155 fuel pump, FPR, 70mm TB, E-Fan, 3.55 gears, Powerdyne 9psi actual 5psi...way more.

09-08-2005, 08:15 AM	#25
86GT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sacramento California Posts: 449	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions I am currently woriking on implementing the sixth order as an option. __________________ EEC Analyzer A9M, TwEECer, 306ci, 73mm C&L w Tuner Tube, Cobra Intake, 42# inj, Edelbrock 6037, E303 cam, 155 fuel pump, FPR, 70mm TB, E-Fan, 3.55 gears, Powerdyne 9psi actual 5psi...way more.

09-08-2005, 09:06 PM	#27
86GT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sacramento California Posts: 449	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions I have it completed now, but it need to be tested. __________________ EEC Analyzer A9M, TwEECer, 306ci, 73mm C&L w Tuner Tube, Cobra Intake, 42# inj, Edelbrock 6037, E303 cam, 155 fuel pump, FPR, 70mm TB, E-Fan, 3.55 gears, Powerdyne 9psi actual 5psi...way more.

09-08-2005, 10:40 PM	#28
86GT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Sacramento California Posts: 449	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions The new version is up on the web site. It now supports 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th order polynomials. __________________ EEC Analyzer A9M, TwEECer, 306ci, 73mm C&L w Tuner Tube, Cobra Intake, 42# inj, Edelbrock 6037, E303 cam, 155 fuel pump, FPR, 70mm TB, E-Fan, 3.55 gears, Powerdyne 9psi actual 5psi...way more.

10-05-2005, 06:53 AM	#30
Dale McPeters 5.0 Block/Walnut Cracker Join Date: May 2005 Location: Working.... Posts: 2,409	Re: 9pt to 30 pt MAF conversions Clint, I tried to download the latest rev of EA 2.6.6.6 last night and it kept telling me that the zip file is corrupt? Got any suggestions? __________________ '14 Dodge Challenger SRT8 392 6-speed