Welcome to the SR20 Community Forum - The Dash.
Register
SR20 forum logo

Thread: MAF->MAP conversion with Tunercode?

+ Reply To Thread
Posts: 11-20 of 142
2010-12-30 00:04:20
#11
That's awesome!

The second method would be much easier to use and understand.

With the RTv1 ecu I ran on my s13 ka-t, I wired up a gm 3bar map sensor to my lm-1 and logged pressure through LW2/3 while calumsult streamed consult parameters into lw also. Made tuning easier being able to put a face to TP instead of being just a number. Then I would go into tunerpro to make changes to the bin...

That's 3 programs just to tune my damn setup lol, and sometimes one would malfunction and screw my tuning/logging sessions, usually at the worst time!

Anyways...

Now that the ecu would be reading pressure, would boost control be possible also? Does the ecu use pwm to control boost pressure on oem setups?

May be getting a little ahead here haha.
2010-12-30 00:35:44
#12
Originally Posted by dfddfd2
That being said, John has convinced me to work on a complete code rewrite to implement a tuning system very much like a stand-alone system. This system would have fuel and timing maps indexed by RPM and MAP with the fuel map cells containing injector pulse width (no more TP).
I owe John a beer. IMO you're missing half of the gains from a MAP sensor if you can't get rid of the mind-numbingly complex TP axis.
2010-12-30 00:41:17
#13
Originally Posted by Alonso
That's awesome!

The second method would be much easier to use and understand.

With the RTv1 ecu I ran on my s13 ka-t, I wired up a gm 3bar map sensor to my lm-1 and logged pressure through LW2/3 while calumsult streamed consult parameters into lw also. Made tuning easier being able to put a face to TP instead of being just a number. Then I would go into tunerpro to make changes to the bin...

That's 3 programs just to tune my damn setup lol, and sometimes one would malfunction and screw my tuning/logging sessions, usually at the worst time!

Anyways...

Now that the ecu would be reading pressure, would boost control be possible also? Does the ecu use pwm to control boost pressure on oem setups?

May be getting a little ahead here haha.


Boost control, along with everything else stand-alones have that is technically possible, would be included.

On the S13 SR20DET, boost control is on or off (ie: no PWM), but I don't believe anyone with a swap is using the stock boost control. All it does is limit pressure to the WG during spool-up based on Load, TPS, and CLT.

Dave
2010-12-30 00:52:37
#14
Originally Posted by SR20GTi-R
MAF's do not suck monkey balls.

They are effective and very accurate in the system in which they are used. Speed density does make for a more flexible system but MAF's should not be looked at as a bad thing. Do a little research.

Good luck on the SD conversion Dave. Should be interesting to see the outcome. I have some questions that I will forward to your email.


MAP is much easier on new installs and much cleaner looking. There's a reason why most standalones prefer MAP as well. You may like them but personally the only trouble that I've had out of my car has been with the maf, whether it be stupid stuff like wiring or VQ maps, etc. You just can't do much with them.

Keep up the good work Dave. So this is going to be integrated into tunercode as well as the standalone version you mentioned??
Last edited by nsusammyeb on 2011-02-09 at 12-06-40. Reason: haha: came off a little harsh...
2010-12-30 01:18:14
#15
Originally Posted by nsusammyeb
MAF's suck donkey balls, not monkey balls...do a little research.

MAP is much easier on new installs and much cleaner looking. There's a reason why most standalones prefer MAP as well. You may like them but personally the only trouble that I've had out of my car has been with the maf, whether it be stupid stuff like wiring or VQ maps, etc. You just can't do much with them.

Keep up the good work Dave. So this is going to be integrated into tunercode as well as the standalone version you mentioned??


Right now I'm leaning heavily towards the complete re-write version (tune like a stand-alone), rather than releasing 2 different versions of TunerCode SD.

Thanks,
Dave
2010-12-30 03:35:46
#16
Originally Posted by nsusammyeb
MAF's suck donkey balls, not monkey balls...do a little research.

MAP is much easier on new installs and much cleaner looking. There's a reason why most standalones prefer MAP as well. You may like them but personally the only trouble that I've had out of my car has been with the maf, whether it be stupid stuff like wiring or VQ maps, etc. You just can't do much with them.

Keep up the good work Dave. So this is going to be integrated into tunercode as well as the standalone version you mentioned??


edit:

Didnt have my cookies and milk before bed.
2010-12-30 07:24:45
#17
The EVO guys are doing it with good results
2010-12-30 10:04:28
#18
Would there be a need for a air inlet temp sensor with a map sensor setup? Factory Map sensored cars i have had have needed a air temp sensor, and the last aftermarket system i had a air temp sensor as well.

My mate and i did some data logging with a map sensor, and to be fair the basic data was very similar from a basic shape point of view to a maf on the same car.

Obviously the Tunercode genius's are a bit ahead of my random minor work, so im looking forward to this next level.
2010-12-30 11:08:11
#19
Afaik my '98 Primera P11 originally SR20DE now SR20VE has an AIT sensor danglin around the air intake pipe.
2010-12-30 14:59:27
#20
Originally Posted by Evlnxr
Would there be a need for a air inlet temp sensor with a map sensor setup?
Yes, absolutely. I'm 100% positive Dave knows this, and even mentioned it in an earlier post.

Edit: It was post #9 in fact.
+ Reply To Thread
  • [Type to search users.]
  • Quick Reply
    Thread Information
    There are currently ? users browsing this thread. (? members & ? guests)
    StubUserName

    Back to top