Thread: How to make your fuel and timing maps AKA "TP/LOAD" scales

Yes, it's called the fast throttle enrichment table.

I should mention also, doing a virtual dyno run on a real dyno would show more consistent data. Discrepancies in the road affect the torque output, while TP would technically stay the same (same air flow).

Now @BenFenner you mentioned that I have good air flow in some parts but not enough torque, perhaps that's one way to know which part of your maps are not at MBT?

Nope. We're just trying to find how you could possibly correlate TP to MAP readings. So far, no such connection has been shown. There is no way to tie TP to pressure readings. End of story.


Torque is so obviously in the TP calculation it almost hits you in the face. Let's take a look at that TP calculation again.

TP = (MAF VQ × K Value/ RPM) + injector latency and enrichment

Okay, now let's re-arrange it a bit.

TP = (MAF VQ / RPM × K Value) + injector latency and enrichment

Since multiplication and division order doesn't matter, that conversion is valid.
Now we need to think about the MAF data. You admitted it follows the HP curve, and this makes sense, since HP is a function of available air, which the MAF measures directly.
Now, what happens to HP when you divide it by RPM as in the formula?
That's right, you get torque. I'm not saying the units are in ft-lbs. or anything like that, but it is torque none the less.

Q.E.D.



Yes sir.

Stop trying to talk down to me. This is your final warning.

You are wrong about MAP = TP. End of story. I realize you have some data that show what you want... but it is very incomplete. Where is the rpm sweep? Again it proves you wrong. Why do I keep pointing out the discrepencies... Because there are many.

What you just posted is 3 rows of MAP values on my ecu... That doesn't look very consistent to me especially for alot of the same rpm points at light throttle.

Again go look at Vadim's data. It illustrates our point to the nth degree.

It also looks like you are changing your story a little after this post. Hopefully you are realizing what we are saying.

This is NOT what you were saying or arguing before.

You are now saying that they trend together... No doubt on that. We all know that they trend together.

Trending together doesn't mean they equal each other. Which is obvious in all the logs and extremely obvious in Vadim's.

I just did a run with my MAP sensor hooked up. It's logged in MBAR so I'm trying to get it converted to PSI. Though on this setup (just got it running), the boost seems to creep up and then spikes down to 5-6psi that the gate spring is rated for, thus it's not consistent. I'll work on wiring up a map sensor to my B15 with a more consistent setup, and will get some logs from that.

At the same time I don't know if it's worth beating the dead horse, when we already know TP != Pressure.

good stuff! brings me back to my youth!

I have a ton of data on this, if I get some time I will post it.

There isn't a "direct" relation between TP and MAP readings, which is obvious.. BUT this can get you in the ball park for timing values in most cases.

^^ I was waiting for John to post something on this

Thanks John! Unisa, I think your point is now moot and it has been disproven that TP directly relates to MAP readings . No relation whatsoever

I was wondering where you were... dont take so long next time lol!