| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sideways danny
Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:04 am Post subject: tunerpro |
|
|
| has anyone made an xdf file for the CA18DET to use in tunerpro? I'd like to give this software a go but address files are a little out of my scope of understanding |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skyshack
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Burton on Trent, UK
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK here it is.
I've had problems with the AFR map and had to leave it as raw data.
Can't use this in conversion as no "IF".
14.7 * if DATA > 128 then Factor = (DATA - 64) / 128 else Factor = (DATA + 128) / 128
Tried
14.7 * (X + (128 - 192 * ( X & 128) / 128)) /128
didn't work as the "&" operator doesn't seem to function
So tried this
14.7*(X + (128 - 192 * ((X / 128) - (X % 128) / 128))) /128
That did work but some values were wild ~ 23AFR.
Also didn't work for hex$80
$7F = 127, factor = 1.992 OK
$80 = 128, factor = 2, result = 0.5
$81 = 129, factor = 0.508 OK
If a value in no Feedback area was changed and the map saved it was saved with Feedback active.
http://www.fast-files.com/getfile.aspx?file=15104 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sideways danny
Joined: 01 Nov 2006 Posts: 43
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tunerpro is THE SHIT!!!!!!! Peter you are amazing!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skyshack
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 Posts: 4 Location: Burton on Trent, UK
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Today I realised ECU uses Base TP x factor NOT AFR x factor.
AFR = 14.7/factor
Conversion should have been
14.7*128/(X + (128 - 192 * ((X / 128) - (X % 128) / 128)))
Still won't work as the set value would always be for feedback on.
But the AFR that calc gives is just a notional AFR as the base TP is for a single condition with base efficiencies for thermal, combustion and mech. The factor provides a correction not just for AFR but also for the variation for those efficiencies from the base. So presenting the AFR would only lead to trouble as the measured AFR won't match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|