Dangerous Dave

Members
  • Posts

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Dangerous Dave last won the day on November 22 2020

Dangerous Dave had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Location
    England

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dangerous Dave's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges

35

Reputation

  1. I just retested with your original file and I'm getting the 1.5 AFR difference again. My spartan is reporting 14.7 and the ecu is spitting out 13.2 It must be the 1E400 (target AFR) table as that is called for the conversion Just thought, I've got an ostrich so can live edit that map and see if anything changes. Will have to be tomorrow now though as it's late here
  2. Ah ok, I get it now. So you're using the Intake Air Temp ADC channel to input the Spartan Sequencer voltage to try and check the AFR is correct. The issue is probably due to the different output impedance of the Spartan controller. It is known for causing issues on other ADC Channels, I had the same problem when I tried to use the accelerometer ADC input for my Spartan WB, it had a 0.7V difference. In the end I just used the tank pressure input (which you are already using for yours). If the voltage output from the sequencer matches what you are getting AFR wise then I wouldn't bother trying to get the other input working. The only other way is to get another WB Controller brand and try that but why bother if you know yours is working? And yes the units for the MAP conversion are in PSI with that formula
  3. Sorry, yes I meant zero the all limits of LTFT. It shouldn't matter anyway really as the code probably bypasses the fuel trims (I haven't dived into it yet). ̶I̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶S̶p̶a̶r̶t̶a̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶T̶P̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶(̶(̶x̶+̶4̶0̶)̶*̶0̶.̶0̶4̶)̶+̶1̶0̶.̶ ̶ ̶I̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶T̶P̶ ̶s̶e̶t̶t̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶ ̶(̶X̶*̶0̶.̶0̶3̶9̶2̶1̶5̶6̶8̶6̶)̶+̶1̶0̶ ̶w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ ̶m̶a̶t̶c̶h̶e̶s̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶S̶p̶a̶r̶t̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶p̶u̶t̶ ̶(̶h̶a̶v̶e̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶s̶p̶l̶a̶y̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶p̶a̶r̶t̶a̶n̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶t̶r̶o̶l̶l̶e̶r̶)̶.̶ ̶ ̶I̶ ̶t̶r̶i̶e̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶m̶a̶p̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶c̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶r̶a̶n̶ ̶f̶i̶n̶e̶ ̶h̶o̶v̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶r̶o̶u̶n̶d̶ ̶1̶4̶.̶7̶ ̶A̶F̶R̶ ̶a̶t̶ ̶i̶d̶l̶e̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶A̶F̶R̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶h̶i̶g̶h̶e̶r̶.̶ ̶M̶a̶y̶b̶e̶ ̶i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶t̶r̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶b̶o̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶n̶s̶l̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶W̶i̶d̶e̶b̶a̶n̶d̶?̶ ̶ ̶A̶l̶s̶o̶ ̶w̶i̶t̶h̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶T̶a̶r̶g̶e̶t̶ ̶A̶F̶R̶ ̶m̶a̶p̶ ̶d̶i̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶u̶l̶a̶ ̶b̶e̶f̶o̶r̶e̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ ̶i̶n̶?̶ ̶I̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶r̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶m̶u̶l̶a̶ ̶a̶f̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶a̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶v̶a̶l̶u̶e̶s̶ ̶w̶o̶u̶l̶d̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶w̶o̶n̶'̶t̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶S̶p̶a̶r̶t̶a̶n̶.̶ Ignore the above, just tested my conversion formula with your target AFR map and it dropped the actual AFR to 13.3 but Target AFR was at 15.9 so that is not right. Also for the MAP sensor I use the conversion formula ((((X/256) + 0.04) / 0.004) * 0.145)-14.5 which gets me pretty close (doesn't account for local atmospheric pressure changes/height above sea level but that is pretty negligible).
  4. I just had a quick look at your binary. Noticed that the long term fuel trims have values in them. In other WB binaries those have been zeroed. Is this not the case with your binary (is it a newer version?) What I can also do is try your bin on my car (as I have COP and WB) see if I get the same results
  5. It could be something got corrupted or you inadvertently change a setting somewhere, it can happen (I once managed to change my fuel cut speed to 0 mph so as soon as I moved the engine died )
  6. I ran my modified 609 binary (logging, also with COP and WB control) on my 850 and it worked ok, so either there is no immo enabled on the 609 or it worked due to my ecu being originally a 609 (just I have fitted an ostrich to it). The logging is added to the binary and doesn't remove the evap diagnosis like in the 608rev5b. This means that not all the parameters can be logged due to the 608rev5b version re-purposing some addresses from the evap routine. And also doesn't include map switching. Theoretically (not been tested, though should work) I have added logging to other binaries: 448/449/611/612. A flag/switch sets the byte to 0 or 1, a scalar will allow you to set it to any value (up to 255). As it needs to be 1 or 0 I just used a flag/switch. Have you restored the original value at 0xC8ED in your 609 binary? It should be 0x79 (118 decimal). Good news on the logging rate! Did changing the 't' to an 'l' work?
  7. There is a logging version of the 609 that I've created (I don't know if anyone else has done any). I'll have to dig it out and check it before posting it.
  8. Let us know if it works any better Thanks bud, it's a long work in progress lol. Ok, from the images you posted it is sending the wrong letter to engage logging. If you see it says 0x74 and below it says 't'. It needs to send an 'l' so if you just change that 't' to an 'l' it should change the 0x74 to 0x6C and should work. Then in the ADX Header Data tab change the Connection command to 'Engage logging' and change the Monitor command to 'Listen for data frame'. That should remove the listen silence and give you a faster data stream. Hope this helps
  9. That's because the auto/manual location in the 609 binary is different to the 608. For the 609 binary add the flag parameter and point to 0xC8FC Can you post a screenshot of your Definition setup in tunerpro? Post the ADX Header Data and the engage logging
  10. Excellent info there buddy! Only thing is the 0.34 is used for the 350cc 608 binary and in the 315cc 305 binary for my LPT 850 AWD which makes things even more confusing. But like you say, 315cc in the formula seems to work for other people. I'm using 0.29 at the moment (which is the 350cc/440cc) but will lower it to 0.24 I worked out my mpg from fuel used on a journey (filled to the brim then drove 30 miles to my workplace then filled up again). Worked out to approx. 21MPG and that was highway cruising 50-70mph. I just wanted to get my injector settings spot on to rule out any issues in that area.
  11. Yes it is rather confusing as there is very little information about minimum injection times anyway. I've seen lots of figures for the greens (some saying 1.10ms, some 0.5ms). Also I thought the stock value was 315cc (as the first injectors on M4.4 were that size) but as you say the XDF states 350cc. I'm trying to figure out why I cannot get more than 22mpg at cruise.