Dangerous Dave

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Dangerous Dave

  1. 20 minutes ago, Chuck W said:

    Well, this is where I'm confused. The input from the sequencer matches, but then when running, the output in TP lags by that roughly 1.5 AFR. At least that's what is being reported in TP. I haven't been able to verify it yet with a second source (I'm not using a gauge or anything), so I don't know for sure. I do know that it no longer smells rich at idle, which it used to do with the old non-WBO2-emulated tune.

    It "appears" to follow the AFR Target map, with that offset.

    I'll try again with the MAP conversion. It seemed to be giving me weird values when I used it.

    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. 3 hours ago, Chuck W said:

    OK, I looked at those after your previous post. There are some LTFT adjustments being made after the car has been driven for a bit.

    I've tried a couple conversion factors, and none really seem to be correct. That "(X+40)" is in there trying to adjust for that offset that I'm reading in TP. (Using the Output sequencer feature from the Spartan, that is the adjustment needed to align with the 2 sequencing voltages). It's been a couple months since I've messed with it, but that 0.7V/40 byte/1.5AFR offset is prevalent throughout the range.

    What are the units for that MAP conversion? (I had been trying to set mine for vac/boost in PSI)


    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. 11 hours ago, Chuck W said:

    I had to look back, but I haven't changed anything in the tune/bin since May. 

    I'm a little confused, as I don't remember being able to zero out the LTFT in the binary at all. Are you talking about the limit and range settings? I hadn't heard that those needed to be changed/adjusted.

    I haven't had a chance to get another WBO2 sensor on there to verify that those offset values I'm seeing are real or not.

    As I mentioned before, the car drives fine (actually better than before I did this mod), but I'd like to sort this out before I start making any other changes to the tune.
    (Also, still trying to figure out the proper conversion factor for the MAP sensor, to get it in usable units.)

    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. On 6/7/2022 at 1:24 PM, Chuck W said:

    Pretty sure that's what is done in my longer post above. At least that's based on the instructions I got from Aaron. The VE map was converted to the AFR map  and the Alternate 1 VE Part Load map becomes the target AFR map.

    None of the signal grounds I have tried are supposed to have any offset in them, and I'm using the Tank Pressure sensor ADC for the input.

    There is something set-up or configured wrong, but I can't seem to find it. 

    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. 13 hours ago, razori said:

    With 608 bin yesterday the car went nuts. To this date everything had been fine but yesterday the STFT, LTFT_I and LTFT_PL went all over the place. STFT was -25% so it was "drowning" from fuel. One could smell the excess fuel burning in the exhaust. Adjusted the part load map a little and it got a little better but it didn't make any sense since all has been fine to this day.

    Revert back to my B-revision (my last functional map) and fired up the car. It was a little unstable at first but settled after a few mins and all is well again. I have absolutely no idea what caused the issue.

    Difference between my C and B revisions were the TCV duty and TL maps, which should't affect idle as far as I unterstand :huh:

    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 :))

    • Like 1
  6. 13 hours ago, Turboforslund said:


    Will the immo still be intact but with an added logging feature for 609 equipped cars? If so, it's a great step forward!  Really great news!

    // Turboforslund

    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.

    5 hours ago, razori said:

    Finally had the change to try this. With flag parameter it still throws a fault code that the VolFRC sees, but no CEL.

    With scalar both fault code and CEL is present.

    What does the flag param. excatly do? Kill the CEL?

    This helped. :tup: Now the logging rate is at ~15Hz

    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?

    • Like 1
  7. On 5/5/2021 at 4:04 PM, razori said:

    Logging wise there isn't an option besides the 608 bin? Of course I could copy all the LPT maps from the 609 bin to 608 but I have a gut feeling there's more to it. Or could it be that simple :huh:

    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.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  8. 1 hour ago, razori said:

    Thanks, have to try that. With the 608 the car "feels" less responsive than with 609 at low revs. And no wonder, left the tcv and target loads "as is" but upon comparing the maps one could actually see why it's less responsive. Duh :a-farmboy:

    btw love your work on your 850 awd :tup:

    Images attached

    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

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  9. On 4/24/2021 at 7:01 PM, razori said:

    Now that I've cleared my head everything is quite simple.

    Modified the 609 bin since I have an LPT but it threw faulty wiring code between aw50 and m4.4. Funny actually since the car is manual.

    Tried this:

    Sounds great, didn't work. Codes came up still.

    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


    22 hours ago, razori said:

    Got the maf sorted, there was a leak under the idle control valve. Now maf is reading ~15kg/hr at idle after warm up cycle is completed.

    Also the send "l" (lowecase L) command for the logging in tunerpro won't work. Have to send the logging commad via realterm but that's no biggie. What really bothers me is that the data logging rate is reeeeeaaaalllly slow.

    When the engine is off the data rate is ok, around 20Hz but when I start the engine the data rate drops to around 2Hz.

    All the usb drivers are up to date, baud rates ect are ok. Could it be the windows? I'm using win10

    Can you post a screenshot of your Definition setup in tunerpro?  Post the ADX Header Data and the engage logging

    • Like 1
  10. Send

    4 hours ago, Midnight Caller said:

    Well, 20 minutes to take it down and 20 to put it back is not such an ordeal :)
    It seems that the PCV hose was only out of the house coupling. Put it back together and was good to go.

    Unfortunately that wasn't the reason if my AFR issues. I plugged the BOV, and pressure tested the intake system, no vac leaks.

    Tried calibrating the injectors again, I used the injector constant and the dead times in the M44 wikia (0.7188 and dead times from the wiki).
    Vac. is around -10, STFT is oscillating between -6% and 6%, MAF meters 13.8kg/h, load around 1.01.
    Requested AFR from VE map is 15.1, but AFR on the gauge sweeps between 14.1 and 14.7

    I removed the formula in the ADX to see what's in the ADC bits, and it oscillates between 120 and 130

    If the wideband is calibrated in the BIN for 0-5V to correspond to bits 0-256, then:

    5V/256bits =  0.01953125 volts/bit
    The middle of the "scale" - 2.5V would correspond to bits 128 (AFR=15 on the gauge)

    As I wrote earlier, I'm seing values between 120-130 in the TunerPro dash (using no formula, just "X") and 14.1-14.7 on the AFR gauge.
    AFR readings on the gauge :
    - 14.1 AFR on the gauge corresponds to approx 2.1V output to ECU
    - 14.7 AFR on the gauge corresponds to approx 2.35V output to ECU

    AFR read by ECU (shown in TunerPro) :
    - 120*0.01953125 = 2.34V -> which corresponds to 14.68AFR (according to AEM UEGO manual)
    - 130*0.01953125 = 2.53V -> which corresponds to 15.02AFR (according to AEM UEGO manual)

    So as far as I see I'm having around 0.23V offset between what the AFR controller sends to the ECU and what the ECU translates as in bits (and reapply transformation formula back to volts).

    I'm pretty sure that I tied internally (in the ECU) the (Signal -) pin of the rear O2 sensor (A19) to ECU signal ground (A18) so.... calibration problem in the BIN file ?

    What pin/input is your wideband connected to?

    • Like 1
  11. On 2/17/2021 at 12:32 AM, gdog said:


    Very good points; beginning to think 350cc reference in the xdf comment is a typo and meant to be 315cc for the stock oranges/reds.

    What are you using for TEMIN setting now?  Seriously doubt that is your MPG issue, but regarding the TEMIN setting...

    The thing to keep in mind (IIRC mercuric, or someone, said this somewhere but can't find the post now) that TEMIN goes down as injector size goes up.  I.e. it's inversely proportional to injector size.  This makes sense then if you work out the numbers:


    1. stock TEMIN = 0.34 ms for stock 315cc injectors
    2. green injectors flow about 440cc w/stock FPR (at least mine do; there are some other green variants out there)

    =>  315/440 = 0.7159 is your "adjustment factor".  Multiply this be the stock factor of 0.34ms and you get ~ 0.24ms; i.e. your TEMIN setting for 440cc greens.


    Per below post, this calculation seems to work for other injector sizes too.  Per his signature he's running 750cc injectors so..

    =>  315/750 * 0.34 = ~ 0.14ms



    BTW: Where are you getting this poor mpg number; from your onboard car computer?  Make sure your "Constant for Consumption Display" factor is correct.

    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.

    • Like 1
  12. 11 hours ago, gdog said:

    All my green bins have it (minimum injection time) set to 0.24 (ms yes?).  The stock rev5b.bin has TEMIN set to 0.34.

    I don't remember how/why I got that number.  The description in the xdf is a bit cryptic:

    TEMIN,{minimales TE}
    minimum injection time.  Scale this using 350cc/min as a reference for the stock value.

    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.

    • Like 1
  13. 22 hours ago, Midnight Caller said:

    Hello guuuuuuuuuuuuys ! I'm baaaaaaaaaaaack ! :)

    Sorry for the long absence, for the 4 years me and a friend of mine had put together up a small VOLVO repair shop here in Romania, which in time grew bigger and bigger (we now have 8 lifts).
    Unfortunately I had to leave from the business and from the tuning scene as a little girl appeared in our lives :)

    But she's 2 years now and I'm starting to have more free time, and I'm getting back to my old love, my T5 S70.
    3 years ago a tree fell over the top and bent it like hell. She's been parked in the same place and never moved since :(

    It's in a repair shop now for making her straight again, and I'll be off installing the new GT3071 that's been waiting for 4 years on the shelf.

    Hope you're all well and staying safe from the new COVID. Glad to be back !

    Welcome back!

    You've got a lot of catching up to do 😁

    • Like 1
  14. 27 minutes ago, sc00by71 said:

    Changed the permissions on the dll, no change

    Run as admin no change.

    Looking at that other thread I do not have msvcp100 or msvcr100 dll's, have the msvcp120 and msvcr120 though

    I'll see if I can source them.

    I have them both in my Tunerpro directory.

    Here are all 4 files:


    Otherwise install the Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 package.  Though there may be an issue with the msvcp100.dll in win 10 http://forum.tunerpro.net/viewtopic.php?t=4439

  15. 18 minutes ago, sc00by71 said:

    I think you found the problem, now how to fix it.

    Nothing was listed in the module and calculator fields.

    Only option in the dropdown is TunerPro Default Checksum Plug-in

    Just checked again and even deleted and recopied the dll to the root of the TunerProRT directory.

    Still not an option in the menu

    Ok, looks like we're getting somewhere, maybe a Windows 10 issue.  Have you tried changing the permissions for the dll?  Or running tunerpro as administrator?

    Also see this thread


  16. 25 minutes ago, sc00by71 said:

    Yes. I almost specified it but thought the per the wiki would suffice. I can see the plugin listed in parameter category view but it is obvious it isn't working as it fails even on a freshly downloaded unchanged bin file.

    Ok, on the Menu bar goto 'XDF>View/Edit XDF Header Info' then click the 'Checksums' tab.  There should be a checksum listed called 'Checksum plugin by Simply Volvo'

    Click 'Edit Selected' and see if it looks like this:


    • Upvote 1
  17. 38 minutes ago, sc00by71 said:

    Hi all and thank you for all the work on this project.

    I've been lurking and reading for a long time getting ready to tune my 98 V70R that I bought as a fixer and got running a few months back.-

    Got everything setup per the wiki. Got the 607 bin flashed all good.

    Now i'm getting a P0605 internal control module fault. Researched and found I should reflash the bin again.

    Made some tweaks to the bin before flashing again and when I hit save it throws a checksum fault in TunerPro RT.

    Tried a virgin bin and it throws a fault just hitting save with no changes.

    More research led me to completely delete and reinstall tunerpro and all files. I even deleted and re downloaded all components.

    Still no go, I've tried all the tips found while searching this topic for checksum faults, what am I missing?

    Laptop is Windows 10 is that the problem?

    Tried compatability mode to Windows 7 with no change.

    Would love to get to some more serious tuning.

    Thanks in advance


    Have you put the motronic 4.4 checksum plugin into the tunerpro plugin folder?

  18. 9 hours ago, Byte_My_Void said:

    as i said before i want to make something like ostrich on modern mcu, to get ability to flash, thats why i am trying to collect information about ecu memory map and so on.

    where is memory map selector? its just byte or switch or what?

    ecu retrive data from memory once on power up or it uses flash rom constantly to get values?

    The processor sends a command which enables pin A16 on the eeprom (see 28f010 eeprom datasheet).  This enables the upper 4 sectors (0x10000 to 0x1FFFF) of the eeprom to be read by the processor.  It constantly switches between the two blocks, some of the code is duplicated.

    Please read the six text files here: https://www.piese-volvo.ro/droid/volvo/rev5/

    They contain all the info on how the map switching and logging works

  19. 6 hours ago, Byte_My_Void said:

    Does anyone know something about memory table 1 and 2

    is the data doubled and must be the same at region 1 and region 2?

    when i choose for example tcv duty cycle 4200 rpm and 40(?throttle?) i get 0x8088 adress in textbox below

    so should i change it in both memory blocks if i edit values manually?


    also ive found this words about checksum

    our M4.4 file has two checksums (one for block 0 - file offset 0x0 - 0xFEFF, and another for block 1 - file offset 0x10000 - 0x1FEFF). After you made corrections in those regions (like lambda disabling) - checksums must be recalculated.
    Checksum for block 0 is stored at file offset 0xFF00, and for block 1 at file offset 0x1FF00. Ok, checksum procedure is exactly the same for both blocks, its just incrementally adding bytes to 16-bit word.

    so there is 2 checksums adresses 0xFF00 and  0x1FF00 in 608_rev5bLaunchControlAL.bin from m4.4 wikia there is 0x2368 in 0xFF00 adress and 0xD4FB in 0x1FF00 so there is different data in 2 checksums so wth?

    The are extra maps added to the 608 binary which can be selected before the engine is started.  This is why you have found the extra map at 0x8088.  The ecu only uses one map at a time.  You can select each map by fully depressing the throttle pedal, then the MIL will flash multiple times depending on which map is selected.

    The checksums are different because the data in Block 0 is different to Block 1.  You really don't need to worry about the checksums though as the tunerpro plugin calculates it for you.

  20. There is no info how to disable the immobiliser on any m4.4 binaries (none that anyone has shared anyway).  The 608 binary does not have the immobiliser enabled which is why it is used for the modifications.

    It could be as simple as disabling the setting of the immobiliser bit, all the info is already posted, you just need to research a little.

  21. 22 hours ago, Chuck W said:

    What is the code on that ECU? Those '97 AWD LPT cars are similar the US '97 GLT LPT, and probably share the same issues. They are M4.4 engine management, but are still using the old 850 ECC modules,
    I was able to get someone to pull the .bin from the '97 GLT ECU we had (-936) but I never had any luck either reflashing that ECU, or using that .bin on a 98MY M4.4 ECU. The car would never run.
    It took a 98MY M4.4 ECU and a special .bin to get the car to run properly AND have working AC. The car would run fine on a 98MY ECU, but wouldn't have working AC with or without the "AC Mod".

    Find yourself a 98MY M4.4 turbo ECU to use for flashing.

    It will probably be the 0261204305 binary like my 850AWD is.

  22. On 9/2/2020 at 9:12 PM, Pearlgreen850 said:

    hey guys im new to m4.4 tuning but not my volvos, i have successfully flashed the rev6 608 files onto my 97 850 awd, cant seem to get my logging to work, would love to keep an eye on things before any changes. any starting points?? thanks so much guys

    First thing, if you can, connect to the ecu using realterm then send an 'L' to enable permanent logging (until battery or ecu is pulled).  Your should get a response from the ecu with a 'L' in it.

    If you get that response then you can try the logging again.

    Let us know how it goes.

    • Upvote 1

    On 8/25/2020 at 8:08 AM, ErikH said:

    Nice work. This I will try. Experienced the same issue...

    Anyone knows if there are any gear (manual gear) based limiters in M4.4?


    I know that in earlier M3.8 there isn't any (You can ellaborate with ignition adjustment/gear but thats all afaik).

    I assume limiters were introduced in ME7 but I'm not sure.

    In the 608 binary there is a gear dependant boost control option at C9A3 (configbyte for gear dependant boost control in the XDF) though I don't know how effective it is as I've not fully tested it before. 

    FYI this option is not in the 305 binary.