Midnight Caller

Members
  • Posts

    953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Midnight Caller last won the day on October 19 2021

Midnight Caller had the most liked content!

About Midnight Caller

  • Birthday 03/28/1981

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.piese-volvo.ro
  • Yahoo
    midnight_caller_ro

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Location
    Bucharest, Romania

Recent Profile Visitors

5,326 profile views

Midnight Caller's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

110

Reputation

  1. There is another 2D map with boost reduction by gear which has to be set to 1 all across. It's in the XDF, just can't remember now the exact name. Later Edit - Set to "1" all values in the "Boost pressure reduction factor, manual transmission" map (FLDABMTN) and you should unleash full boost since 1st gear. Enjoy
  2. Maybe your BIN is calibrated wrong from the get go ? All the input values from the WB sensor should have a "translation map" in the ECU, meaning X volts should correspond to Y AFR. If that is wrong, all further calculations are wrong. In my case (AEM WB) I tied it to the rear O2 sensor which gave me an offset of 0.7V (because that's how ECU is built, GND is offseted by 0.7V on that ground pin of the O2 sensors)
  3. My experience was with the only T5R BIN from the Motronic Suite. I can't recall right now the suffix but I know that the car didn't start and there were no errors in the ECU.
  4. I used Motronic suite in the end for flashing, there was an issue with an 850R bin (also taken from motronic suite) that caused a no-start condition on the car. I re-flashed an 850 T5 bin and everything was ok. Reading the software from the ECU with motronic suite apparently failed somewhere because even if the software appeared "legit" to WinOLS and Motronic suite, the maps were somehow f***d up (rpm limiter was set to 1.024.000 or smth).
  5. Yeah, I totally recommend Aaron. He's doing a great job, aaaaand most important, answering all my e-mails
  6. Hello It was, once, but it didn't last for too long, either because lack of interest, or by financial interests Let us know if you need anything specifically, maybe we can help.
  7. My apologies too, but now I'm really confused Moving from HFM2 to HFM5 and changing the ADC channel still should require zero-ing values up to 1V, doesn't it ?
  8. I think the offset you see might be from the reverse flow detection of the HFM-5 type MAF maybe ? I recall there was an offset there, and 0V actually meant reverse flow through the MAF (from turbo to filter) and 0.5V or more actually meant "zero flow"
  9. As far as I see there should be no offset in the MAF channel. as ADC voltage starts from 0V in the MAF lookup table, and as far as VIDA says (at least not on the grounding side, as it is with the HO2S): #A3 Power ground mass air flow (MAF) sensor Ulow #A4 Signal mass air flow (MAF) sensor (measured to terminal #A5) U = 0.1 - 0.2 V U ≈ 0.9 V U increases with increasing air mass #A5 Signal ground mass air flow (MAF) sensor Ulow #A6 Signal ground engine speed (RPM) sensor Ulow
  10. That's cool ! How did you repurpose the input channel in the BIN (use acc sensor instead of original ADC channel ? )
  11. Yup, I think know who you're talking about.... Hoping we'll have a refresh of bright minds over here, we really need them
  12. I'm thinking the off-centre position of the sensor would lead to measuring less air than reality, especially at low air speeds, thus the need for such a large factor. But in my case, if I use 1.94 indeed the idle would be ok (around 16kg/h) but after 2000rpm the STFT goes waaay under -25% to compensate for the error in over-measured air. That's something @Tightmopedman9 also confirmed and I want to really thank him for the heads up he gave me. So I rather used the 1.7 ratio and only adjust for the smaller number of values, problematic, low-flow area. I thought it would be good to present this information here, maybe another OCD'st like me ( ) would like his sensor dead center and measure things more precise. I've been lucky I guess and sort things up from just the second iteration by checking MAF flow vs STFT values and modifying as such. Yes, the VE Map was the first thing that came up to my mind, but that would be a RPM/Load map and more calculations were necessary. Taking into account that I will also have to upgrade to 650cc injectors, that way would've only screwed up more things
  13. Just to give you an answer, I don't think anyone here wants their catalytic converter to melt or damage to exhaust valves, per se.... As a side note, I think I've managed to tame the BMW 540i MAF. I used the x1.7 factor (not the 1.94 as stated in the Wiki, as that factor would take me to new heights in dumping fuel on the exhaust pipe :D) So, in particular for my setup, where I tried to center the sensor in the MAF housing as good as I could, x1.7 factor (new MAF area / old MAF area) required increasing the values in the MAF lookup table with a range from 20% to about 3% in the 0.5-1.2V cells. That leads to an STFT of +/- 3% at idle and up to +/- 10-12% under light loads. I am happy with the values, as the measuring range error for a certain voltage is around 10% For example, for 1.4844V you are measuring between 94.25KG/h and 103.38KG/h, and for 1.9531V = from 175.38KG/h to 186.38KG/h... Gotta get myself a partner in crime to see what happens on higher loads.
  14. Investigated some more and if indeed MAF flow table is split in two high-bit / low-bit tables, then, for stock MAF, locations are 19h and D6h (19D6 is 6614 dec). Multiplied by 0.125 is indeed 826.75kg/h But that doesn't really mean (I think) that this is what the MAF can really measure, but just a calculated conversion table. Still can't make the connection to the VOLVO specs (408kg/h) and the BOSCH datasheet which mentions 480kg/h Also, VOL-FCR reads max 408kg/h, and same issue is mentioned by another guy on a V90 with 3L N/A engine (also M4.4) https://volvoforums.com/forum/volvo-260-760-960-28/maf-reading-full-throttle-v90-3-0-a-106366/ Could it be diag tool not reading data correctly ?
  15. Hello guys, Preparing myself to upgrade to the 3.25" ID BMW 540i V8 MAF housing and been reading almost all related posts since... In the wikia we have a factor of 1.94 for scaling (due to max flow 3.25" divided by max flow stock). If we rely on the surface proportion formula, it would be around 1.69 (5352.1 mm^2 / 3166.921mm^2) Anyone found a "magic number" for this scaling ? For the stock vs S90 the numbers are closer (1.34 in the wikia - flow division vs 1.21 - surface division). I've cut the "neck" on the BMW MAF, removed around 1cm (around 0.4in) and re-glued the top over, and now the sensor is almost dead center. Anyone did the same modification and still goes by 1.94 factor ? Thank you ! Also, if we use the calculations on the s4wiki : https://s4wiki.com/wiki/Mass_air_flow (category "Effect on airflow") then we would get a "real" reading of just +69% over the stock MAF. That meaning 826kg/h (@5V) becomes at most 1396kg/h, pretty far from the 1602kg/h in the wiki. Or I'm making bulls**t calculations here ? Later edit From the VOLVO bluebook it seems that MAF measurement should be up to 408kg/h : which seems consistent with the Bosch HFM2 datasheet: Also, if we multiply 255 with the 1.6 scaling factor in the M4.4 RAM scaling we also get 408 Still couldn't understand where the 826kg/h was taken from...