JCviggen

Right, my reading isn't up to par recently...thought he had both NA cams.

Gerald, your intake will be about +4 and exhaust around 0. So you've moved them in the wrong direction in terms of overlap. 0 intake +8 exhaust on the NA gear would be about stock turbo cam timing (and much better IMO)

I was hoping you wouldn't see what I wrote until I corrected it..you're too fast :rolleyes:

That's great to see that confirmed thanks for the pics!

My first ever fashion show in Paris a few days ago...first time ever using the 70-200 too considering I had to improvise something quick with the settings I was happy just to get a few that weren't totally awful. I decided to see just how good the 7D's AF is, and it did not dissapoint. I'd expect the AF of, say, a 5D mk2 to struggle. I used single point servo AF and shot high speed RAW's while zooming out. I couldn't get them at the very end of the catwalk because we showed up too late. But they didn't pose at the end just turned straight around so I didn't miss much. And I even made some good money while just learning and practicing A few quickly adjusted/cropped shots, I ignored the noise for the time being as it won't be visible in the size they'll be printed.

I agree on the timing. M4.X is a tough nut to crack when it comes to understanding timing advance and what it does with the tables. If he has an AFR gauge he can see exactly how much fuel he needs to add or take out of the map at full boost, regardless of the MAF being maxed out. You don't need to know the airflow, boost vs AFR is all you need? The trouble only starts when M4.X uses that amount of fuel from the moment the MAF maxes, so it's only correct at full boost but not at less boost (but still maxed maf)

I used an old MAF in a 3" custom housing thanks to Raf No clue if an ME 7 could be used or not..

I am using a 3" MAF actually as I managed to snag one for cheap. Just it is a LOT of work to rewrite the timing table in its entirety to cope with the MAF signal being different than what is expected. Basically the high load cells at high rpm's will never be used anymore and you need to move them up accordingly so the ECU doesn't use 70% load timing in a 100% load situation. I do not see a problem tuning a car at 100% load with the MAF maxed out. I do understand that if you map 100% load correctly with the MAF maxed out, you will run too rich at part throttle from the point where the MAF maxes. Any 300 crank hp 850 or x70 is maxing the stock MAF. There's countless of them running very well regardless of the MAF being maxed from 70-80% boost onwards. So I do not see it as a major shortfall. Well it's one every M4.X ECU tune has to deal with. If you can live with it being rich part throttle 80% boost (an extremely rare situation IMO) there is no reason why you can't tune it right at WOT with a fixed target boost.

I'm getting a 70-200 2.8L first. I'll see if the trouble lies with the 24-70 or the body (or both) and then the necessary part will go to the canon service center. I hope it's just the lens because I have to shoot a bunch of stuff in Paris in 2 weeks.

Cat! Unfortunately all the funnier ones were pretty poor because cats move so damn fast and light was lacking, or I was too far away. Still not happy with the 24-70 sharpness at all though :(

I'm having some AF/sharpness issues with my new stuff, think it's gotto take a trip to the nearest Canon service center. Bokeh works though

I like 12 dead. But I'm ok if its a tad richer at peak tq

That doesnt look too bad really. Maybe a little more fuel at the high end, I don't like to see >12.5 but the lower end although rich isn't exactly drowning. Modded scoobie's often don't even get above 11 at any point at WOT :lol:

I think you need to go way, way lower on the sliders. If something like -15 has no effect at 4200-4800 then you need to look elsewhere. Maybe the ECU dumps a bunch of fuel after knock. You said earlier that trying to lean it out you got a misfire. That should never happen if the AFR is anywhere close to where you want it.

Your 7200rpm timing should be much higher m8. You should never see lower timing compared to the previous rpm point in that area. About the rich spot, what happens if, say, you go -10 on the WOT sliders in the rich bits?

I'm not sure why so many rods get bent either. Here in Europe I don't see nearly as many rods get bent, and it's usually at higher power levels. Maybe the fuel quality. Anyway M4.X is not very good when it comes to handling detonation. I haven't personally seen a whiteblock bend a rod from sheer torque/power, detonation is always part of the picture. Tiny hotsides with relatively large compressors (19t) that are spike happy combined with a pretty badly aged EMS and you have all the answers you need. Avoid detonation and move up the powerband and you can make good power. My own completely stock whiteblock made 317 whp on a dynojet with piss poor cooling (AFR 1.5 points richer than on the street) at 18psi on a T3/T04E-50. The car ran like that for over 2 years flawless with numerous track days where the engine got punished with high oil temps. No problem. It felt like it could take another 50hp but you're not going to see 350+ whp without serious headwork and better cams. So while you're doing that might as well spend 500 on the rods. Anyway eventually oil pump cavitation killed my engine's bearings on 2 and 3 while on track. Bottom line, avoid detonation and you can make a lot of power. That M4.X being MAF limited is not really a part of this problem but does illustrate that it ain't perfect. You can still get excellent results with it if you know where the weak spots are. Several 500-700+ hp 850's in Sweden on the stock EMS. And frankly, the way my car runs now I see no reason to overhaul the EMS either. It's near perfect with the GT2871 and going standalone can only give me a headache. The most important thing is ability to control the mapping, everything else is added comfort which comes at a price.

Fine, I'll make a video of the M4.3 map trace at part throttle and full throttle at similar boost. Why are you arguing about an EMS you're not even using yourself? I agree with your basics but they are irrelevant to the "pegging the MAF" problem which isn't one. Pegging the MAF or not it can be perfectly tuned to have a correct AFR between no throttle and full throttle at any boost and RPM point as long as you don't change max boost at WOT. What the fuck does all the other crap matter?

You will not hit the same load (or make the same power) at 1/3 throttle and 15psi as WOT and 15psi. And you WILL SEE lower load in the map. I've seen it over and over with maptrace. Bottom line maxing out the MAF is not a problem, not from a power perspective nor for drivability. Its an M4.x "limitation" nothing more nothing less. You can increase the MAF dia. but it only complicates things as you literally need to redo the entire map. The ECU adds some more fuel on top of the main map at what it considers "full throttle". So running rich while not going all out can be avoided perfectly.

...which is why you have all those cells in the middle. If you're not going full throttle but still making 15psi for example chances are you will NOT be maxing out the MAF. Boost does not equal air flow, the throttle body (and TPS) is still in there. If this was such a problem as you make of it every tuned M4.X car would run like crap. They don't, regardless of maxing the maf at WOT and target boost.

Why? Do you want to run different boost every 5 minutes? IMO people tend to stick with 1 boost level. Want to turn it down? It takes 5 seconds to flash in another map (even while driving) You can make maps for every single boost level you ever want to use. The ECU stops listening for knock somewhere above 5K rpm. Because it can't tell what's knock and what is not it will ignore the knock sensors. Thats why people are able to melt pistons easily if the tune is off. Always at high revs. Yes but it doesn't really matter, the 4.X ECU cannot register "more" flow. And IMO in practice it doesnt really matter. I do not think my car would run any better if it could see more airflow. Going to 3" will add more than 20% flow. I calculated it once but it's around 35% I believe. I hit 100% load around 5000 but then it drops off again into the high 70s. I'm not sure why it behaves like that. Stock size would stay pegged at 100 all the way through.

You can't. You choose a particular boost level and map the fuel accordingly with a wideband sensor. At full throttle this is hardly a problem and works perfectly well. The MAF maxes out around 270 crank horsepower worth of air on M4.3, M4.4 a bit later but not much. The only thing you can do is upgrade the housing, but this is a mixed blessing because you will effectively lower the resolution of the map. You lose the bottom cells because you won't be able to hit them anymore.

Nothing wrong with that :)

I think the whole point of the TT is that if it runs rich, you just take out some fuel in 15 seconds and try again :D

I suggest you use the FT sliders as well, they're easier to work with. You don't have to be at WOT exactly for them to make the difference!

Where did that timing map come from? It looks all over the place! May be the worst I've ever seen lol Your main fuel map looks a little low to me, is that the stock MAF or a bigger housing? Keep in mind that after a reset it will usually be too rich untill it learns. No point making it leaner while it's still adapting or you'll just get a CEL later on.