Tuners Rejoice! Free Tuning For M4.4!


Recommended Posts

@avinitlarge:

It looks like it's exactly the same 3.25" MAF I did the measurements on.

The Bosch sensor is off centre, that's right.

My maf table should be ok for that one.

If the sensor would be in the centre the maf table would not be valid.

Edited by Piet
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Attention: The first 30 or so pages of this thread are outdated. Please refer to the M4.4 Wikia article where all the relevant information is currently being collated. Before asking any questions p

Crush it.

After alot of testing and rewriting code, we finally got a useful new mod working. As we all know, some time ago my dad Piet found out how to convert to bigger maf housings with the maf factor. Conver

Posted Images

@avinitlarge:

It looks it's exactly the same 3.25" MAF I did the measurements on.

The Bosch sensor is off centre, that's right.

My maf table should be ok for that one.

If the sensor would be in the centre the maf table would not be valid.

Thank you, Just what I wanted to hear :tup:^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

@S70-R You always have to relate the injector dutycycle to the AFR to get a clear picture.

Can you log AFR, if so what AFR's are you getting at 5800 RPM?

Green giants are more then sufficient for a 18T or 19T @ 1.4 bar.

As I said on my previous post I don't have yet the wideband installed (the innovate LC2 is waiting here) so I can't measure AFRs at the moment.

Probably I'm runing a bit rich on high rpm because the stock S70R maps are rich there. I was just wondering what would be the outcome when I start increasing boost. We'll see.

For the next days I will have to park the car because my strut mounts died and the car it's unsafe and uncomfortable at the moment.

Edited by S70-R
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I measured it with callipers. Again, just wanted to be sure it was right and it was the same as everyone else's BMW MAF.

In that pic looks like you are measuring the OD - the other side of your caliper is intended for measuring ID :-) a clear pic using the correct side of the caliper would be great.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my words for granted yet. I think I have found something very disturbing in the rev5b map. Not an accusation to the map or the makers. Just an unexpected situation for this map. ;)

Before the bigger MAF everything was semi fine. Bit to lean and a lack of correct information coming to the ECU. After the bigger MAF evertyting seemed te be fine. No, not after logging! Drive an AT and noticed an extremely lean mixture after a AT gearbox change at 6000 RPM and knocking. The curve started with an AFR of about 12.5. Not perfect but á-lá. After the switch to the next gear still under heavy load an AFR of 14. Horrible.

I see a similar situation at the beginning of accelleration. I am allmost convinced many of us has seen this.

After a lot of comparing I am almost covinced this is the table that causes this lean behaviour and knocking:

red=rpm, blue=maf voltage, purple=load, green= afr. Still not changed a lot. By purpose. ;)

2014040604.jpg

red=rpm, blue=maf voltage, purple=load, green= afr

Notice the leanles after the AT gear switch. round 0,8. At that moment the overall fuel correction was 0,79. Similar. Too similar.

Notice as well the strange drop in the 3600RPM collum in the table. This is not a minor drop. 0,56/0,63 is very close to my AFR mismatch. Could explane some knocking and AFR problems for me and others.

And notice the lean mixture arount the same around 2300 rpm leannes at the beginning of accelleration.

Knowing that we have no decent documentation of M4.4. I'll give it a try. Just change this 0,56 to 0,63. and log again.

-edit- I also get the impression that M4.4 runs diffirent routines with a clipping MAF. Sort of emergency but not total panic routine. As this problem exposed it self with a proper MAF handling.

True: Not sure, needs investigation. Fun? It is!

Edited by razorx
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checked mine and it`s 3.25"

l]

Lol. Where's the other end of the tape measure? :-)

Between the two of you , we should be able to get a complete accurate image of either the ruler or caliper accurately captured showing the ID of the housing :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that pic looks like you are measuring the OD - the other side of your caliper is intended for measuring ID :-) a clear pic using the correct side of the caliper would be great.

I did use the other side but couldn't hold in the right position and get a good enough pic. I will use an assistant next time :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take my words for granted yet.

-edit- I also get the impression that M4.4 runs diffirent routines with a clipping MAF. Sort of emergency but not total panic routine. As this problem exposed it self with a proper MAF handling.

True: Not sure, needs investigation. Fun? It is!

I wonder if this is a auto trans issue - I don't see this issue - but it may also be due to the smaller turbo - mine doesn't really build below 4K. Does seem odd that the value drops so dramatically from the value above it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be an auto trans issue. I don't have these problems either with my 19T

@lookforjoe: I have been thinking about achieving a 3.75 " MAF table by extrapolation.

I don't thinks it will be possible to esthablish a good curve this way, because it's not only the bigger diameter that counts.

It's also the position of the sensor in the MAF that has a subtantial influence.

You need to have at least one, better several, reference voltages, for example at idling.

Edited by Piet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now my 3.25" MAF en injectors are dialed in correctly i'am starting to raise the target load.

I had to turn the ignition advance way down at wot round 5000 RPM to about 10 - 12 degr advance to lose the knock retard in that area.(19T @ 1.3 bar / 19 psi, AFR between 11.8 -12.2)

Do these values sound odd to you guys?

Edited by Piet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now my 3.25" MAF en injectors are dialed in correctly i'am starting to raise the target load.

I had to turn the ignition advance way down at wot round 5000 RPM to about 10 - 12 degr advance to lose the knock retard in that area.(19T @ 1.3 bar / 19 psi, AFR between 11.8 -12.2)

Do these values sound odd to you guys?

I can't tell you much at this moment because I'm not yet really tuning once I'm waiting to put s90 maf, wideband and boost sensor but for example with my 18T:

- running 14/15psi at the moment (2.75" snabb intake);

- running probably a little bit rich (due to stock S70R fuel maps);

- maxing out MAF from 4.800rpm onwards; and

- ECU load calculation starting to decrease at that point (4800rpm) - however it still calculates above 8ms load up to 5.500rpm

...I had to decrease ignition advance to only 12.75 @ 4800rpm and 17.25 @ 5400rpm to eliminate the knocking I reported on my previous posts.

So, I can imagine that you with a 19T running that boost will have to decrease timing to those values and that sounds normal.

When I start running @ 18/19psi I'm sure I will also have to go way down on timing.

I hope this helps anyway.

Edited by S70-R
Link to post
Share on other sites

Coding guys, when can we have a boost by gear bin? I know some of you already talked about having a BIN with it but there's no more news.

The alternate maps should be used for that.

However, in my mind, I think it would be nice if the alternate maps could work both with or without the p-part hack function. For those using p-part hack function the only alternate maps to use would be the TCV duty cycle maps. For the others, both tcv and target load maps would apply.

Besides that, I think we also should have ignition by gear maps to match the boost by gear maps. As you know fuel burning time decreases as load increases so in 1st and 2nd gear once we run lower boost levels and then lower loads, we can take advantage of a little bit more of ignition timing when compared to the ignition timing in 3, 4 or 5th gear.

Fuel by gear maps probably are not necessary.

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be an auto trans issue. I don't have these problems either with my 19T

@lookforjoe: I have been thinking about achieving a 3.75 " MAF table by extrapolation.

I don't thinks it will be possible to esthablish a good curve this way, because it's not only the bigger diameter that counts.

It's also the position of the sensor in the MAF that has a subtantial influence.

You need to have at least one, better several, reference voltages, for example at idling.

OK - so I need to find a way to measure voltage with the larger housing. I need to get an arduino it seems

I'd still like to see the MAF tables in a graph format, like this:

MAFtable_zps7b9af29d.jpg

I really can't use excel & have spent ridiculous time trying to figure out how to do this :(

This is as far as I have got, & can't figure out how to move table data to a graph

Screenshot2014-04-07203913_zps4e36872c.p

Anyone who can help with creating an Excel graph would be greatly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.