Why does the MAF Hz in Flashscan start at 1500Hz and not 750?
In Edit it starts at 750 Hz. The cell count is different also.
Not that I think I need this range ...just curious??
TIA.
Everyone have a great weekend!
Cheers,
joel
MAF Hz (B5001)?
Why does the MAF Hz in Flashscan start at 1500Hz and not 750?
In Edit it starts at 750 Hz. The cell count is different also.
Not that I think I need this range ...just curious??
TIA.
Everyone have a great weekend!
Cheers,
joel
Re: MAF Hz (B5001)?
Maybe Ross can answer this better than I can. As far as I know, the table should start at 1500. Either Edit or EFILive is wrong. My money is on Edit being wrong. But since I don't know for *sure* - I'll try and find out.Originally Posted by bink
Paul
That was my guess. But I couldn't figure out the cell count -...... can they (not Ross :lol: ) just make this stuff up? Thanks for the quick reply.
Cheers,
joel
Even HP Tuners starts at 1500 also..
Strange Edit has been out as long as it has and no one has mentioned this before.
Loyde
Re: MAF Hz (B5001)?
Because they got it wrong, plain and simple.
Cheers,
Ross
Re: MAF Hz (B5001)?
Hi Ross,
That's what I figured.....just wanted confirmation.
As you know I know zip about coding. I can understand how one could Mislabel a table (i.e. IAC vs ECT instead of IAT) or have the range of cells incorrect ( RAF was originally scaled in 20*C increments). But how can you end up with an excess of cells, and the values, that don't exist??
Thanks for the reply!
Cheers,
joel
They are actually using some values from a table just before the MAF table!!.
You just need to look at the actual values to see it just doesn't look right.
Cheers,
Ross
Now that is just down right dirty. I wonder what else they FUBAR'd along with the fan temp settings and gear/tire (read this somewhere)
I've had a few Emails and PM's about this MAF table thing...
Here's the only way I can prove it.
If you know nothing about assembler code then you might be a little lost with this -
This is all taken from a 2001 LS1 O.S.
First up, the issue is, does the MAF table contain 85 entries or 101.
I believe 85 is correct.
Here in this screen shot you can see two specific table starting address's.
First one is at $E2E2, the second is at $E302.
The routines that reference these two tables are totally seperate.
For the table at $E2E2 -
This command tblu is a "Table lookup" command starting at address $E2E2.
The next routine is looking at the table at $E302 (The MAF Flow table).
The final shot shows where the MAF table ends (address $E3AA).
So to get a table size you just do the following maths -
Table ends at $E3AC and starts at $E302.
So $E3AC minus $E302 = $AA or 170 in decimal.
However as the values are 16bit we divide by 2, so we get 85
If we were to apply that same theory starting from address $E2E2 we end up with a table size of $C8 or 202, divide by 2 and we get 101.
In any case, the values between the end of the first table and the start of the MAF table are VERY different.
Cheers,
Ross
Now I've really got a headache - I'm glad I only have to write the PC code
Paul
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
